PDA

View Full Version : Garland BB/K


hold2dibber
01-26-2003, 12:28 AM
As good as Garland can look at times, his BB/K numbers throughout his 3 years in the majors are worrisome to me. He has walked 178 and struck out just 215 in 379.3 IP over his career thus far. Last year was his best in terms of K/BB ratio, but even last year he walked 83 while striking out only 112. That's terrible. The thing that is odd to me is, IIRC, when he was in the minors in '99 and '00, his BB/K ratio was absolutely astounding. He had impeccable control.

My question is, to what do you ascribe this apparent inability to throw strikes in the majors? Is it mental? Is he getting squeezed by the umps because he's young? Is he just hesitant to go after people? Can Cooper help? To me, Garland's ability to truly suceed as a major league pitcher is dependent upon his ability to cut down on the free passes and go after people. I'm just unsure whehter he's able to do that.

Bmr31
01-26-2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
As good as Garland can look at times, his BB/K numbers throughout his 3 years in the majors are worrisome to me. He has walked 178 and struck out just 215 in 379.3 IP over his career thus far. Last year was his best in terms of K/BB ratio, but even last year he walked 83 while striking out only 112. That's terrible. The thing that is odd to me is, IIRC, when he was in the minors in '99 and '00, his BB/K ratio was absolutely astounding. He had impeccable control.

My question is, to what do you ascribe this apparent inability to throw strikes in the majors? Is it mental? Is he getting squeezed by the umps because he's young? Is he just hesitant to go after people? Can Cooper help? To me, Garland's ability to truly suceed as a major league pitcher is dependent upon his ability to cut down on the free passes and go after people. I'm just unsure whehter he's able to do that.

confidence.

gogosoxgogo
01-26-2003, 12:52 AM
I absolutely agree with you, the key to Garland's sucess is cutting down on his walks. I don't think I'm as worried about his K's though - I'd rather have a pitcher with a lower ERA than more K's (*cough* Cub pitchers). And, like Bmr said, I think it's all about his confidence. He still doesn't have that mental aspect of the game which is so incredibly important to young pitchers. I think Coop will help with this, at least a hell of a lot more than Nardi did. Once Garland can focus and trust his stuff, he'll cut back on his BB's and be a very effective pitcher.

PANFIRECRACKER
01-26-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
As good as Garland can look at times, his BB/K numbers throughout his 3 years in the majors are worrisome to me. He has walked 178 and struck out just 215 in 379.3 IP over his career thus far. Last year was his best in terms of K/BB ratio, but even last year he walked 83 while striking out only 112. That's terrible. The thing that is odd to me is, IIRC, when he was in the minors in '99 and '00, his BB/K ratio was absolutely astounding. He had impeccable control.

My question is, to what do you ascribe this apparent inability to throw strikes in the majors? Is it mental? Is he getting squeezed by the umps because he's young? Is he just hesitant to go after people? Can Cooper help? To me, Garland's ability to truly suceed as a major league pitcher is dependent upon his ability to cut down on the free passes and go after people. I'm just unsure whehter he's able to do that.

alot of movement on his pitches + bad ball and strike calling results in more walks. longevity in the league should bring his k's up.

idseer
01-26-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I absolutely agree with you, the key to Garland's sucess is cutting down on his walks. I don't think I'm as worried about his K's though - I'd rather have a pitcher with a lower ERA than more K's (*cough* Cub pitchers). And, like Bmr said, I think it's all about his confidence. He still doesn't have that mental aspect of the game which is so incredibly important to young pitchers. I think Coop will help with this, at least a hell of a lot more than Nardi did. Once Garland can focus and trust his stuff, he'll cut back on his BB's and be a very effective pitcher.

OR ......... holy cow! maybe the cubs knew what they were doing when they traded him. :?:

Brian26
01-26-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
To me, Garland's ability to truly suceed as a major league pitcher is dependent upon his ability to cut down on the free passes and go after people.

Isn't that true of any pitcher, though? It seemed like the entire Sox pitching staff, except for Buehrle, got killed with BB's last year. Schilling had that amazing statistic last year for most of the season....more wins than walks. The Sox defense is decent enough to take care of things as long as the ball is put into play.

:hawk

"Tea-cup time, Wimpy!"

gogosoxgogo
01-26-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by idseer
OR ......... holy cow! maybe the cubs knew what they were doing when they traded him. :?:

For Matt Karchner? I think not.

MarkEdward
01-26-2003, 12:13 PM
I'm also worried about Garland and Wright's K rates. They must work on getting over 5 strikeouts a game. Pitchers with a lower rate don't last long in major league baseball.

jeremyb1
01-26-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
As good as Garland can look at times, his BB/K numbers throughout his 3 years in the majors are worrisome to me. He has walked 178 and struck out just 215 in 379.3 IP over his career thus far. Last year was his best in terms of K/BB ratio, but even last year he walked 83 while striking out only 112. That's terrible. The thing that is odd to me is, IIRC, when he was in the minors in '99 and '00, his BB/K ratio was absolutely astounding. He had impeccable control.

My question is, to what do you ascribe this apparent inability to throw strikes in the majors? Is it mental? Is he getting squeezed by the umps because he's young? Is he just hesitant to go after people? Can Cooper help? To me, Garland's ability to truly suceed as a major league pitcher is dependent upon his ability to cut down on the free passes and go after people. I'm just unsure whehter he's able to do that.

here's what i wrote in another thread

i think k/bb is a valuable tool, but i have my doubts about how well it can be applied to young major league pitchers. the problem with young major league pitchers is that their highly inconsistent. they basically need to work on pitching their best every time out. clearly in their poor outings (which may be half or more of their outings) they will have very poor k/bb ratios. however, as long as their k/bb ratios are good in their good starts i don't think its a very important stat for young pitchers.

k/bb is most useful when looking at a pitcher who consistently struggles or consistently pitches well. its useful to look at colon's rate and see if it suggests he deserved to pitch as well as he did last season or to look at eric milton's to see if his numbers suggest he's actually a better pitcher than his era suggested. however, the inconsistency of young major league pitchers doesn't lend itself well to k/bb in my opinion.

if you take garland's k/bb figures in the two months he was hammered its an ungodly 29 walks versus 26 strikeouts. however, if you take that figure over the other four months of the season in which his era was under 4 its 54 vs. 86 which isn't great but isn't terrible either. in the last two months it was a pretty solid 48 k's versus 28 bb's.

those figures still aren't great but their not terrible. obviously he could cut down on his walk. his figures were better after in the second half after he began to pitch more agressively. i think a lot of it is that he doesn't get the calls also and that maybe he's still not agressive enough. he's definately cut down though and hopefully he'll just continue to improve.

TornLabrum
01-26-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
here's what i wrote in another thread



those figures still aren't great but their not terrible. obviously he could cut down on his walk. his figures were better after in the second half after he began to pitch more agressively. i think a lot of it is that he doesn't get the calls also and that maybe he's still not agressive enough. he's definately cut down though and hopefully he'll just continue to improve.

As I mentioned in a recent column, both Garland and Wright seem to have improved since Don Cooper replaced Nardi. If Nardi was telling them not to nibble at the corners, it wasn't sinking in. It seems to be now with Cooper.

Randar68
01-26-2003, 02:52 PM
To a pitcher like Garland, there are much better indicators of his success.

Groundball:Flyball ratio and BB:IP are much better indicators of how productive and effective he will be.

He isn't a strikeout pitcher, plain and simple. However, when he is effective, he is getting 2:1 GB:FB's easy.

Using K:BB ratios because they work for gauging power pitchers' effectiveness means diddly when measuring a finess GB pitcher like Jon.

Joel Perez
01-26-2003, 03:16 PM
Ah, youth. :D:

Garland and Wright are going to be OK with

1) Experience, and
2) Repitition, which goes back to #1.

Plus, getting a catcher who can teach the young neophytes the little nuances of the game, and a full year with Coach Coop, who knows?

idseer
01-26-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
For Matt Karchner? I think not.

jon 22 - 27 4.65
matt 21 - 13 4.21

hmmmmm???

jeremyb1
01-26-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by idseer
jon 22 - 27 4.65
matt 21 - 13 4.21

hmmmmm???

haha. you must be joking. i've never seen a post that more blatantly disregards the obiouvs, important facts. karchner threw 60 and two thirds innings for the cubs. he had an era over five for the cubs. garland has already thrown nearly 400 innings for the sox, hes 23, and he won 12 games last season.

idseer
01-26-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
haha. you must be joking. i've never seen a post that more blatantly disregards the obiouvs, important facts. karchner threw 60 and two thirds innings for the cubs. he had an era over five for the cubs. garland has already thrown nearly 400 innings for the sox, hes 23, and he won 12 games last season.

i guess it IS obvious, isn't it? :smile:

Bmr31
01-26-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by idseer
jon 22 - 27 4.65
matt 21 - 13 4.21

hmmmmm???

okay here is my first real test. :) Dude, uh theres a thing called talent? Jon has a lot more of it.........wow...

Daver
01-26-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
okay here is my first real test. :) Dude, uh theres a thing called talent? Jon has a lot more of it.........wow...

OK let me get this straight,Jon Garland,23 year old pitcher who at 23 years old pitched close to 200 innings last year,versus Matt Karchner,who as far as I know is washing cars at a Delta Sonic at this point,what was the argument again?

idseer
01-26-2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by daver
OK let me get this straight,Jon Garland,23 year old pitcher who at 23 years old pitched close to 200 innings last year,versus Matt Karchner,who as far as I know is washing cars at a Delta Sonic at this point,what was the argument again?

i can't believe i have to explain this ... but, it was tongue in cheek!

re LAX!

Daver
01-26-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i can't believe i have to explain this ... but, it was tongue in cheek!

re LAX!

So was my reply.

I have a warped sense of humour.

Bmr31
01-26-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i can't believe i have to explain this ... but, it was tongue in cheek!

re LAX!

:?:

gogosoxgogo
01-27-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by idseer
jon 22 - 27 4.65
matt 21 - 13 4.21

hmmmmm???

Umm, your kidding right.

idseer
01-27-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Umm, your kidding right.

i guess you didn't read the whole thread.
my answer is yes ... and no.

yes i'm kidding in that i expect jon to be way more valuable than karchner.
no i'm not kidding in that looking strictly at lifetime totals ... matt has been relatively more successful.
if jon were to NOT improve as we expect he will, and in fact is a .500 pitcher or lower ... then that trade wasn't all that.

ever stop to be a devil's advocate on this point? the fact is jon has never had a winning season, has he? what if he never gets it together? i guess what i'm saying is that, until he actually fulfills his promise he's still just potential.
if he pitches for, say, 12 years and ends up with a losing lifetime record with a high 4's era, will you still think it was a great trade?
personally ... i won't. i suppose you could say he was more successful because he lasted longer, but if you last longer,but lose more than you win, ... is that really better?

RichH55
01-27-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by daver
So was my reply.

I have a warped sense of humour.

Gotta love the delta sonic mention though.....they do fine work :D:

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Umm, your kidding right.

He wasnt joking. He just realized how crazy his posts looked, and took it back.

kermittheefrog
01-27-2003, 01:39 AM
Okay heres the thing. Garland never did have good K/BB ratios in the minors. I mean in the minors they were decent, nothing alarmingly bad but nothing good either.

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Okay heres the thing. Garland never did have good K/BB ratios in the minors. I mean in the minors they were decent, nothing alarmingly bad but nothing good either.

You can get away with that in the minors. He needs to fix that in the majors or he is doomed.

jeremyb1
01-27-2003, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
You can get away with that in the minors. He needs to fix that in the majors or he is doomed.

i don't see a flaw in the logic that as a sinkerball pitcher garland's strength is in inducing ground balls. to reference another sinkerballer, derek lowe's k rate was about 1 per two innings, close to garlands.

in garland's best start against boston, he only struck out four in 8 ip. that's about what his k rate was on the season. despite the low k totals, that start was clearly one of the most dominating by a sox pitcher in recent memory. also, as far as i remember garland had thrown something like 70 pitches through 8 innings which is simply spectacular.

the walks are a different issue. obviously garland would be better off if he could cut down on them. however, as i noted elsewhere he did reduce his walks in the second half and it is possible even though it is difficult to succeed with high walk totals. wilson alvarez comes to mind as does russ ortiz.

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i don't see a flaw in the logic that as a sinkerball pitcher garland's strength is in inducing ground balls. to reference another sinkerballer, derek lowe's k rate was about 1 per two innings, close to garlands.

in garland's best start against boston, he only struck out four in 8 ip. that's about what his k rate was on the season. despite the low k totals, that start was clearly one of the most dominating by a sox pitcher in recent memory. also, as far as i remember garland had thrown something like 70 pitches through 8 innings which is simply spectacular.

the walks are a different issue. obviously garland would be better off if he could cut down on them. however, as i noted elsewhere he did reduce his walks in the second half and it is possible even though it is difficult to succeed with high walk totals. wilson alvarez comes to mind as does russ ortiz.

Yes, he needs to cut down his walks. I dont mind his lack of Ks....

idseer
01-27-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
He wasnt joking. He just realized how crazy his posts looked, and took it back.

i don't think i need you to explain my motives or meanings bmr.

i thought it was pretty clear what i was saying all along. and i think most folks here saw the post for what it was, even tho a few didn't. if you believe i actually think jon is a total bust and his career is at an end (as karchner's is) then you're not as bright as i thought you were.

gogosoxgogo
01-27-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by idseer
i guess you didn't read the whole thread.
my answer is yes ... and no.

yes i'm kidding in that i expect jon to be way more valuable than karchner.
no i'm not kidding in that looking strictly at lifetime totals ... matt has been relatively more successful.
if jon were to NOT improve as we expect he will, and in fact is a .500 pitcher or lower ... then that trade wasn't all that.

ever stop to be a devil's advocate on this point? the fact is jon has never had a winning season, has he? what if he never gets it together? i guess what i'm saying is that, until he actually fulfills his promise he's still just potential.
if he pitches for, say, 12 years and ends up with a losing lifetime record with a high 4's era, will you still think it was a great trade?
personally ... i won't. i suppose you could say he was more successful because he lasted longer, but if you last longer,but lose more than you win, ... is that really better?

Yes, actually I would still think of it as a good trade. What the hell is Karchner doing right now? Garland is still young, and his ERA is lower than 5.5 or whatever the hell Karchner's ERA was. We got much more out of the trade, because while Karchner is doing absolutely nothing, Garland is still competing for us. I can't believe you'd even dispute this.

idseer
01-27-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Yes, actually I would still think of it as a good trade. What the hell is Karchner doing right now? Garland is still young, and his ERA is lower than 5.5 or whatever the hell Karchner's ERA was. We got much more out of the trade, because while Karchner is doing absolutely nothing, Garland is still competing for us. I can't believe you'd even dispute this.

GEEZUS!

for the LAST time. i was K I D D I N G!

but at LEAST get your facts straight! karchners lifetime era was 4.21, and his lifetime won loss record was 21 and 13!

right now jon's era is 4.65 and w-l is 22 and 27.

you tell me ... which RECORD is better?

do you get the irony yet?

gogosoxgogo
01-27-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by idseer
GEEZUS!

for the LAST time. i was K I D D I N G!

but at LEAST get your facts straight! karchners lifetime era was 4.21, and his lifetime won loss record was 21 and 13!

right now jon's era is 4.65 and w-l is 22 and 27.

you tell me ... which RECORD is better?

do you get the irony yet?

If you're kidding, why do you continue to point out the goodness of Karchner, or what little there is of it. The major difference between these two is that Karchner is a reliever and Garland is a starter.

Iwritecode
01-27-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
If you're kidding, why do you continue to point out the goodness of Karchner, or what little there is of it. The major difference between these two is that Karchner is a reliever and Garland is a starter.

I think his point is that it's ironic that the little bit of time that Karchner was around he put up some really good stats and then left for good. Garland has been around longer but has yet to have a real breakout season and post above average numbers.

Just don't think about it too hard because I'm pretty sure he's not saying that he wishes we would never had made the trade.

It's kind of like comparing the Marlins to the Braves. Would you rather have one big year and win it all and then suck for years afterwards or win consistantly for years but never get the trophy? (although they did do it once)

:cool:

idseer
01-27-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
If you're kidding, why do you continue to point out the goodness of Karchner, or what little there is of it. The major difference between these two is that Karchner is a reliever and Garland is a starter.

IF i'm kidding??

you know, there's nothing like taking a lighthearted quip and having to dissect it to explain it to someone ... but i'll try.

here's the joke. everyone here has said at least a thousand times how this was one trade that we really made out on. boy, we stuck it to those cubbies.
the discussion up to that point had been about whether jon was going to cut down his walks and improve his k ratio. did he have it in him to do that.

my quip was "OR ......... holy cow! maybe the cubs knew what they were doing when they traded him. " for some strange reason you and bmr thought that was a serious comment and i've been trying to explain ever since that it was meant to be a joke. maybe my mistake was in not using the right color for my comment. as if that's some kind of rule ... "no jokes unless you use the proper color"!

you bit at the quip so i took it a step further and produced a little 'evidence' backing up the comment in the form of a little question (hmmm???) see, that was the irony i was talking about.

then jeremy said "you must be joking ... etc." to which i replied ... " i guess it IS obvious, isn't it? :smile:

yet even after all that, you and bmr still didn't get it. is this my fault? i think not.

the ONLY reason i "continue to point out the goodness of Karchner" was because you tried to suggest matt's stats were NOT better and i was correcting you.

does this answer your question?

idseer
01-27-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I think his point is that it's ironic that the little bit of time that Karchner was around he put up some really good stats and then left for good. Garland has been around longer but has yet to have a real breakout season and post above average numbers.

Just don't think about it too hard because I'm pretty sure he's not saying that he wishes we would never had made the trade.

It's kind of like comparing the Marlins to the Braves. Would you rather have one big year and win it all and then suck for years afterwards or win consistantly for years but never get the trophy? (although they did do it once)

:cool:

thank you for restoring my faith. :smile:

soxruleEP
01-27-2003, 12:47 PM
To step back from the beating idseer is taking:

Earlier in the thread, someone noted the gb/fb ratio is abetter way to look at Garland that BB/K. This is true--if you recall his two fine outings in August, he threw many doubleplay balls--I think seven in one game if I am recalling correctly.

The issue of reputation is also important. My season tickets are behind the plate and I can testify that the width of the plate is much greater if your name is Clemens than it is if your name is Garland.

As my dad (former pro catcher) always says, "Make the pticher throw it in a tea cup and he can't win."

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 01:58 PM
Ahhhhh the good ole days. :) Isdeer, i dont care if you were joking or not. All i did was say i didnt think you were joking. I still dont think you were, not totally. Sorry....

idseer
01-27-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Ahhhhh the good ole days. :) Isdeer, i dont care if you were joking or not. All i did was say i didnt think you were joking. I still dont think you were, not totally. Sorry....

that's ok bmr. i perfectly understand your reason for saying what you did. you still have a burr in your saddle from our last conversation over on the troll board.

Originally posted by Bmr31
okay here is my first real test.

i'd suggest you failed miserably.

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by idseer
that's ok bmr. i perfectly understand your reason for saying what you did. you still have a burr in your saddle from our last conversation over on the troll board.



i'd suggest you failed miserably.

What conversation?

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by idseer
that's ok bmr. i perfectly understand your reason for saying what you did. you still have a burr in your saddle from our last conversation over on the troll board.



i'd suggest you failed miserably.

Ya know guys, this is why i stayed away so long. I truly love this board but, i have to deal with this type of thing all the time....

idseer
01-27-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
What conversation?

lol ahhh mr innocent. :smile:
the conversation about your feelings on voodoo becoming a moderator ... as if you didn't recall.

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by idseer
lol ahhh mr innocent. :smile:
the conversation about your feelings on voodoo becoming a moderator ... as if you didn't recall.

Huh? No i dont remember that conversation. I never had a problem with voodoo. If anyone, daver and i always clashed. That stuff is all in the past, why do you feel the need to bring anything from the past back?

Daver
01-27-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Huh? No i dont remember that conversation. I never had a problem with voodoo. If anyone, daver and i always clashed. That stuff is all in the past, why do you feel the need to bring anything from the past back?

I was wondering the same thing.

voodoochile
01-27-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by idseer


lol ahhh mr innocent. :smile:
the conversation about your feelings on voodoo becoming a moderator ... as if you didn't recall.


Originally posted by Bmr31


Huh? No i dont remember that conversation. I never had a problem with voodoo. If anyone, daver and i always clashed. That stuff is all in the past, why do you feel the need to bring anything from the past back?


Originally posted by daver


I was wondering the same thing.


Me 3...

idseer
01-27-2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Me 3...


uhhhh cause he asked?

voodoochile
01-27-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by idseer
uhhhh cause he asked?

You got your facts mixed up. Never happened...

:D:

idseer
01-27-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You got your facts mixed up. Never happened...

:D:


Quote:
Originally posted by idseer
that's ok bmr. i perfectly understand your reason for saying what you did. you still have a burr in your saddle from our last conversation over on the troll board.

bmr's quote ..... "What conversation?"


unless i'm losing my mind .... it DID happen.

in addition ... if you read carefully, i never said bmr had a problem with you, voodoo, but he sure did a lot of crying over the matter for some reason. (was he championing someone else?) he was quite obnoxious about it. claiming eventually that it didn't matter at all and yet he brought up the topic and whined about it for 5 or 6 posts.

it doesn't matter now anyway. he remembers it, and i remember it.

Daver
01-27-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by idseer
Quote:
Originally posted by idseer
that's ok bmr. i perfectly understand your reason for saying what you did. you still have a burr in your saddle from our last conversation over on the troll board.

bmr's quote ..... "What conversation?"


unless i'm losing my mind .... it DID happen.

in addition ... if you read carefully, i never said bmr had a problem with you, voodoo, but he sure did a lot of crying over the matter for some reason. (was he championing someone else?) he was quite obnoxious about it. claiming eventually that it didn't matter at all and yet he brought up the topic and whined about it for 5 or 6 posts.

it doesn't matter now anyway. he remembers it, and i remember it.

You lost me.

If it happened an the troll board fine,but does it have any relevance here?

BMR and I have had our differences in the past,we will probably have differences in the future,that is the way things go,but to bring up points made outside these forums,that cannot be verified in fact,is to do him a disservice,base it on something that you can provide proof on.

idseer
01-27-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by daver
You lost me.

If it happened an the troll board fine,but does it have any relevance here?

BMR and I have had our differences in the past,we will probably have differences in the future,that is the way things go,but to bring up points made outside these forums,that cannot be verified in fact,is to do him a disservice,base it on something that you can provide proof on.

well here's the deal. bmr looks for opportunities to bust my chops, as witnessed in this thread. i don't think anyone else other than gogo misunderstood my initial post here.
and i brought up the other board, because he asked me what conversation i refered to, not to discuss it. in addition i didn't say anything disparaging about the post from the other board ... i just mentioned the topic. (that is until he denied it)

Daver
01-27-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by idseer
well here's the deal. bmr looks for opportunities to bust my chops, as witnessed in this thread. i don't think anyone else other than gogo misunderstood my initial post here.
and i brought up the other board, because he asked me what conversation i refered to, not to discuss it. in addition i didn't say anything disparaging about the post from the other board ... i just mentioned the topic. (that is until he denied it)

My point is using points made from other forums,that cannot be verified,makes the veracity of them moot here.I would suggest either dropping the discussion,or finding a new argument.

idseer
01-27-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by daver
My point is using points made from other forums,that cannot be verified,makes the veracity of them moot here.I would suggest either dropping the discussion,or finding a new argument.

ok. consider it dropped.

Bmr31
01-27-2003, 10:53 PM
I just want to point out that i am not longer interested in "fighting" with anyone, on this board. Yes i love to debate, but i will do it without attacking you personally. If you want to fight, or brawl, or whatever, i suggest you seek someone else. Isdeer, i barely recognize your screen name, bro. If you think i am out to get you, youre way off base.

hold2dibber
01-28-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by idseer
i guess you didn't read the whole thread.
my answer is yes ... and no.

yes i'm kidding in that i expect jon to be way more valuable than karchner.
no i'm not kidding in that looking strictly at lifetime totals ... matt has been relatively more successful.
if jon were to NOT improve as we expect he will, and in fact is a .500 pitcher or lower ... then that trade wasn't all that.

ever stop to be a devil's advocate on this point? the fact is jon has never had a winning season, has he? what if he never gets it together? i guess what i'm saying is that, until he actually fulfills his promise he's still just potential.
if he pitches for, say, 12 years and ends up with a losing lifetime record with a high 4's era, will you still think it was a great trade?
personally ... i won't. i suppose you could say he was more successful because he lasted longer, but if you last longer,but lose more than you win, ... is that really better?

Your analysis is flawed in that when reviewing a trade, you shouldn't look at career totals, you should look at the player's post-trade totals. I think you're comparing Karchner's career totals to Garland's career totals. But after the trade, Karcher was horrible. Garland has been better.

idseer
01-28-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Your analysis is flawed in that when reviewing a trade, you shouldn't look at career totals, you should look at the player's post-trade totals. I think you're comparing Karchner's career totals to Garland's career totals. But after the trade, Karcher was horrible. Garland has been better.

it wasn't really an analysis and i agree that logically it was silly.

but now i'm curious. matt had a pretty decent year in '97 then pitched about 96 more (crappy) innings then vanished. did he simply lose whatever he had? did her leave because of personal problems? does anyone know? he was about 33, so maybe he just decided he was getting too old and decided to move on.

hold2dibber
01-28-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by idseer
it wasn't really an analysis and i agree that logically it was silly.

but now i'm curious. matt had a pretty decent year in '97 then pitched about 96 more (crappy) innings then vanished. did he simply lose whatever he had? did her leave because of personal problems? does anyone know? he was about 33, so maybe he just decided he was getting too old and decided to move on.

IIRC, he just started getting lit up. He couldn't get guys out, but I don't ever remembering hearing it was in any way injury-related.