Remember that I was responding to the statement "the less strikeouts the better with Jon".

 

Look, if you're looking at the outcome of a game after the fact, and you take it as given that Jon has already thrown a cg so, then obviously it doesn't matter one whit if he had 27 strikeouts or 27 warning track fly balls.  The game's over at that point.  But if in the course of a game you find yourself saying, I'd rather Jon not strike this guy out, then you're nuts.  A strikeout is virtually always better than the uncertainty of having the ball in play.  That's all I'm saying on this, I still can't believe anyone thinks strikeouts hurt the pitcher's team.

 

Actually, there are valid points on both sides of the argument. Jackie, your's speaks for it self. K's are good and there can't be any mishap outside of a dropped third strike. Pretty straightforward. The other line of thinking, is that strikeouts generally result in higher pitch count for the pitcher. If you can effectively pitch to get someone to beat a wormburner on pitch one or two of an at bat, that's better than 2 and 2 strikeout pitch. There is more than one way to be an effective pitcher. Look at that classic matchup a few days ago. Clemens vs. Maddux. These guys were both great, yet they had completely different styles. Maddux wasn't a great K pitcher, yet he was a great pitcher. So saying the Garland's lack of K's is troubling may not be indicitive of what he can accomplish.

i always hated garland b/c he had the natural ability to be better than he was..AND he like to blame others for his problem..AND the "i don't give a s***" smirk on his face.

 

however, i do want him to pitch well.

 

however, 3.9 K's/9 innings is horrible. no one will ever succeed with that over the long haul. maddux was about 7.5 in his prime. 48 year old tommy john may have been around 3, but he sucked by that time.

Edited May 3, 200520 yr by poorme

Actually, there are valid points on both sides of the argument.  Jackie, your's speaks for it self.  K's are good and there can't be any mishap outside of a dropped third strike.  Pretty straightforward.  The other line of thinking, is that strikeouts generally result in higher pitch count for the pitcher.  If you can effectively pitch to get someone to beat a wormburner on pitch one or two of an at bat, that's better than 2 and 2 strikeout pitch.  There is more than one way to be an effective pitcher.  Look at that classic matchup a few days ago.  Clemens vs. Maddux.  These guys were both great, yet they had completely different styles.  Maddux wasn't a great K pitcher, yet he was a great pitcher.  So saying the Garland's lack of K's is troubling may not be indicitive of what he can accomplish.

The difference in pitch count won't be very large, that seems like an easy decision, I take the k over the risk.

 

As for the second part: Argh. I said you can be an effective pitcher w/o being a strikeout pitcher. And Jon will never be a strikeout pitcher. And I think Jon's a good pitcher. And I did not say his lack of strikeouts is troubling. Only that strikeouts are not bad, even for Jon. I can't believe 'strikeouts are good for a pitcher' causes so much debate.

 

Btw, check out Maddux's strikeout numbers again. He didn't k like Clemens, but he was still a high strikeout pitcher.

Not to be rude,  but get a life man.  How can you say anything bad about Garland right now?

 

Hey sunshine I am just given the facts on JG.