PDA

View Full Version : Danny Wright...


Kilroy
08-06-2001, 01:11 PM
This guy has to learn how to pitch. He's not ready to be here yet.
At this moment he's thrown 9 straight balls to start the game today. I said this the other day, he doesn't have command yet. The majors isn't the place to learn it, especially when the Sox claim they are still trying to get back in the playoff race...

doublem23
08-06-2001, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
especially when the Sox claim they are still trying to get back in the playoff race...

:KW
We're talking about the 2002 play-off race.

:reinsy
you dumbass

:KW
Wait, wait! I meant 2001! Ummmmm.... I, uh, don't know what year it is. (mumbled under breath) That will do.

:reinsy
dumbass.

Randar68
08-06-2001, 02:48 PM
At this moment he's thrown 9 straight balls to start the game today. I said this the other day, he doesn't have command yet.

41 BB's, 128 K's, in 134 IP at Birmingham. That's a better ratio that Buehrle has. He's been nervous and the umps don't know him yet.....2 starts, give him a mother loving break!!!!!

I think you'll be glad next year that he got his seasoning, ala Buehrle and Barcelo, at the end of this year......

relax, and take a couple of these....


:prozac

doublem23
08-06-2001, 03:09 PM
Here's how they compaired at AA Birmingham:

MARK BUEHRLE - 2000
118.2 IP, 17 BB, 68 K meaning Mark walked someone just about every 7 innings (6.9803 IP/1 BB). That's good. He also struck out someone a little less than once every inning and a half (1.7451 IP/1 K).

DANNY WRIGHT - 2001
134 IP, 41 BB, 134 K meaning Danny walked someone every 3.2683 IP. He struck someone out every inning (134/134 DUH!!!)

So, the stats say that Buehrle has better control, and that Wright has more velocity. I don't know. I've never seen Wright pitch, and the limited time I have seen Buerhle, he has looked good to dominating.

Kilroy
08-06-2001, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


41 BB's, 128 K's, in 134 IP at Birmingham. That's a better ratio that Buehrle has. He's been nervous and the umps don't know him yet.....2 starts, give him a mother loving break!!!!!

I think you'll be glad next year that he got his seasoning, ala Buehrle and Barcelo, at the end of this year......

relax, and take a couple of these....


:prozac

First of all, this ain't Birmingham. Second, it's the way he's throwing, not necessarily the result. That means that he's trying to will the ball where he wants it instead of throwing it there. He needs to be over that at this level.

Of course, as I've bad-mouthed him, he's got a __-______ going.
I will take full credit for inspiring him with criticism.

Randar68
08-06-2001, 03:12 PM
So, the stats say that Buehrle has better control, and that Wright has more velocity. I don't know. I've never seen Wright pitch, and the limited time I have seen Buerhle, he has looked good to dominating

I was simply generalizing the comparison based on Buehrle's numbers this year, which is just under 3-1 K-BB ratio, eerily similar to Wright...


Wright has better stuff and control than either Wells or Garland did/does coming into the majors....

doublem23
08-06-2001, 03:21 PM
I don't know about Garland. Granted, I never saw him in Charlotte, but I've heard he has some wicked command.

Kilroy
08-06-2001, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


I was simply generalizing the comparison based on Buehrle's numbers this year, which is just under 3-1 K-BB ratio, eerily similar to Wright...


Wright has better stuff and control than either Wells or Garland did/does coming into the majors....

I'm not arguing that at all. But there's more to pitching than having great stuff. Of course, the guy went out and made a chump outta me today. That's great. But the general look of him is that he's struggling in the zone. And 7 walks would seem to agree. And don't forget, that IS Tampa Bay out there...

Randar68
08-06-2001, 03:41 PM
I'm not arguing that at all. But there's more to pitching than having great stuff. Of course, the guy went out and made a chump outta me today. That's great. But the general look of him is that he's struggling in the zone. And 7 walks would seem to agree. And don't forget, that IS Tampa Bay out there...

I can't argue with that, however, it's a different game here, and it was obvious he had nothing to learn by staying at AA when there was a need for him here. Would you rather he take a few lumps now, or next year, when we are again at the top????

Honestly, he needs to be in there now. Being a little jittery and a little wild, pressing in your first couple starts, now that is very common and will go away once he settles in and gets to know the umps and the zone in the Show....



I don't know about Garland. Granted, I never saw him in Charlotte, but I've heard he has some wicked command

*****!!!!

Garland is a ground ball pitcher, and has never had the best control. Not overly wild, but not exactly pinpoint or hitting his spots all the time.....

BTW, putting Wright in Charlotte is the wrong move. Hard thrower with a curve ball and you stick him in a bandbox stadium??? no way.......

doublem23
08-06-2001, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Garland is a ground ball pitcher, and has never had the best control. Not overly wild, but not exactly pinpoint or hitting his spots all the time.....

Yeah, at the bigs, he's never had dominating control like Buehrle, but AAA is a different mindset than the Majors. I'll take your word for it.

Bucktown
08-06-2001, 04:08 PM
Buehrle = 1 hit
Wright = 1 hit

I say we keep them both. I love it when domeone dogs a player only to have to eat their words by the end of the day.

FarWestChicago
08-06-2001, 04:14 PM
I say we keep them both. I love it when domeone dogs a player only to have to eat their words by the end of the day.

That's always good for a chuckle.

Joel Perez
08-06-2001, 04:23 PM
I said "Hey sugar...take a walk on the wild side..."

Yeah, he's wild. But he did win. For his 2nd start, it's good enough for me.

Randar68
08-06-2001, 04:24 PM
Yeah, at the bigs, he's never had dominating control like Buehrle, but AAA is a different mindset than the Majors. I'll take your word for it.

Garland's #'s since joining the Sox:

1999 (Between A and AA):
57 BB, 111 SO, 158 IP
2000(between Chicago and Charlotte)
104 IP 32 BB, 63 SO
69.2 IP 40BB, 42 SO
2001(Between Chicago and Charlotte)
33.0 IP 11 BB 26 SO
68.0 IP 30 BB 33 SO

Career Minor League(with Sox): 295 IP 100 BB 200 SO
Career Major League: 137.2 IP 70 BB 75 SO
Career(with Sox): 332.2 IP 170 BB 275 SO

None of those are all that great a set of numbers for a 'future ace'......

Bmr31
08-06-2001, 05:23 PM
Randar what the hell do numbers mean for a 22 year old. All you can go by right now is stuff and potential and garland has a lot of both.

Randar68
08-07-2001, 08:35 AM
Randar what the hell do numbers mean for a 22 year old. All you can go by right now is stuff and potential and garland has a lot of both

Please bmr, he's not an 18 year-old fresh out of HS pitcher anymore. It is time for him to start proving himself. He's had more than 500 career innings pitched as a professional.

By the way.... JON GARLAND IS 21!!!! You seem to know so much about him, yet you bandy about with the wrong age.... BLA!

He has looked good as a reliever, and it's time in his career he starts proving himself as a starter. He does have the stuff, and he has the amount of experience you would think it would take for him to learn how to utilize it.

I'm getting a tad bit impatient with his control problems.....he still doesn't have any idea how to 'pitch'

Joel Perez
08-07-2001, 12:36 PM
What I like about Garland's game on Sunday was that in the 4th and 5th inning, it only took 9 pitches in both innings to get 3 outs. That was beautiful.

However, in the 5th, he had 11 pitches--not bad. In the 6th, he had 20. UGH.

He seems to labor and think too much when there are two runners on base, as was the case in the first inning on Greg Vaughn's 3-run jack. But with a runner on 2nd, he helped induce 4 double plays--could've been 5 if Jeff Liefer would've brought his glove at 3B in the 6th inning.

If he gives up hits, but can get the double plays going, that tells me he's learning how to pitch. Control will come--he was better from the 2nd inning towards the 6th.

I love his stuff though. He has the cheese, slider, and change to keep hitters off stride. I believe he has the curve as well. Not a bad arsenal for a 21 year old.

And can we believe that we stole him from the Scrubs?!?!? Write this down--This will be our "Sammy Sosa" trade--we stole a player from the North Side. We will extract our revenge soon!!!

:jon What, me worry? Just gimme the damn ball!

FarWestChicago
08-07-2001, 12:41 PM
I love his stuff though. He has the cheese, slider, and change to keep hitters off stride. I believe he has the curve as well. Not a bad arsenal for a 21 year old.

He's definitely improving. He was terrible last year and now he's pretty good. I know there are people frustrated that he's not better than Pedro already, but I think he'll end up being a decent pitcher.

Randar68
08-07-2001, 12:48 PM
He's definitely improving. He was terrible last year and now he's pretty good. I know there are people frustrated that he's not better than Pedro already, but I think he'll end up being a decent pitcher.

Hey, he's always had the potential. However, the ability to throw strikes and learn how to be mentally strong and prepared are 2 entirely different things.

Garland has the first, but still looks like an overwhelmed kid when it comes to the second.

I hope he is able to put it all together........


BTW, double plays are a fickle commodity....
1) it was the D-Rays
2) With our infield defense, how much are you going to actually count on them
3) many DP's are just a couple feet away from hits and rbi's

you flirt with disaster by putting guys on, and you will be bitten by it more times than not.....

Joel Perez
08-07-2001, 12:59 PM
Tell that to:

Tom Glavine
Greg Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Roger Clemens
Kaz Suzuki (when he's closing a game with one out and runners on base)
Keith Foulke
and any other all star.

Yes, those double plays were against Tampa, but a DP is a DP is a DP....it's a pitchers best friend.

Mathew
08-07-2001, 01:15 PM
It seems more fickle to fault someone for pitching into a double play. It's baffling why we fault Garland for giving up 10 hits or that DP's are almost RBI's. So are strike outs. 1inch up or down makes it a home run. Let's congradulate he on a game well pitched and a win. nuff said.

Randar68
08-07-2001, 01:45 PM
Yes, those double plays were against Tampa, but a DP is a DP is a DP....it's a pitchers best friend

Are you kidding??? Have you ever played baseball??? Yes, they are a pitcher's best friend, but anything can and does happen when the ball is put in play. How many times out of 100 is a guy going to get 4 DP's when he gives up 10 hits??? Maybe not even 1. Any time the ball is being put into play w/ runners on base, there is a very minimal chance that a DP is going to be turned...hits, FC's, flyouts, etc. It is something that is nice, but can't be counted on a regular basis to get out of jams...

My point was, if you constantly put guys on base, you are going to be bitten in the arse by it more times than not. Garland made timely pitches and got timely DP's, how often is that going to happen????

It seems more fickle to fault someone for pitching into a double play
What in the world are you talking about. Garland will not get anywhere close to 4 DP's per game, maybe not even 2, and putting that many runners on, as he does by pitching behind in the count, will kill you.....

Let's congradulate he on a game well pitched and a win
The results were great, but to say it was a good-great performance is truly only looking at the results....he put 12 runners on base not including the error......that will kill you more times than not....he got the bounces....THIS TIME!!!!!!




I can't believe I have to explain to you that putting better than 1.7 runners on base per inning as a starter is going to kill you ALMOST every time.....

are you dense????

Paulwny
08-07-2001, 01:50 PM
!2 runners on base to a GOOD team and Garland is eaten alive.

Randar68
08-07-2001, 01:54 PM
!2 runners on base to a GOOD team and Garland is eaten alive.

THANK GOD!!! SOMEONE WITH AN OPEN MIND!!!

Garland as a starter 4.81 ERA and 1.72 WHIP = DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!

He has a ton of talent and is still young, but I will admit it when he does it, none of this BS treatment like he is a demi-god

Bmr31
08-07-2001, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


THANK GOD!!! SOMEONE WITH AN OPEN MIND!!!

Garland as a starter 4.81 ERA and 1.72 WHIP = DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!

He has a ton of talent and is still young, but I will admit it when he does it, none of this BS treatment like he is a demi-god


CAN someone explain to me what the hell one game, good or bad,has to do with a 22 year old pitchers potential? Has it occured to you that all 22 year old pitchers are going to allow baserunners and make mistakes? Is Buehrle having a solid season? yes, but youre high if you think he will continue to do this, without a down season or two. THEYRE YOUNG!!! randar, for a guy who claims to know baseball and calls other people names, you of all people should know this. MAYBE youre just too ****ing stubborn to admit youre wrong or know very little about the game?

delben91
08-07-2001, 02:16 PM
Yikes, maybe next time I miss the game on tv, I shouldn't ask how the pitcher looked. I had no idea I'd start WWIII. Please, FWC, don't revoke my membership, I'll clean up the blood stains on the board, I promise!!

delben91
08-07-2001, 02:18 PM
....this isn't my "Garland?" thread, but it's the same topic...my bad

Bmr31
08-07-2001, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by delben91
Yikes, maybe next time I miss the game on tv, I shouldn't ask how the pitcher looked. I had no idea I'd start WWIII. Please, FWC, don't revoke my membership, I'll clean up the blood stains on the board, I promise!!

lol yeah randar gets a little wound up when he knows hes wrong...

Mathew
08-07-2001, 02:33 PM
Although I think my original point was that it is mute to argue that a pitcher was bad in a game he won easily. However I have been reduced to argueing this due to my being called dense. I have in fact played the game and therefore know that any pitch that results in the turning of a double play was a good one. Jon made many good pitches, enough to have pitched a 7inning 2 run Victory. In the first post I made I felt that 7inning 2 runs is good, 10 hits can hurt you but since they didn't, I think he pitched well. To say that 4 DP's is rare is true. But to force 4 DP's is well done. 20 strikeouts is rare, but when a pitcher pitches 20 he has done well. I don't think that pitcher will rely on striking out twenty and I don't think Jon relies on 4 DP's, but he made good pitches to get them and therefore pitched well. If he does not get the outs you can say he pitched badly, but he didn't some of the hit were good pitches and the Dp's were very good pitches. I have pretty much been indiferent to Jon's potential and current ability, but I don't think I deserve to be slandered for believing that a pitcher pitched well in ONE 5-2 victory.

Randar68
08-07-2001, 02:50 PM
CAN someone explain to me what the hell one game, good or bad,has to do with a 22 year old pitchers potential? Has it occured to you that all 22 year old pitchers are going to allow baserunners and make mistakes? Is Buehrle having a solid season? yes, but youre high if you think he will continue to do this, without a down season or two. THEYRE YOUNG!!! randar, for a guy who claims to know baseball and calls other people names, you of all people should know this. MAYBE youre just too ****ing stubborn to admit youre wrong or know very little about the game?

So, are you still going around using the wrong age, bmr???? What am I wrong about??? Please, point me to the err in my ways....


I know I will be waiting for a long time for this, because you won't be able to find anything.

It's really quite funny, because the quote of mine you used, contained season stats as a starter, 7 games, in all, where Garland has failed to do much impressive....yet, I am focusing on one game????


Pulease, stop wasting everybody's time, bmr, you're as full of crap as ever....


lol yeah randar gets a little wound up when he knows hes wrong...

I was wondering how long it would take you to insult me, after ridiculing me for the same thing in a lesser manner.....

I now Proclaim the old BMR as having returned!!!! There shall be great feasts and games to celebrate......


bla!

Bmr31
08-07-2001, 02:54 PM
calm down and take a valium dude. youre going to die of a heart attack. First of all Garland is 21, but he turns 22 very shortly. In reponse to your "Season stats" post, you were responding to ONE GAME. Garland has great potential. WHat youre "wrong" about, is your expectations are way way too high for a 21-22 year old pitcher, and you know it. I think you just like to hear yourself talk. Low self esteem i guess.

Randar68
08-07-2001, 02:58 PM
Although I think my original point was that it is mute to argue that a pitcher was bad in a game he won easily. However I have been reduced to argueing this due to my being called dense. I have in fact played the game and therefore know that any pitch that results in the turning of a double play was a good one. Jon made many good pitches, enough to have pitched a 7inning 2 run Victory. In the first post I made I felt that 7inning 2 runs is good, 10 hits can hurt you but since they didn't, I think he pitched well. To say that 4 DP's is rare is true. But to force 4 DP's is well done. 20 strikeouts is rare, but when a pitcher pitches 20 he has done well. I don't think that pitcher will rely on striking out twenty and I don't think Jon relies on 4 DP's, but he made good pitches to get them and therefore pitched well. If he does not get the outs you can say he pitched badly, but he didn't some of the hit were good pitches and the Dp's were very good pitches. I have pretty much been indiferent to Jon's potential and current ability, but I don't think I deserve to be slandered for believing that a pitcher pitched well in ONE 5-2 victory.


Who are you talking about? Garland pitched 7 IP, 4 R, 3 ER, 10 H, and 2 BB's in the game we last to Tampa Bay 6-4, and he did not factor into the decision.....Are you talking about Wright????

My point was that just because the results weren't horrendous, does not mean that they were great, that is way too black-and-white.

1) More often than not, allowing 10 hits will not win many games
2) More often than not, a 1.7+ WHIP as a starter will not win you many games
3) More often than not, 4 DP's is more a measure of a combination of making good pitches and good fortune, something that cannot be relied upon consistently...


You are insisting that Garland pitched a good game in a game where he gave up 12 runners + 1 by error in 7 innings in a game the Sox lost.

No hard feelings, I feel like I am p!ssing into the wind trying to explain my point of view to you...

Agree or not, the stats support my arguement(dangerous statement hehehehe)....

Randar68
08-07-2001, 03:04 PM
calm down and take a valium dude. youre going to die of a heart attack. First of all Garland is 21, but he turns 22 very shortly. In reponse to your "Season stats" post, you were responding to ONE GAME.

*****!!! Cover your arse in whatever way you want....I was arguing that it was not a good start. That arguement never included statements which you are insinuating such as, Garland will never have a good start, Garland has no talent, Garland is terrible.

You can find many quotes on this board where I have said I think he is very talented and very young, and thus should be given many opportunities. However, giving up 4 R, 10 H, and 2 BB to the Devil Rays is NOT a good start...period...that is what I am arguing...

Can you, almighty and insightful bmr, make a case that it was a good start???? That's what I though. Not that you'd be interested in anything but attack people anyways.....



Garland has great potential. WHat youre "wrong" about, is your expectations are way way too high for a 21-22 year old pitcher, and you know it. I think you just like to hear yourself talk. Low self esteem i guess

My expectations are the same for him as for any other pitcher. After over 500 IP in professional baseball, I expect him to show signs of turning the corner AS A STARTER. He has looked very good in relief, but that is not what he is here for. He has consistently shown he doesn't have the mental game figured out yet.

My expectations are my opinion, but that's nothing new for you, is it???

delben91
08-07-2001, 03:06 PM
Agree or not, the stats support my arguement(dangerous statement hehehehe)....

LOL, yeah, you're playing with fire when you say that. While I'm here, I'm going to give my take on Jon, might as well get into the cross-fire. Anyway, I'm of the opinion that Garland has the potential to be a good starting pitcher. Great, maybe, who knows, but for now, I'm happy with 7IP 3ER, especially after what he was doing last season and prior to his bullpen stint earlier this year. He seems to be consistently improving, gradually, true, but consistently, and in a season that's all but over, in my opinion, we might as well give Jon the innings and let him get better. Maybe he'll turn into a slightly less dominant, righthanded version of Buerhle, which is still pretty good, 3 or 4 man in a rotation. Just my opinion.

Randar68
08-07-2001, 03:12 PM
He seems to be consistently improving, gradually, true, but consistently, and in a season that's all but over, in my opinion, we might as well give Jon the innings and let him get better. Maybe he'll turn into a slightly less dominant, righthanded version of Buerhle, which is still pretty good, 3 or 4 man in a rotation. Just my opinion.

I agree with you about giving him time. While his ERA has improved, his K:BB ratio and WHIP haven't. He's pitching out of a few more jams, and that has made the biggest difference in the numbers, whether it be from making good pitches, or just good fortune....

He needs the experience, but he doesn't have as many pitches or as good of control as Buehrle and is equally underwhelming as far as heat.

I hope he does well and improves, but I haven't seen the substantive signs of it yet, again, just my observations....

delben91
08-07-2001, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
He's pitching out of a few more jams, and that has made the biggest difference in the numbers, whether it be from making good pitches, or just good fortune....


Hey, so long as he gets out of them, that's all that matters to me. If it's good pitches that get him out, great, if it's good fortune, hey, I'll take that too....I mean, it's not as if young pitchers couldn't use all the confidence boosts they can get. Sure I'd love to see him mowing down guys and sawing off their bats, but he's better than he was a few months ago, and that's good enough to show me he at least has the potential to progress. And I too will take any confidence boosts I can get

:)

Mathew
08-07-2001, 05:10 PM
A pitcher who's E.R.A. is dropping as a result of pitching his way out of more jams appears to be one that is improving. I considered it a good start because he pitched out of the jams, you feel it was a bad start because the numbers weren't good.
You feel he got lucky, I thought he threw well when called upon. Neither of us will budge on that I'm sure. Perhaps we do agree that he is still not there and if he wants to start on a contender he needs to be.