garland a fluke or not?

[MarkBuehrle_TheAce]

seeing as my last thread was locked, im gonna start a new totally different topic about, hmm, let me think, how about, jon garlands upcoming season??how do all my fellow sox fans feel about garlands potential at winning 14+ games again?

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

I think it will be tough for Garland to win 18 games again. I think 16, 17, or even 19 wins is much more feasible.

[MarkBuehrle_TheAce]

i think he will win 15 or 16 games, no more though. if he poves me wrong, i will be pleasantly surprised ( i hope he DOES prove me wrong)

[SleepyWhiteSox]

But is he an ace?

[Felix]

I'm going with the unpopular answer, and saying that Garland's season was a fluke. If you look at his numbers as a starter, its not like they were getting better and then suddenly they come out as a top pitchers in the league. His numbers were consistantly poor, but then became damned good.

 

I think he can be a solid #3 or 4 guy, but I do not think his numbers will match those he had last year on a consistant basis.

[Rowand44]

  His numbers were consistantly poor,

This is incorrect.

[MarkBuehrle_TheAce]

garland isnt an ace, never said that. he is good though, and i think he has the POTENTIAL to be a consistent pitcher, but 18 wins again? nope. he will win 14-16 games though

[SSH2005]

I'm going with the unpopular answer, and saying that Garland's season was a fluke.  If you look at his numbers as a starter, its not like they were getting better and then suddenly they come out as a top pitchers in the league.  His numbers were consistantly poor, but then became damned good.

 

I think he can be a solid #3 or 4 guy, but I do not think his numbers will match those he had last year on a consistant basis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at Garland's 2002 to 2004 numbers and compare them to his 2005 numbers, the only thing that really changed was the number of walks he gave up. If he goes back to walking 75 to 80 batters in 2006 instead of walking only 47 like last season, he won't be as effective.

Edited January 27, 2006 by SSH2005

[RockRaines]

Here we go. I think Garland was the best pitcher on our staff last year. Even in the second half he ws impressive, much different from what people think, he was our second best in the 2nd half and the best in the first half. I think he will win around 17-19 games with about the same ERA as this year. I really think jon figured it out.

[Felix]

This is incorrect.

Consistantly average, sorry. I was speaking relatively (compared to his 2005 numbers).

 

If you look at Garland's 2002 to 2004 numbers and compare them to his 2005 numbers, the only thing that really changed was the number of walks he gave up.  If he goes back to walking 75 to 80 batters in 2006 instead of walking only 47 like last season, he won't be as effective.

And runs, but I guess that could be a direct result of the more walks.

He also let up less extra base hits last year than in years past.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Felix

[SSH2005]

And runs, but I guess that could be a direct result of the more walks.  He also let up less extra base hits last year than in years past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said this last season when Contreras couldn't find the plate... everytime Contreras starts to nibble and walk batters, Pierzynski should go out to the mound and knee him in the balls. Didn't Pierzynski go to the mound and ream Garland out during a game against the Orioles earlier last season because he was nibbling too much? I think Garland went on to strikeout Miguel Tejada in a huge at bat. More confidence and a more forceful catcher are probably big reasons why Garland walked less batters last season.

[Kalapse]

Boo to whoever deleted my post.

[Pants Rowland]

If you look at Garland's 2002 to 2004 numbers and compare them to his 2005 numbers, the only thing that really changed was the number of walks he gave up.  If he goes back to walking 75 to 80 batters in 2006 instead of walking only 47 like last season, he won't be as effective.

 

I'll tell you another big change between his earlier career and the year and half had has had since the second half of 2004. Ozzie Guillen replaced Jerry Manuel and let JG learn how to pitch. Manuel used to pull JG after the 5th or 6th if a runner got to second base. JG was always looking over his shoulder in the Manuel days and had no confidence in his ability to get out of tricky situations. Manuel was a brutal manager who could not handle young pitchers. Guillen left him out there to get out of trouble in 2004 and by the second half of that year he started performing on a consistent level. Garland would be pitching in Baltimore or Tampa Bay right now if Manuel had stayed on as manager of the WS. He was a terrible developer of young talent.

[kevin57]

I think last year we finally saw Garland do what had been hoped and predicted about him. I would say that we will now see a string of several solid years. Does that mean 18+ victories in 2006. I wouldn't bet a lot on that. I would say that at least 16, though.

[MarkBuehrle_TheAce]

i agree about the manuel statement. the only young guy we had he liked was MB, and that was because he was fairly effective right out of the gate. guillen>manuel

[Hawkfan]

garland will do awesome again if he just doesn't walk people.. garland is a great groundball pitcher and if you are going to be that you need to not walk people... if he keeps the walks down he could be an ace...thats right.. i said ace

[Pants Rowland]

garland will do awesome again if he just doesn't walk people.. garland is a great groundball pitcher and if you are going to be that you need to not walk people... if he keeps the walks down he could be an ace...thats right.. i said ace

 

Funny you say that. A caller on ESPN1000's Baseball 365 asked who Levine and Dalgen think has the best chance at the HOF from the Sox' staff. Levine said Garland. This was based on years in front of him as well as the career he has had thus far. I think a lot of people don't realize how young Garland is and how long it takes a player to mature in the majors. He was so raw (and tainted) when the WS got him for Karchner but people thought he should be a superstar right away just because of his potential.

 

If he were on the north side, we would be hearing some statistic about the record number of consecutive 10 win seasons before the age of 25 he had compared to other pitchers in MLB history. I don't necessarily think he is a HOF prospect, but he has always been a horse and is really starting to make the opposition look weak on a consistent basis.

[Baines3]

It will probably be hard to get 18 wins again, I would have to agree with the assessment of 15 wins or so. However I hope I am totally wrong and he wins 20 or more games.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

As many have said, as long as he keeps the walks down, he'll be fine.

[Balta1701]

I just look at Garland and see:

 

1. A pitcher approaching his prime age

2. A pitcher with a low-mid 90's fastball

3. A very tall pitcher with an excellent sinker

4. A sinkerball pitcher with a dominating infield defense behind him

5. An excellent young talent who had a very good year last year and got himself playoff experience

6. A pitcher who is very comfortable with his catcher

7. A pitcher who has good confidence in his pitches at long last

8. A pitcher with guts

 

And I think that every sign points to him being a dominant pitcher for a number of years to come. Out of those...the one that sells me the most is #7. When Garland and Buehrle came up in 00, you could see that he was just scared to go after people. It was obvious. Buehrle on the other hand came up and just went right after the guys. Garland finally started doing that last year and it worked.

 

He could backslide, but I personally think he may be even better. He's got the makeup to be one of the best sinkerballers for a long, long time in this league.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I just look at Garland and see:

 

1.  A pitcher approaching his prime age

2.  A pitcher with a low-mid 90's fastball

3.  A very tall pitcher with an excellent sinker

4.  A sinkerball pitcher with a dominating infield defense behind him

5.  An excellent young talent who had a very good year last year and got himself playoff experience

6.  A pitcher who is very comfortable with his catcher

7.  A pitcher who has good confidence in his pitches at long last

8.  A pitcher with guts

 

And I think that every sign points to him being a dominant pitcher for a number of years to come.  Out of those...the one that sells me the most is #7.  When Garland and Buehrle came up in 00, you could see that he was just scared to go after people.  It was obvious.  Buehrle on the other hand came up and just went right after the guys.  Garland finally started doing that last year and it worked.

 

He could backslide, but I personally think he may be even better.  He's got the makeup to be one of the best sinkerballers for a long, long time in this league.

 

100% agreed. People can take their Sabermatrics or whatever that s*** is and shove it up their ass. I'm not talking about anybody from this site by the way.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Jordan4life_2006

[Kyyle23]

I think it will be tough for Garland to win 18 games again.  I think 16, 17, or even 19 wins is much more feasible.

 

I hope this was supposed to be funny, because I found it hilarious.

[RockRaines]

I just look at Garland and see:

 

1.  A pitcher approaching his prime age

2.  A pitcher with a low-mid 90's fastball

3.  A very tall pitcher with an excellent sinker

4.  A sinkerball pitcher with a dominating infield defense behind him

5.  An excellent young talent who had a very good year last year and got himself playoff experience

6.  A pitcher who is very comfortable with his catcher

7.  A pitcher who has good confidence in his pitches at long last

8.  A pitcher with guts

 

And I think that every sign points to him being a dominant pitcher for a number of years to come.  Out of those...the one that sells me the most is #7.  When Garland and Buehrle came up in 00, you could see that he was just scared to go after people.  It was obvious.  Buehrle on the other hand came up and just went right after the guys.  Garland finally started doing that last year and it worked.

 

He could backslide, but I personally think he may be even better.  He's got the makeup to be one of the best sinkerballers for a long, long time in this league.

Totally agree. I feel good about Jon moving forward. Of course, I really have alot of confidence in The Count this year as well.

[Gene Honda Civic]

205IP 30HR 3.90ERA

 

He can't control the # of games he wins, so I don't see any point in debating it.

[MarkBuehrle_TheAce]

jon has very good sttuff, not dominating, but it is good. he can get guys out, and i think he turned the proverbial corner last season. garland should rely a little more on his heater (93-95) than that sinker is just sick, and unfair for batters. if he puts it all together, using everything at his disposal, he could be a 20 game winner. if he attacks the hitter than i will be forced to admit, he has A LOT more potential than MB will ever have. MB has medicore stuff (minus his change) but he wins, y? because he knows HOW to pitch, if garland learns what MB already knows, chalk up 17+wins a season, because he willl just be an amazing pitcher