James Russell....Sean Marshall 2.0

[Rush]

James Russell: Sean Marshall 2.0? |

Article by The Unfortunate Cubs Fan

 

[Rice Cube]

James Russell: Sean Marshall 2.0? |

Article by The Unfortunate Cubs Fan

Needs more zip on his fastball, methinks.

 

[bobferg]

Sean Marshall gets out righties..........

 

[dabynsky]

Sean Marshall also could be serviceable as a starting pitcher which is something James Russell has shown he isn't capable of doing.

 

[Captain Obvious]

When Russell has success for more than a few months, then we'll take a look at this

 

[Rick]

Sean Marshall also could be serviceable as a starting pitcher which is something James Russell has shown he isn't capable of doing.

Not so sure about that. Even though Russell has been awful as a starter,take a look at Marshall's career numbers as a starter. They aren't very good. If he had to make only one start in a pinch then I'd be ok with it, but as a full time starter...forget it.

 

[dabynsky]

I must be missing something in his stats because in 59 starts he has a 4.86 ERA with a 1.434 WHIP. I don't know about you but I would have killed to have a 4.86 ERA out of the fifth spot this season. I agree that Sean Marshall is much, much, much better as a reliever, but he has something that James Russell doesn't. And that is more than two decent pitches. That is why I said Marshall could be serviceable as a starter. I am not arguing that the Cubs should be converting him into a starter anytime soon, but I think he is capable of being a fifth starter.

 

[Rick]

I must be missing something in his stats because in 59 starts he has a 4.86 ERA with a 1.434 WHIP. I don't know about you but I would have killed to have a 4.86 ERA out of the fifth spot this season. I agree that Sean Marshall is much, much, much better as a reliever, but he has something that James Russell doesn't. And that is more than two decent pitches. That is why I said Marshall could be serviceable as a starter. I am not arguing that the Cubs should be converting him into a starter anytime soon, but I think he is capable of being a fifth starter.

When you compare Russell to Marshall and the bums the Cubs have had starting this season compared to Marshall, of course he could have been serviceable.

I said I have no problem with him making a spot start here and there but I don't agree that he's capable of being a consistent starter. For his career as a starter, he's 16-26 and averaging only five innings per start. Even from a fifth starter, I'd still like to see them pitch at least six innings.

I'm looking at the bigger picture here, not trying to limit my view on Marshall to how he could have contributed to the starting rotation during this season only.

 

[dabynsky]

I never said that ?arshall was best suited as a starter or that is what I want. I said he was serviceable as a starter. Looking at his numbers I would say that is pretty accurate pciture of him as a starter.

 

[Rick]

I never said that ?arshall was best suited as a starter or that is what I want. I said he was serviceable as a starter. Looking at his numbers I would say that is pretty accurate pciture of him as a starter.

Where in my previous post did I accuse you of saying that he's best suited to be a starter or that is what you want? You said he's capable of being a fifth starter, I'm disagreeing. Plain and simple.

 

[dabynsky]

You raised issue with me saying he is a serviceable starter. Citing his statistics which as far as I can tell is his won loss record and average innings pitched. I was pointing out that his era and whip point to him being capable of holding a rotation spot. We can disagree about that and it is a pointless argument sincethe Cubs will never move him back to the rotation.

 

[Rick]

You raised issue with me saying he is a serviceable starter. Citing his statistics which as far as I can tell is his won loss record and average innings pitched. I was pointing out that his era and whip point to him being capable of holding a rotation spot. We can disagree about that and it is a pointless argument sincethe Cubs will never move him back to the rotation.

Just looking at ERA, starting pitchers in the NL combined have a 4.17 ERA in 2011. Marshall, for his career as a starter, is averaging nearly one more run allowed.

 

[dabynsky]

And no starters have an era over 4.17? His era is 4.86 which is higher but I woulnt be surprised that if you looked at 5th starters around the league that era would be right in line. On my phone now so I can't look it up myself but I will check it out later.

 

[Rick]

And no starters have an era over 4.17? His era is 4.86 which is higher but I woulnt be surprised that if you looked at 5th starters around the league that era would be right in line. On my phone now so I can't look it up myself but I will check it out later.

Never said that no other starters didn't. Forget about fifth starters for the moment and look at all NL starting pitchers.

Using Marshall's career ERA compared to the NL pitchers' 2011 season ERA and those who qualify, Marshall's ERA would rank 53rd of 60 pitchers (In reality, there are 59 pitchers. Marshall would be the 60th) who've started 19 or more games this season. There are seven pitchers who have a higher ERA than 4.17 this year.

 

[dabynsky]

Never said that no other starters didn't. Forget about fifth starters for the moment and look at all NL starting pitchers.

Using Marshall's career ERA compared to the NL pitchers' 2011 season ERA and those who qualify, Marshall's ERA would rank 53rd of 60 pitchers (In reality, there are 59 pitchers. Marshall would be the 60th) who've started 19 or more games this season. There are seven pitchers who have a higher ERA than 4.17 this year.

But the words I used to describe Sean Marshall the starter was serviceable and a fifth starter. His career ERA is below average for NL starters this year and would rank him 53 out of 60 qualified starters. That is a below average starter, but what I said was that he was a fifth starter. Look at the number of qualified starters which is 59. That is 3.6875 starters per team that is qualified. So basically we are trying to compare Marshall the starter to teams' 1, 2, and 3 starters mostly because those are the people to get the most starts and therefore most likely to be qualified. I will grant you that a few fifth starters might be on the list of qualified starters, but the fact that Marshall doesn't compare to number 1, 2, 3, and even 4th starters on a team isn't a surprise nor what I was arguing.

The point I was trying to make was simple. Marshall has pitched as a starter and has the repertoire of a starting pitcher as opposed to Russell who really is a fastball/slider guy. Marshall numbers are well below average as a starter, but are in line with what most teams can expect out of a fifth starter.

 

[Rick]

But the words I used to describe Sean Marshall the starter was serviceable and a fifth starter. His career ERA is below average for NL starters this year and would rank him 53 out of 60 qualified starters. That is a below average starter, but what I said was that he was a fifth starter. Look at the number of qualified starters which is 59. That is 3.6875 starters per team that is qualified. So basically we are trying to compare Marshall the starter to teams' 1, 2, and 3 starters mostly because those are the people to get the most starts and therefore most likely to be qualified. I will grant you that a few fifth starters might be on the list of qualified starters, but the fact that Marshall doesn't compare to number 1, 2, 3, and even 4th starters on a team isn't a surprise nor what I was arguing.

The point I was trying to make was simple. Marshall has pitched as a starter and has the repertoire of a starting pitcher as opposed to Russell who really is a fastball/slider guy. Marshall numbers are well below average as a starter, but are in line with what most teams can expect out of a fifth starter.

I know what you were arguing and these statistics you've mentioned are well represented and agreed with. Again, I was looking at the bigger picture trying to compare him to the majority of starters in the NL. Is it fair to compare Marshall with a guy like Roy Halladay? Absolutely not but I think the list is a good reference to judge whether or not Marshall, using his career starting numbers, could be an effective starter in the league no matter where he throws in the rotation.

Bottom line is, and I know you'll agree, he's better suited for the bullpen.

 

[dabynsky]

Exactly the point was not that Marshall is a guy we want to have starting. The fact he gained a good 3 mph on the fastball moving to the bullpen is one of many factors that probably make him better suited to late relief.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

whether or not marshall should be a late starters is totally dependent on how the back end of our starting rotation develops imo..he CAN be a servicable back end starter..but his abilities are more suited towards being a reliever...in other words, we hope that he isnt forced to be in the starting rotation...

 

[Captain Obvious]

Never said that no other starters didn't. Forget about fifth starters for the moment and look at all NL starting pitchers.

Using Marshall's career ERA compared to the NL pitchers' 2011 season ERA and those who qualify, Marshall's ERA would rank 53rd of 60 pitchers (In reality, there are 59 pitchers. Marshall would be the 60th) who've started 19 or more games this season. There are seven pitchers who have a higher ERA than 4.17 this year.

So you are using Marshall's numbers(pre-2010) and comparing them to 2011 numbers? You do realize that pitchers overall have seen an increase(lower) numbers and batters have seen a decrease in their numbers(lower), right? That's just not fair to compared Marshall across seasons.

I know what you were arguing and these statistics you've mentioned are well represented and agreed with. Again, I was looking at the bigger picture trying to compare him to the majority of starters in the NL. Is it fair to compare Marshall with a guy like Roy Halladay? Absolutely not but I think the list is a good reference to judge whether or not Marshall, using his career starting numbers, could be an effective starter in the league no matter where he throws in the rotation.

Bottom line is, and I know you'll agree, he's better suited for the bullpen.

But why are you comparing him to the 1, 2's, and 3's? He will not be pitching in any of those spots. That's just like with the whole Soriano thing comparing him to a RFer. He won't play there, so it is unjust to compare him to RFers. Same goes with Marshall. Compare him to his peers.