Turnbow looking really good [bad]

[Gopher74]

Since luck is the overriding factor in Marmol's success, and since he's the equal of DT, then let's make that deal. Only I'm sure no one in the Cub front office, or anywhere else in the majors, would make that trade.

 

Marmol's 5 years younger, makes $3 million less, has no steroid convictions, and turned in a 1.43 ERA last year (as opposed to DT's 4.48!). CM's WHIP was 1.09 vs. DT's 1.32.

Perhaps you can clue me in as to when Turnbow's got a "steroid conviction"? Even if his suspension from Team USA was in any way a "conviction", it was most certainly NOT for Roids. I expect this on ESPN.com, not on Brewerfan.net.

 

Now turning away from that comment which honestly really irks me because I don't believe Turnbow did anything wrong in that situation, yes, Carlos Marmol's value is so much higher than Turnbow's, it'd be like saying Gallardo and Lilly are about the same pitcher. They're not.

 

Again, getting too tied into peripheral's and ignoring actual bottom line production can really leave you missing the point. I watched Cubs games last year just knowing that if they had a 1-2 run lead in the 6th, and hadn't used Marmol yet, they'd need two good rally's in order to get beat because one time Marmol was going to come in and shut the door on the other team. I hope Turnbow can be that guy again, but I'm afraid he can't. He's shown in the recent past at least that putting him into a tight situation is akin to throwing gas on a fire. He just makes it worse. Luckily for us, SU men generally don't come in with men on, and they do start an inning, and we've got David Riske who's one of the best in the game at stranding runners(some will call it luck, after several years, I think it's a skill).

[berniebrewer4life]

Perhaps you can clue me in as to when Turnbow's got a "steroid conviction"?

Turnbow tested positive for Andro, which is a steroid.

 

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/performanceenhancingdrugs/a/062900.html

 

Now, that being said, i expect Turnbow to have a great year, as he won't be our only option for late inning situations anymore.

[Ennder]

Again, getting too tied into peripheral's and ignoring actual bottom line production can really leave you missing the point. I watched Cubs games last year just knowing that if they had a 1-2 run lead in the 6th, and hadn't used Marmol yet, they'd need two good rally's in order to get beat because one time Marmol was going to come in and shut the door on the other team

 

I'd say the opposite, this is where perception is a mirage. I watched him pitch too and in the second half when players got patient on him he walked a ton of guys and was in trouble quite a bit. He just happened to get out of it so the perception is he was dominant. Just like the perception on Vargas was he was 'tough with runners on' earlier in the year but he couldn't sustain it.

 

He is always going to be at least ok because he strikes out so many guys but if they make him throw strikes he is going to give up HRs and BB guys just like Turnbow. Broxton is nasty, has good control and induces groundballs, it is a much deadlier combo.

[Gopher74]

I'd say the opposite, this is where perception is a mirage. I watched him pitch too and in the second half when players got patient on him he walked a ton of guys and was in trouble quite a bit. He just happened to get out of it so the perception is he was dominant. Just like the perception on Vargas was he was 'tough with runners on' earlier in the year but he couldn't sustain it.

No, the fact was he was dominant. The simple fact is, his ERA last year in the second half was 1.74. His BAA was .161. OBP .295, SLG .217 and OPS, .512. Those aren't perception, those are real actual stats. Again, I'm not overly concerned with a guy who walks people on occasion if people can't hit him, and if he K's a ton of people. More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74. Of course people will try to argue that ERA is a bad stat or whatever. So fine. Then look at every other stat that goes to actual production. Not the ones that say despite the fact that he simply didn't allow people to get hits or score on him, that he shouldn't be good because he walks a few more people than the average.

 

[Gopher74]

Turnbow tested positive for Andro, which is a steroid.

 

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/performanceenhancingdrugs/a/062900.html

 

Now, that being said, i expect Turnbow to have a great year, as he won't be our only option for late inning situations anymore.

First of all, and Drwood can probably help clear this up a little bit, there is some disagreement over whether Andro is a steroid, and it certainly wasn't when he was suspended for it.

 

It was an over the counter supplement that he got at GNC, and was not illegal or banned in the Big Leagues.

 

And finally, he was never "convicted" of anything.

 

But again, I'd like to hear DrWood's take on it as I've heard some differing opinions on what Andro is.

In any event, saying he was "convicted" of taking Steroids suggests that he took some illegal black market supplement and injected it. He did nothing of the sort. He took a supplement from GNC and took the pills. Turnbow's been lumped in unfairly with the whole Roid era in baseball, and I'd think Brewers fans should at least see the difference between his situation and others.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

No, the fact was he was dominant. The simple fact is, his ERA last year in the second half was 1.74. His BAA was .161. OBP .295, SLG .217 and OPS, .512. Those aren't perception, those are real actual stats. Again, I'm not overly concerned with a guy who walks people on occasion if people can't hit him, and if he K's a ton of people. More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74.

 

The stats you're citing as ones for which we should praise Marmol are the ones over which pitchers seem to have little to no control - BAA & ERA. Forgive others if they see that as being luck-based. Sure, it meant Marmol was nice in 2007, but it gives you no indication how he'll be in 2008. The BBs on the other hand, are a huge red flag moving forward.

 

Marmol was dominant because he was lucky.

 

 

More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74.

 

So you want to take your chances with a guy that BBs 3 per inning? Glad you're not running my team. 90%+ strand rates come and go. Extreme luck plays into a guy only giving up a .161 BAA, which then obviously affects his ERA. Marmol will not replicate the kind of season he had in 2007 very often, if at all again in his career... unless he can get his BBs under control - and his track record suggests that his BBs were one of the few things in line with career norms in 2007.

[Gopher74]

It's funny, anytime an argument pop's up over why a pitcher was dominant last year, and some people disagree, it inevitably goes back to how "lucky" he was. The fact that Marmol is simply nasty, that he has a devastating slider, or a mid to upper 90 MPH fastball doesn't seem to ever get brought up by some. I should hope the Brewers experience such "luck" this year.

But then go a step further and take the stats that don't support and argument and eliminate them....again, based on luck. I guess I don't care how "lucky" a guy is when he's got a .161 BAA, a .295 OBP, a .217 SGL and an OPS of .512 all while he was so called "lucky". These stats by the way come from the second half when the argument was made he got WORSE.

So you want to take your chances with a guy that BBs 3 per inning? Glad you're not running my team.

Let me try this again since you chose to ignore it last time to make your sarcastic comment.


More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74.

First of all, I was to a certain extent being facetious. I guess I should have used the ever useful blue text to make that point, but I assumed that my obviously exaggerated point would still get through. HOWEVER, my point was that if the guy doesn't allow runs which I guess I think is more important than going down the list and finding the first stat that doesn't support the argument that he was a fantastic pitcher last year, THAT'S most important. You chose to make a "funny" about how then you wouldn't want me running your team. Frankly, I'd rather not have people running MY team who value secondary stats over actual ability and production. There is a place for those stats as a predictive tool, however just chalking everything that doesn't fall in line with your opinion up to luck and saying he's really not good doesn't serve much of a purpose.

and his track record suggests that his BBs were one of the few things in line with career norms in 2007.

His "career norms"? He was a catcher who moved to the mound and last season was his SECOND in the big leagues. He had 77 innings coming into last year. For someone who is the first to cite a small sample size, I find it incredibly you'd talk about his career norms.

But even with all of his walks, his whip was still 1.09....which...I guess was lucky?

[berniebrewer4life]

In any event, saying he was "convicted" of taking Steroids suggests that he took some illegal black market supplement and injected it. He did nothing of the sort. He took a supplement from GNC and took the pills. Turnbow's been lumped in unfairly with the whole Roid era in baseball, and I'd think Brewers fans should at least see the difference between his situation and others.

Please show me where i used the words convicted and suspended. It is classified as a steroid(the FDA classifies it as a anabolic steroid precursor which is still a steroid), therefore to me, it is a steroid. Do i see the difference between what he did and others? Sure. But i am also not gonna sugar-coat it either. The guy took a steroid and tested positive for it. Big deal, let's move on.

[TooLiveBrew]

But even with all of his walks, his whip was still 1.09....which...I guess was lucky?

 

Actually, yes. But it's just because the things that play into the WHIP are lucky. W = BBs, which was one thing Marmol was doing poorly. IP is obviously largely out of his control, so we're left with H. A pitcher's good stuff can contribute, and it's not unheard of for players to keep BAA down... just not to that kind of level. Did Marmol pitch well last year? For many IP, yes. However, he also got a lot of help from good D behind him, and old fashioned luck.

 

I don't care how "lucky" a guy is when he's got a .161 BAA, a .295 OBP, a .217 SGL and an OPS of .512 all while he was so called "lucky".

 

But the point is that he's lucky to have those numbers, not that in spite of that production I still arbitrarily think he's lucky. I think to have numbers that low is aided significantly by 'things out of the pitcher's control.' However, it's shorter to just say 'luck.'

[Ennder]

It's funny, anytime an argument pop's up over why a pitcher was dominant last year, and some people disagree, it inevitably goes back to how "lucky" he was. The fact that Marmol is simply nasty, that he has a devastating slider, or a mid to upper 90 MPH fastball doesn't seem to ever get brought up by some. I should hope the Brewers experience such "luck" this year.

 

No it is funny that people assume this. This is how I evaluate every pitcher, every single one. It isn't like I'm digging for stats to make him look bad or something. Riske was lucky last year as was Shouse as was Villanueva if you want to discuss Brewer pitchers.

 

Pitchers do not maintain a 90% LOB, none of them do, not even the best pitchers in history do. This is not something he'll just repeat year after year. Same can be said for the HR/FB, no pitchers maintains levels that low. I don't care how "nasty" his stuff is it isn't going to happen.

 

Now Marmol is young and maybe he'll fix his control issues and induce more ground balls next year, it is certainly possible. But his season last year has all the same red flags that Turnbow had in 2005 and unless something changes he is not going to have an ERA anywhere near that low again. In fact I would say if he just repeats last year his ERA at least doubles.

[TerraceReserved]

and his track record suggests that his BBs were one of the few things in line with career norms in 2007.

His "career norms"? He was a catcher who moved to the mound and last season was his SECOND in the big leagues. He had 77 innings coming into last year. For someone who is the first to cite a small sample size, I find it incredibly you'd talk about his career norms.

 

But even with all of his walks, his whip was still 1.09....which...I guess was lucky?

 

How about look at his minor league track record? In 472 IP he had 205 BB's. So he had a 3.87 BB/9 in the minors, a 6.9 BB/9 in 06, and a 4.54 BB/9 last year. Seems pretty in line with career norms.

 

He had a 9.25 K/9 in the minors, a 6.9 K/9 in 06, and a 12.46 K/9 last year. Not so much in line with his career norms. The kid has absolutely wicked stuff, there's no doubt about it. But his performance with that stuff is evidenced in his periphials.

And I don't think it can be stated enough that luck plays a huge role in any defense-dependent pitching stats, and that includes WHIP.

[MoneyballMan]

There's no point in having any hope for Turnbow. He obviously stinks and will always stink. Let's bring someone else in that we can hate for being an above average RP.

I agree completely ... with you putting this in blue! Sometimes our expectations are so great that we believe that we should have a pitcher who has saved 40 games a year for each of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th innings! Turnbow is a better 8th inning option than 75% of the other teams have (ok, I made that % up without checking, but you get my point).

[MoneyballMan]

In any event, saying he was "convicted" of taking Steroids suggests that he took some illegal black market supplement and injected it. He did nothing of the sort. He took a supplement from GNC and took the pills. Turnbow's been lumped in unfairly with the whole Roid era in baseball, and I'd think Brewers fans should at least see the difference between his situation and others.

 

I agree with you, which is also why McGwire was a dope for just not talking about his Andro use before Congress. He looked much worse trying to tip toe around the topic versus just admitting he used things from GNC. Now, I'm not saying Andro is a good thing, but we shouldn't lump DT in with guys who were having trainers inject illegal substances into their arses.

[MoneyballMan]

Two projections for Marmol from publications that do a pretty good job:

Baseball Forecaster (Ron Schandler) - 3.58 ERA; 1.33 WHIP - they still like him, but don't project another year with 1.50 ERA or anything
Baseball Prospectus - 4.06 ERA; 1.39 WHIP

"A lot of Cubs fans were up in arms that Marmol was not the team's closer by the end of the season, comparing the situation to that of the 2006 Tigers, who had Joel Zumaya in the Marmol role and Todd Jones playing Dempster. The analogy is a pretty good one, but one needs to remember what happened to Zumaya in 2007: his ERA spiked, and he suffered a career-threatening shoulder injury. Although Marmol is not likely to duplicate Zumaya's history of fluke injuries, he can expect to see his ERA rise, mostly because the high heat he throws is good, but not good enough to let him repeat the mere three home runs he allowed in 2007. To build on his breakout season, Marmol will have to rely less on his fastball and instead work on throwing his good curveball down in the zone."

So, I don't think anyone is saying he's going to be suddenly horrible, but certainly not as good as his stats made him appear last year.

[ILuvDaBush]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think T-Bow has better "stuff" than Marmol. I recall some article last year that queried baseball managers about who had the best "stuff" and for curveball, Ben Sheets was top three, while at fastball, T-Bow was #2 (behind Lidge, I believe). That fastball has late life, and more velocity than Marmol's fastball. And while Marmol has a better slider, I'll take T-bow's fastball everyday. It also doesn't hurt that T-Bow has a longer record of success than Marmol, and more All-Star appearances (even though they are a popularity contest). And finally, I would say the biggest meltdown bow our relief corp last year was the ninth inning vs. the Phils (I believe it was a Friday Night game, as I remember most people had left early, since we had an "insurmountable lead"). Between Wise and Coco, they surrendered five runs in the ninth. And Turnbow's contribution??? He did his job.

[Gopher74]

Please show me where i used the words convicted and suspended.

I never said that you said he was convicted. This is the problem with coming into a debate specifically between two people.

 

Geno's words-

"Marmol's 5 years younger, makes $3 million less, has no steroid convictions"

 

He's comparing the differences between the two, Turnbow and Marmol and says that he has no "steroid conviction". I never said at any time that YOU said Turnbow was convicted.

It is classified as a steroid(the FDA classifies it as a anabolic steroid precursor which is still a steroid), therefore to me, it is a steroid.

It was also an over the counter supplement that he got that wasn't banned by baseball at the time, NOR was it illegal, and I don't believe it was classified as a steroid at the time. So that very much is relevant to this discussion.

The guy took a steroid and tested positive for it. Big deal, let's move on.

 

The guy took a supplement legal in MLB and was suspended from Team USA. You can also say someone taking a cream for a rash takes steroids. That doesn't mean it's on the same level as a illegal roid that you shoot up with.

 

And I never said it was a big deal. If you'll recall I was replying to another poster when you started intervened.

[Gopher74]

I agree with you, which is also why McGwire was a dope for just not talking about his Andro use before Congress. He looked much worse trying to tip toe around the topic versus just admitting he used things from GNC. Now, I'm not saying Andro is a good thing, but we shouldn't lump DT in with guys who were having trainers inject illegal substances into their arses.

Exactly. It's just a bit disconcerting when Brewer fans lump Derrick Turnbow in with the Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds of the world when what he did wasn't even close to the same.

 

It'd be like saying two crimes, one in which a guy hits someone with a baseball bat time after time is the same as another who accidently bumps into someone with their elbow because in both incidents they made contact. To me it seems insincere.

 

As for the Marmol-Turnbow argument, I'm too burnt out to get any further into the argument how you can just chalk everyone who doesn't fit into a specific mode up to being lucky.

[JohnBriggs12]

Turnbow's current spring stats: 5 IP, 4H, 5R, 5ER, 2HR, 2BB, 3K, 9.00ERA.

 

Pretty much same pattern as last season so far. First outing was bad, followed by 3 good ones, then another really bad one, 3ER in one inning.

 

The argument that he has a high percentage of outings where he doesn't allow any runs in my mind is offset by the fact that when he does allow runs, it's usually multiple runs and that is a killer for a late reliever because it's almost a certain loss in a manner that is very deflating.

[homer]

I could see Turnbow as lights out in April May - it's August and September that I'm worried about.

[twobrewers]

Pretty much same pattern as last season so far. First outing was bad, followed by 3 good ones, then another really bad one, 3ER in one inning.

I love Derrick Turnbow. He has been one of my favorite players for the past few years. But I honestly wonder how well he has really looked this spring.

 

His spring lines have not looked too impressive. I wonder if the coaching staff is just trying to boost his confidence by saying how well he looks.

 

Torres (very limited), Mota, Riske, Pena and Stetter have all looked really good this spring. The guys we are counting on for the 8th and 9th inning....not so much. That is starting to worry me.

[uwisfan]

at what point are we allowed to worry about the big cash in our pitching staff.. Gagne & Suppan?

[Ennder]

at what point are we allowed to worry about the big cash in our pitching staff.. Gagne & Suppan?

 

I was worried about those two before spring training so yeah I'd think it is still fine.

[rluzinski]

turnbow's problem is confidence.

 

Turnbow's "problem" is what it always has been; a limited skill set. he has nice velocity on his fastball and a lot of movement on his hard slider. What he doesn't have is good control and he probably never will. As a third or forth option in someone's bullpen, he's fine, IMO. His fluke year in 2005 (88% LOB%!??) simply gave fans unrealistic expectations for his future performance. He was never a sub 3.00 ERA pitcher, much less a sub 2.00 one.

[Fear The Chorizo]

at what point are we allowed to worry about the big cash in our pitching staff.. Gagne & Suppan?

 

I'm not too worried about Suppan, as long as the Brewers realize he should be their 5th starter once Yo is back and hopefully Parra and Villy/Capuano move into the rotation as the season rolls on. Sup's gonna be a near 5 era pitcher who gives up a ton of hits but at least keeps the team in nearly every game through 6 innings, and there won't be a concern about his durability. I'm more worried about Suppan's contract and the impact it's going to have on this roster after this season, when he's not tradeable. Gagne is a concern, especially if he gets off to a bad start in the regular season. As for Turnbow, there's probably a reason why he couldn't stick with the Phillies or Angels even though he could reach triple digits with his fastball...his first season in Milwaukee looks to have been the statistical outlier in his career so far. I love him as one of the arms in the back of the pen, but not as 'the setup guy'.

[Gopher74]

Sup's gonna be a near 5 era pitcher who gives up a ton of hits but at least keeps the team in nearly every game through 6 innings, and there won't be a concern about his durability. I'm more worried about Suppan's contract and the impact it's going to have on this roster after this season, when he's not tradeable.

Why would Suppan being a "near 5 era pitcher" when in by far his worst year in his last 5 his ERA was 4.62. Now with an improved defense, his ERA is going to jump?

 

I'd say that his ERA could be anywhere from 4.20-4.50, but I don't get where the 5 ERA comes from.

 

And I don't get why you'd say he's not tradeable. He's definitely tradeable. There are plenty teams that would gladly take a pitcher who you know is going to give you 200+ Innings a year and keep you in games. A team like the Mets who have both Perez and Pedro as FA's this year could be a possible destination, and his ERA could go back below 4.00 in Shea. The Phillies as he's a GB pitcher. Hell, there are several teams that would take 2 years and 25 million for a pitcher as reliable as Suppan.

And he's clearly a better pitcher still than Capuano who looks just totally lost. It's one thing for a guy who knows he has a spot locked up to try and work on things and get hit. It's altogether different for a guy fighting for a spot to get lit up in ST'ing as Cappy is.