Jon Garland poll.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It'll be interesting to see what people say to this one.

[DBAHO]

No because of these factors;

 

1) It wasn't a contract year. He was still under our control for another 2 seasons.

2) He's still young, and not hurt physically, which shows that most of his current problems are mental.

3) He's gotta stop giving up the longball, which he can't possibly be as bad for the rest of the season, as he has done so far.

 

The main thing with Jon at this stage, if he's not getting groundballs. He had 47.3% last season, 45.3% in 2004, and he's only 39.4% so far this season. And his Defense Efficiency Ratio is also down by .050%.

 

In my mind, he can't possibly be this bad in the long run.

[Felix]

It wasn't a contract year fluke because it wasn't a contract year, but yes, it was a fluke. (i still voted yes)

Edited May 29, 2006 by Felix

[Texsox]

Guys don't win 70 games in this league by being a fluke. He will continue to be a solid, mid to back rotation starter, for a long time. On a staff full of top arms, any weakness, any flaw, gets magnified.

[Felix]

Guys don't win 70 games in this league by being a fluke. He will continue to be a solid, mid to back rotation starter, for a long time. On a staff full of top arms, any weakness, any flaw, gets magnified.

On any staff, a 6.25 ERA and 1.59 WHIP sticks out. Its not some minor thing that is just getting pointed out because of the rest of the staff.

 

Also, winning 70 games has nothing to do with being a fluke or not, and looking at wins is not a good way to evaluate a pitcher. Throughout his career, he was an average pitcher. Last year however, he was pretty damn good, and looked like a #2 or #3 starter. The question that is being asked is if last year (3.50 ERA, compared to a career 4.53) was a fluke or not.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Felix

[DBAHO]

On any staff, a 6.25 ERA and 1.59 WHIP sticks out. Its not some minor thing that is just getting pointed out because of the rest of the staff.

 

Also, winning 70 games has nothing to do with being a fluke or not, and looking at wins is not a good way to evaluate a pitcher. Throughout his career, he was an average pitcher. Last year however, he was pretty damn good, and looked like a #2 or #3 starter. The question that is being asked is if last year (3.50 ERA, compared to a career 4.53) was a fluke or not.

Felix can I ask you this.

 

Do you think if a pitcher say has a bad 1st season, a good 2nd season, a bad 3rd season, a good 4th season, and a bad 5th season, that pitcher is more likely to have a better season next, than a pitcher who had 3 average to bad seasons, and then a good season next?

 

Garland's keys to having a good season last year were keeping the ball in the yard, and not walking hitters. He's doing the latter ok, but right now he's having trouble striking out hitters, hence more balls are going in play, and some of them are going for HR's which is really costing him.

[Dick Allen]

I don't think last season was a fluke. Someone pointed out his stats for the last calendar year, and it looked like a typical Garland season, a .500 record and an ERA around 4.50. He's been especially bad this year, but he has ability and will always be capable of a hot streak, just like he will be capable of throwing a great game from time to time, just like he has every season. He's a .500 pitcher, maybe a little better on a great team like the White Sox, and he's a #4 or #5 starter. Ozzie hates the fact that Garland has admitted to a lack of confidence, so if its possible for someone to take his remaining contract at the end of this season, I expect him to be shown the door.

[DBAHO]

Ozzie hates the fact that Garland has admitted to a lack of confidence, so if its possible for someone to take his remaining contract at the end of this season, I expect him to be shown the door.

KW has to weigh up whether it's worth trading Garcia in the off-season and possibly getting more back in return, or trading Garland while his value is low, so that B-Mac can move into the rotation.

 

Will be an interesting off-season again on that regard.

[Dick Allen]

KW has to weigh up whether it's worth trading Garcia in the off-season and possibly getting more back in return, or trading Garland while his value is low, so that B-Mac can move into the rotation.

 

Will be an interesting off-season again on that regard.

 

I agree with the quandry, but Ozzie is going to have a big say in it. If he doesn't like Garland's attitude or where his head is at-------------------he gone.

[Felix]

Do you think if a pitcher say has a bad 1st season, a good 2nd season, a bad 3rd season, a good 4th season, and a bad 5th season, that pitcher is more likely to have a better season next, than a pitcher who had 3 average to bad seasons, and then a good season next?

It really depends. Pitcher A would be the better bet to be good since he's had more success in the past, but its a risk, since he's also struggled. Pitcher B would be the safe bet, since he would likely be average, but I wouldn't say he's more likely to be good.

 

There are other things to factor in as well of course, including their stuff, pitching coach, etc.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

Garland is an innings eater and a good back of the rotation pitcher. He got a ton of run support and won many games early in the season last year. Expecting those same conditions to be replicated this year borders on foolishness.

[RME JICO]

I think Jon is capable of pitching better than what he has so far this year, but we will probably never see his 2005 production again.

 

What worries me is that he has not even faced that many good lineups, and yet he is still giving up a ton of hits, HRs, and runs.

 

2006

KC 5.1IP 9ER (12th)

DET 5.0IP 7ER

KC 6.1IP 1ER (12th)

SEA 8.0IP 3ER (11th))

LAA 7.0IP 5ER (14th)

KC 7.0IP 1ER (12th)

MIN 5.1IP 7ER (9th)

TB 7.0IP 2ER (13th)

OAK 6.1IP 4ER (10th)

TOR 6.0IP 5ER

 

(Batting Rank in parentheses)

 

Besides for Detroit and Toronto, Jon has pitched the rest of his games vs the bottom of the AL in hitting, yet he still posts a 5.50 ERA vs those teams.

 

In his last 22 Games dating back to August 2005, he is 7-8, with a 5.10ERA, and 1.40 WHIP. He also gave up 29 HRs in those 22 starts.

 

He will get better but he will probably end the season with a 5.00+ ERA and a WHIP around 1.40.

Edited May 29, 2006 by RME JICO

[WCSox]

Garland's '05 numbers were a fluke in the sense that they're the high end of what he's capable of. He won't continue to be as bad as he has been this year, but I don't think he's ever going to do better than the 3.50 ERA/1.17 WHIP that he put up last season. He's just not consistent enough.

 

 

Garland is an innings eater and a good back of the rotation pitcher.

 

^^^

 

Unfortunately, $10 million/year is way too much for that kind of a pitcher.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

Unfortunately, $10 million/year is way too much for that kind of a pitcher.

 

I don't disagree.

[Dam8610]

It wasn't so much a contract year fluke as it was a ridiculously hot stretch at the beginning of 2005 for Garland. I doubt he goes 8-0 in any stretch of his career ever again.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Dam8610

[YASNY]

During Garland's first 3 years as a full time starter, he was a .500 pitcher. Since then he's 22-12 (that's last year and this year). He may not win at that percentage, but I'll bet he'll be better than .500 over the length of his contract. Three to four games a year better.

[SSH2005]

Wins are a team stat so it's almost pointless to judge Garland by that stat alone. Garland got his last win after giving up 5 earned runs in 6 innings -- not a good outing but the offense pretty much earned him the win.

Edited May 29, 2006 by SSH2005

[YASNY]

Wins are a team stat so it's almost pointless to judge by that stat alone. Garland got his last win after giving up 5 earned runs in 6 innings.

 

When you atlking percentage, you are talking wins and losses. A pitcher that totally sucks is not going to have a multiyear positive win percentage.

[SSH2005]

When you atlking percentage, you are talking wins and losses. A pitcher that totally sucks is not going to have a multiyear positive win percentage.

Shawn Estes

99-90 career record

4.71 career ERA

[Felix]

When you atlking percentage, you are talking wins and losses. A pitcher that totally sucks is not going to have a multiyear positive win percentage.

Jaret Wright: 57-50, 5.17 ERA, 1.56 WHIP

 

[YASNY]

Shawn Estes

99-90 career record

4.71 career ERA

 

I knew Estes was going to be brought up. There are exceptions to every rule.

[SSH2005]

Jaret Wright: 57-50, 5.17 ERA, 1.56 WHIP

 

That's a great one. The fact is that wins are a team stat. Judging a pitcher's talent by his record is not a good idea.

Edited May 29, 2006 by SSH2005

[YASNY]

That's a great one. The fact is that wins are a team stat. Judging a pitcher's talent by his record is not a good idea.

There no no hard and fast rules like you seem to advocate. Jack McDowell was type of pitcher that would pitch to the level of the competition and the game situation. He would win 1-0 games when needed and 5-4 games. The ability to win is damn important. In fact, it's really the only stat that matters. However, I also give a lot of credence to winning percentage in games started, regardless whether the starter wins the games or a reliver gets the W.

[SSH2005]

There no no hard and fast rules like you seem to advocate. Jack McDowell was type of pitcher that would pitch to the level of the competition and the game situation. He would win 1-0 games when needed and 5-4 games. The ability to win is damn important. In fact, it's really the only stat that matters. However, I also give a lot of credence to winning percentage in games started, regardless whether the starter wins the games or a reliver gets the W.

Why bother looking at a pitcher's record when there are much better metrics available?

 

ERA, WHIP, BAA, etc.

Edited May 29, 2006 by SSH2005

[YASNY]

Why bother looking at a pitcher's record when there are much better metrics available?

 

ERA, WHIP, etc.

 

Because .... Winning is what's most important. Period. If you dismiss win/loss percentage you are dismissing the difinitive stat. It's all about winning.