Hideaway Lights

Garland's success in 2005 was predicted by his 2004 first half... After 18 starts in 2004, Garland was 7-6. That seems about right....doesn't it? However, looking beyond the record, he had 10 quality starts in that span. 10 starts of giving at least 7 IP, and giving up 3 ER or less. His record? 6-3 with 1 ND. That is pretty unlucky/bad in the AL in my opinion. The White Sox, especially the slugging White Sox of the last few years, should've given him a 8-2 record during those starts minimum. He lost a 1-0 heartbreaker to Baltimore. He lost a 4-2 game at Oakland (4th run was unearned) and lost a 3-1 game to the Yankees at the cell. His ND was vs the Angels...7IP, 2ER. Another one of his NDs? 6.2 IP and 3 earned runs. Not a quality start, but close enough in my book. In other words, in 2004 Garland pitched 11 really good games in his first 18 starts....nearly 2/3rds.... and only won 7 of the 18 with 5 no decisions. The next three starts after those first 18? 6.0 IP, 4 ER in all three. Not terrible. Pretty par for the course in the AL, as a matter of fact. His record? 0-1, two NDs. The team lost all three games. For the 2004 season, if we count minimum 6 IP, 2ER or less starts and also count that 6.2/3ER game, Garland had 15 "quality" starts...out of 33 total starts in 2004. Almost half of his starts were what I would call "quality". His record was 9-3 with 3 no decisions in those games. Again, getting 9 wins out of 15 "quality" starts is pretty low in my opinion...it's not nearly enough. Also, as far as run support, the team scored 3 runs or less for the entire game in 10 of his 33 starts. That run support also seems low for the AL. I don't know where to find actual run-support stats, but I'd love to see them if anyone knows. My conclusion? Garland could have and should have EASILY won 15 games last year given this analysis. Perhaps if he had gotten a couple of breaks, he would have and people wouldn't be as surprised at his start this season...

QUOTE(gettysburg32 @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 05:41 AM) the traditional line of thought is that when a pitcher has a lot of decisions, it's positive because it means a pitcher is normally working until fairly deep into the game, lots of IPs. Yeah, that's pretty much what I think too.

I guess I was wrong. Most of the best pitchers have a similar ratio of decisions to no-decisions.

Garland has not only gotten 13 decisions in 13 starts this year but also gets a decision nearly 77% of the time he starts in his career since becoming a full-time starter (85 decisions/111 starts since the beginning of 2002) That's an seemingly obscenely high decision-no decision ratio.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 02:11 PM) Hideaway you just always find a way to get in an argument. Even with a complimentary post about Garland....go figure With that said...I agree with your statement about Garland. I think he can easily be a 15 yr, 200 inning pitcher year in and year out. I just hope he is with the sox. lol...so you're agreeing with me

QUOTE(ScottPodRulez22 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 02:03 PM) They are comparable Prior has been better era and k wise. Garland has been better in record and dosent get injured every year, but we all know if the injuries didnt happen to prior he would be having a much better career then Garland. Yeah, but this is the real world. If you had to take one pitcher from here on out and predict who would have more career wins, who would you take? I'll even give you the 20 win deficit with Prior. Prior's arm will find new ways to get hurt. He probably won't even make it to 100 wins. Garland, if his durability is any indication, should coast there.

Garland is 25 and 8 months. Made his ML debut in 2000 (but he pitched only 1/3 of that year, just 69 innings) Prior is 24 and 9 months. Made his ML debut in 2002 (and pitched in 19 games that year...119 innings). I'm not sure how their careers aren't comparable. (edit: sorry, some corrections)

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:49 PM) He is the real deal...its just too bad he plays at the Crap Heap. there's no question who is more talented. But who will win more games in their career? Jon already has a 20 game edge on Prior.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) I'd trade Garland for Prior right now See, I don't think Prior pitches more than 100 innings any year for the rest of his career. Injuries just find this guy.

QUOTE(ScottPodRulez22 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:41 PM) Garland has been ok the past few years always getting basically 12 wins. He has finally matured and I think is just entering his prime. I woudnt be surprised if he did start going 200+innings 15+wins each year for the rest of his career. I mean he is only 26 years old. This is exactly my point. Hell, at this point I would take probably take Garland over Prior for the rest of his career. Guaranteed 12+ wins (probably more like 15) every year or bag full of injuries?

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:40 PM) When has garland won 15 every year? Garland has been league average coming into this year and nothing more. hence the word "emergence"

190+ innings each of the last three years, a 4.6ish ERA (not horrible considering the AL average) and 12 wins in each of the last three years, a stat that few other pitchers can boast. He's already got 86 innings pitched this year and with his durability and apparent poise at still a relatively young age, I think we could see the emergence of a right-handed Buehrle. A guy who will give you 200 innings every year, stay relatively injury free, go deep into every game and at the least get you 15 wins every year.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...fect-game_x.htm OAKFIELD, N.Y. — Katie Brownell is a shy 11-year-old girl of few words. But when she gets on the baseball field, she lets her pitching do the talking. Katie Brownell threw a six-inning, 18-strikeout perfect game against boys last Saturday. The 11-year-old is the lone girl in her Little League. By Bill Bruton, The Daily News of Batavia Brownell is the only girl in the Oakfield-Alabama Little League baseball program in this community about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester. On Saturday, that didn't stop her from accomplishing something league officials can't remember anybody — boy or girl — ever doing. She threw a perfect game for the Dodgers in an 11-0 victory over the Yankees. How dominant was she? She struck out all 18 batters she faced in the six-inning victory. She never got to a three-ball count on any of them. "As far back as I can remember, I don't ever recall hearing of a perfect game," said Eric Klotzbach, league president. Katie said she knew she had a chance for something special in the fourth inning. Fortunately, Katie's coach, Joe Sullivan, realized that, too. He had intended to pull Katie at some point during the game and was ready to do it when the scorekeeper told him she had a no-hitter going. "I can't pull her out," Sullivan said after taking a look at the score book himself. So, Katie kept mowing down the opposition and completed the task. Then the place exploded. "Everybody congratulated me," Katie said. Katie, who is in 6th grade, also pitched a one-hitter in the first game of the year. She accounted for all 15 outs in the five innings she pitched in that game. She had 14 strikeouts and got the other out on a grounder to the mound that she tossed to first. "She's been pitching for three years, but she's really came on and excelled this year," said Jeff Sage, manager of the team, who didn't get to see Saturday's game because of his job as a firefighter in Rochester. "She bats really well. She's a solid, all-around ballplayer." At the plate, Katie's hitting .714 through the team's first three games. Her sense for the game developed from playing baseball with siblings and friends. "She had older brothers and we were always outside, so the minute she could pick up a ball, she was" playing, said her mother, Denise Bischoff. In her first year with the Dodgers, Katie, the daughter of Mark Brownell, played with her older brothers, Jonathan and Joshua. Initially, she wasn't even going to play baseball this year, and instead eyed the softball team. "Two weeks before the first game, when was it too late for her to switch over to softball, she decided to stick with hardball," Sullivan said. "Fortunately for us."

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 09:10 AM) Coffee can cause cramping? How exactly? Coffee dehydrates you. Dehydration causes cramping.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...t=.jsp&c_id=cws

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 08:51 AM) im with you. Thomas? Dehydration possibly causing his injury? His admitted Starbucks addiction? No...I'm not kidding...this is what he said during the pregame yesterday

Am I just missing it? That was too funny.

apparently it's time for a jump off the bandwagon thread.... :rolly:

how does duke not get that called third strike

QUOTE(Jabroni @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 06:19 PM) OMFG. Brutal.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 03:12 PM) Anything with the "idx" at the end f*** up for me... I cant get back to the main page without retyping in Soxtalk.com idx link finally worked for me. Thanks all.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 03:04 PM) Try using this url: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?act=idx and not: soxtalk.com neither work in firefox

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) I think there is just some board issues. I use IE and got that same message about an hour ago. All seems fine now though not with firefox it ain't

Hey all, sorry this is probably the wrong place to post this....but my firefox browser is no longer working anywhere on soxtalk.com and I'm not sure if it's a problem on this end. It's working everywhere else, just not on soxtalk. It brings up a pop-up window and prompts me to open "soxtalk" by choosing an application. I've checked this with a couple of other users and they've got the same problem.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:45 AM) That is Carlos little brother. That is f***ing confusing as hell.