Here are some quotes from Mike's Baseball Rants about the Garland deal:

 

Anyway, even with an 18-10 record and 3.50 ERA (27% better than the park-adjusted league average), one would have to say that the season was anything but an unqualified success for Garland.

 

An unqualified success? He tries to show that Garland had a bad 2nd half compared to his 1st half. What a discovery!

 

I would offer this question rhetorically if it weren't for the ludicrous contract to which the Sox signed Garland yesterday.

 

Ludicrous contract? Under an average of $10 million a year for 3 yrs after guys like Burnett and Millwood got and average $11 and $12 million for 5 YEARS! How is that ludicrous.

 

Garland gets a reported $7M in 2006, $10M in 2007, and $12M in 2008. That puts him second all-time among 26-year-old pitchers in terms of salary by my calculations. That seems a bit high to me, especially when it's the lowest of the three years in the deal.

 

Wow, another freakin math wiz. That is a complete apples to oranges comparison. The only true comparison is with current contracts signed this year.

 

Garland had 21 Win Shares in 2005. To put his 2006 salary in perspective, here are all the 25-year-old pitchers with at least 20 Win Shares in the free agent era.

 

Another great secret, but 21 Win Shares on a team with 99 wins can be better than a guy with 25 Win Shares on a team with 85 wins. BTW, MB had 23 WS in 2005, Garcia and Count had 18, so I guess those guys are overpaid too.

 

http://mikesrants.baseballtoaster.com/archives/308868.html

 

 

Your thoughts.

Edited December 29, 200520 yr by WinninUgly

Your thoughts.

 

Well, for starters, who the hell is Mike Carminati, and why does his opinion matter?

His article is about as interesting as some nerds web blog. He is not a reference on baseball knowledge.

he spelled Garland "john", he is really qualified.

The man is a moron. Jon had a 3.68 something ERA the second half of the year, which in the AL is solid.

So wait a minute, does that mean that Jon Garland got 21 World Series shares? That's a big bonus!

Another great secret, but 21 Win Shares on a team with 99 wins is better than a guy with 25 Win Shares on a team with 85 wins.

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

I just found it funny how someone can make this into a bad deal for the Sox. If they traded Jon I can see how some can say it was a good move and how some could say it was a bad move, but I never could see how signing him to a 3 year deal can be considered ludicrous.

 

BTW,

Garland was also 7th among all pitchers in Win Shares in 2005. NL Cy Young Carpenter - 18, AL Cy Young Colon - 19.

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Sorry mis-worded it. Corrected now, not "is" but "can".

 

Win Shares don't always show how good a player actually is. There are some misleading numbers. Most of them are accurate, but if the league went strictly off Win Shares then the CY Youngs would have been MB and Willis.

 

Here are some other good ones:

 

Konerko is the 10th best 1B in the league after Giambi or Helton?

 

Mark Grudzielanek is a Top 10 at 2B.

 

Inge better than Crede at 3B.

 

Eckstein is the best SS.

 

AJ is the 21st best Catcher.

 

Crazy Carl was just as valuable as Pods.

 

Chris Capuano won 18 games, but only has 12 WS, even though he was 4th in the NL in wins.

Sorry mis-worded it.  Corrected now, not "is" but "can". 

There is no need to bring team wins into the picture. Marginal runs/team wins is the same for good teams and bad teams. That is why win shares are fair to all players, regardless of their team's winning percentage.

 

21 win shares are not better than 25 win shares, the error in the calculation would have to be so large that it isn't worth throwing out there.

There is no need to bring team wins into the picture.  Marginal runs/team wins is the same for good teams and bad teams.  That is why win shares are fair to all players, regardless of their team's winning percentage. 

 

21 win shares are not better than 25 win shares, the error in the calculation would have to be so large that it isn't worth throwing out there.

 

So Brandon Webb is as good or better pitcher than P. Martinez, B. Colon, J. Smoltz, C. Carpenter? Just look at some of the lists and you can see that there are several odd rankings.

 

I was just trying to say that Win Shares doesn't necessarily indicate how good a player truely is. It is pretty damn close, but there are always exceptions. If Win Shares were that accurate, then 3 / $29 million for the 7th best pitcher in the league is a felony.

Garland is a winner. He is one of the best young pitchers in baseball. You cannot statistically prove "winner", in fact some winners will not have steller stats. Bart Colon is one that comes to mind. He pitches best when his team really needs him. I've watched enough baseball to know that Garland is the kind of guy you want in your rotation.

 

I wonder how teams ever won before computers.

Garland is a winner. He is one of the best young pitchers in baseball. You cannot statistically prove "winner", in fact some winners will not have steller stats. Bart Colon is one that comes to mind. He pitches best when his team really needs him. I've watched enough baseball to know that Garland is the kind of guy you want in your rotation.

 

I wonder how teams ever won before computers. 

 

Without all these stats to analyze, we'd have to resort to *GASP* watching ballplayers.

Without all these stats to analyze, we'd have to resort to *GASP* watching ballplayers.

 

Without stats we'd have more people posting in SL&P during the off season

Your thoughts.

 

 

he should get a job at ESPN