PDA

View Full Version : Rauch at Charlotte


hold2dibber
04-10-2003, 05:11 PM
I apologize if someone else already posted this, but in his first start at Charlotte, Rauch went 6 innings, gave up 1 run (earned - 1.50 ERA), 5 hits, 0 BBs and 4 Ks.

TheBigHurt
04-10-2003, 05:17 PM
TOO much pitching is always a good thing!!!!

Iguana775
04-10-2003, 06:53 PM
great to see he is doing well.

duke of dorwood
04-10-2003, 07:30 PM
He needs to get sound and when he ever comes back, it must be to start

MHOUSE
04-10-2003, 08:25 PM
He needs to post stellar and CONSISTENT numbers at AAA to get my vote for a call-up. He was obviously not ready/healthy last year to be up so I would like to see him take his time down there. But keep doing well John!

SoxxoS
04-10-2003, 08:32 PM
Give Rauch to the end of May, and evaluate him then. He needs to put up consistant numbers, and get his confidence back. Hopefully Loiaza, Stewart can hold the 4 and 5 spots down until Wright is ready. We might not even need Rauch this year if Stewart continues pitching like he has since the fall league.

WinningUgly!
04-11-2003, 12:16 AM
I still think Jon Rauch will make a fairly big contribution to the team this season.

Stoky44
04-11-2003, 09:05 AM
I hope they keep down Jon for a while. I would want to see him put up really good numbers, and for a good amount of time (not just 4 or 5 games) before they move him up. I think last year we threw him back in the Majors a little too early. Some guys don't need to be nurtured in the minors, but I think Jon is not that kind of guy. I think it would be good to see Jon dominate the minors for a while, then bring him up. Then he'll have good confidence and it won't take so many games on the big league level to brake him in. Look at Joe Crede, when they finally brought him up he pretty much was an instant impact to the team.

DrCrawdad
04-13-2003, 11:58 PM
On the farm, Part II

Charlotte's best pitcher has been Jon Rauch. The 24-year-old right-hander has rebounded from a horrid spring to give up just 10 hits and two runs over 12 innings. He has struck out nine batters and walked one.

The hits per innings pitched seems a little high but I love the SO and runs. I hope big Jon does great things for the Sox.

SoxxoS
04-14-2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
The hits per innings pitched seems a little high but I love the SO and runs. I hope big Jon does great things for the Sox.

Dr-His WHIP with those numbers above would be under 1.00 which would be outstanding.

kermittheefrog
04-14-2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
The hits per innings pitched seems a little high but I love the SO and runs. I hope big Jon does great things for the Sox.

I wouldn't worry about the hits unless they are greater than the number of innings pitched. Plus hit rates depend on the defense much more than the pitcher.

jeremyb1
04-14-2003, 02:18 AM
its certainly nice to feel like we have too much pitching with wright on the comeback trail and rauch pitching well. i think its becoming clear that stewarts days are most likely numbered.

bc2k
04-14-2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
its certainly nice to feel like we have too much pitching with wright on the comeback trail and rauch pitching well. i think its becoming clear that stewarts days are most likely numbered.

jeremy, you spelled his name wrong. Garland is spelled, G.A.R.L.A.N.D, not S.T.E.W.A.R.T, silly goose. :o:

doublem23
04-14-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
jeremy, you spelled his name wrong. Garland is spelled, G.A.R.L.A.N.D, not S.T.E.W.A.R.T, silly goose. :o:

LOL.... Stewart's pitched one MLB outing (against the Tigers)... All we know right now is Mark is #1, Bartolo is #2, Danny's on the way back, and we could use Rauch if he's ready to live up to his potential.

I don't think Garland can get sent to AAA, so Stewart is stuck behind him unless he become Mark Buehrle #2 (which, I wouldn't mind happening).

DrCrawdad
04-14-2003, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I wouldn't worry about the hits unless they are greater than the number of innings pitched. Plus hit rates depend on the defense much more than the pitcher.

Thanks for the information. As a Sox fan I always expect the worst, unfortunately too many times that is what turns out to be the case.

It would be a fantastic case scenario IF Rauch, Wright, Stewart & Garland were all doing well and battling for spots on the Sox staff.

MHOUSE
04-14-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
It would be a fantastic case scenario IF Rauch, Wright, Stewart & Garland were all doing well and battling for spots on the Sox staff.

Don't forget the kittie killer Esteban Loaiza! But maybe you were thinking more long-term.

TheBigHurt
04-14-2003, 10:06 AM
NICE to finally see all our young pitchers doing well :) :gulp:

BE GOOD

MHOUSE
04-14-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by TheBigHurt
NICE to finally see all our young pitchers doing well

Yes it is. Hopefully they can stay healthy as well.... So far so good!

duke of dorwood
04-14-2003, 06:48 PM
I think you can pencil Rauch in next year already-right in #3 spot-potential for big turnover in the staff looms

MHOUSE
04-14-2003, 06:52 PM
Haven't we learned that pencilling youngsters into the rotation hasn't bode well in the past.....

jeremyb1
04-14-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
jeremy, you spelled his name wrong. Garland is spelled, G.A.R.L.A.N.D, not S.T.E.W.A.R.T, silly goose. :o:

what are you basing that on? one good start against the tigers? that's so laughable. what has stewart done that makes you think he's better than garland? garland was better than stewart at every level and was about 3 or 4 years younger than stewart of every level in the minors. garland is in his fourth year in which he's spent time in the majors and he's still younger than stewart!!

voodoochile
04-14-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
what are you basing that on? one good start against the tigers? that's so laughable. what has stewart done that makes you think he's better than garland? garland was better than stewart at every level and was about 3 or 4 years younger than stewart of every level in the minors. garland is in his fourth year in which he's spent time in the majors and he's still younger than stewart!!

I'm guessing he will remain younger than Stewart for the foreseeable future, but I've been wrong before... :)

bc2k
04-14-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
what are you basing that on? one good start against the tigers? that's so laughable. what has stewart done that makes you think he's better than garland? garland was better than stewart at every level and was about 3 or 4 years younger than stewart of every level in the minors. garland is in his fourth year in which he's spent time in the majors and he's still younger than stewart!!

I think we're hiding behind this age thing when discussing Garland. Garland was promoted to the major leagues becuase his coaches thought he was good enough to win at that level. Whether his first call-up was at age 20 or 30, if he hasn't improved in three years while on the upside of his career, you must start wondering if he ever will.

MHOUSE
04-14-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Whether his first call-up was at age 20 or 30, if he hasn't improved in three years while on the upside of his career, you must start wondering if he ever will.

Thank You! I am so sick of the "Garland is young" excuse. At what age limit does he become just another starting pitcher who isn't proving himself? I mean he's been in the bigs longer than plenty of guys older than him and he hasn't changed. I think he's riding out his hype and "young" tag for as long as he can, or so it seems.

Daver
04-14-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Thank You! I am so sick of the "Garland is young" excuse. At what age limit does he become just another starting pitcher who isn't proving himself? I mean he's been in the bigs longer than plenty of guys older than him and he hasn't changed. I think he's riding out his hype and "young" tag for as long as he can, or so it seems.


He won fourteen games last year.

Iguana775
04-14-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by daver
He won fourteen games last year.

And he did pitch very well at the end of the year.

joecrede
04-14-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I think we're hiding behind this age thing when discussing Garland. Garland was promoted to the major leagues becuase his coaches thought he was good enough to win at that level. Whether his first call-up was at age 20 or 30, if he hasn't improved in three years while on the upside of his career, you must start wondering if he ever will.

What are your expectations (W, L, ERA) for a third starter on a contending team?

jeremyb1
04-15-2003, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Thank You! I am so sick of the "Garland is young" excuse. At what age limit does he become just another starting pitcher who isn't proving himself? I mean he's been in the bigs longer than plenty of guys older than him and he hasn't changed. I think he's riding out his hype and "young" tag for as long as he can, or so it seems.

age is important because it measures natural ability. the fact that garland was more successful against hitters in aaa when he was 20 than stewart was against college hitters at the same age speaks to garlands ability and potential. does that assure that garland will be a successful starter or a better one than stewart in his career? no, not necessarily. however, it doesn't indicate that he has a higher ceiling and a better chance to turn into a dominant pitcher than stewart does.

even if one were to disregard the above argument, i think your argument is still incredibly flawed. your argument is based entirely on the assumption that garland is a below average major league pitcher and that he is preventing this team from winning games. that's ridiculous in my opinion especially when you consider that since these concerns weren't brought up before the season, apparently your recent concerns are based entirely on two starts!

garland won 14 games last season and he had a better than league average era for a starter all while throwing nearly 200 innings. why you think he is hurting the team and needs to be removed from the rotation is beyond me. his body of work is certainly more impressive and suggests he will have more success this season than wright, loaiza, or stewart. i think he deserves the benefit of the doubt that two starts out of 30+ aren't necessarily how his entire season will look.

bc2k
04-15-2003, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by joecrede


What are your expectations (W, L, ERA) for a third starter on a contending team?

My opinion of Jon Garland was not formed based on the league averages of American League #3 starters.


Originally posted by jeremyb1


age is important because it measures natural ability. the fact that garland was more successful against hitters in aaa when he was 20 than stewart was against college hitters at the same age speaks to garlands ability and potential.

I agree. But after three years of falling extremely short of that high ceiling (Ace of the staff, Kevin Brown), with only moderate improvement, you have to wonder whether, A) His potential was misjudged or B) He will never harness it.

Originally posted by jeremyb1
does that assure that garland will be a successful starter or a better one than stewart in his career? no, not necessarily. however, it doesn't indicate that he has a higher ceiling and a better chance to turn into a dominant pitcher than stewart does.

Agreed.

Originally posted by jeremyb1
even if one were to disregard the above argument, i think your argument is still incredibly flawed. your argument is based entirely on the assumption that garland is a below average major league pitcher and that he is preventing this team from winning games. that's ridiculous in my opinion especially when you consider that since these concerns weren't brought up before the season, apparently your recent concerns are based entirely on two starts!

jeremy, please don't misinterpret my argument, put words in my mouth, and then called it flawed. Your interpretation of my argument is the only thing flawed.

I never said Garland is a below average major league pitcher, simply because I have no idea what the average pitcher is. I also never said he prevents this team from winning games, only that IMHO, he doesn't give the White Sox the best chance at winning.

You bring up a good point about the timing of my criticism of JGar. One might say if I didn't criticize him before the season, I have no grounds to rip him after only 2 starts. I guess I fell into that hype trap, where I believed that this is the year where Garland really "turns the corner" and reaches that ceiling. But throughout Spring Training and his 2 regular season starts, I have seen no such progress, not even a turn signal preceding the big turn of the corner.

Another point I would like to make is that while I was impressed with the way Garland finished 2002, even at that time I was higher on Dan Wright. So it's not like football where the starting QB falls out of favor after 3 weeks and everybody is calling for the backup to replace him.

Originally posted by jeremyb1
garland won 14 games last season and he had a better than league average era for a starter all while throwing nearly 200 innings. why you think he is hurting the team and needs to be removed from the rotation is beyond me. his body of work is certainly more impressive and suggests he will have more success this season than wright, loaiza, or stewart. i think he deserves the benefit of the doubt that two starts out of 30+ aren't necessarily how his entire season will look.

Again, it's not so much that I think Garland is hurting this team as I think he's not the pitcher to most help this team. I certainly wouldn't say he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but definately prefer him over an injured Dan Wright. I think it's fair to tell Garland that his time as a starter is limited and if he doesn't improve over the next 5 starts, his job will be Dan Wright's.

It's time to take off the kid gloves and use them to pimp-slap some sense into this kid.

jeremyb1
04-15-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
My opinion of Jon Garland was not formed based on the league averages of American League #3 starters.

well what is acceptable criteria for being able to stay in a major league rotation then? you weren't suggesting that garland should pitch better or that he could be a number three starter, right? your suggestion was that he should be removed from the rotation meaning you dont' think he's our fifth best starter.

Originally posted by bc2k
I agree. But after three years of falling extremely short of that high ceiling (Ace of the staff, Kevin Brown), with only moderate improvement, you have to wonder whether, A) His potential was misjudged or B) He will never harness it.

to say garland has had three years is rather misleading in my opinion. he's started only 64 games in his career which is less than two full seasons in as starter. also, i fail to see why when the argument is whether or not he's one of our five best starters, your standard would be how close he has been to reaching his potential. clearly a pitcher with very high potential like garland could still fall "extremely short" of his potential yet be an effective starter.

Originally posted by bc2k
jeremy, please don't misinterpret my argument, put words in my mouth, and then called it flawed. Your interpretation of my argument is the only thing flawed.

I never said Garland is a below average major league pitcher, simply because I have no idea what the average pitcher is. I also never said he prevents this team from winning games, only that IMHO, he doesn't give the White Sox the best chance at winning.

You bring up a good point about the timing of my criticism of JGar. One might say if I didn't criticize him before the season, I have no grounds to rip him after only 2 starts. I guess I fell into that hype trap, where I believed that this is the year where Garland really "turns the corner" and reaches that ceiling. But throughout Spring Training and his 2 regular season starts, I have seen no such progress, not even a turn signal preceding the big turn of the corner.

Another point I would like to make is that while I was impressed with the way Garland finished 2002, even at that time I was higher on Dan Wright. So it's not like football where the starting QB falls out of favor after 3 weeks and everybody is calling for the backup to replace him.

Again, it's not so much that I think Garland is hurting this team as I think he's not the pitcher to most help this team. I certainly wouldn't say he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but definately prefer him over an injured Dan Wright. I think it's fair to tell Garland that his time as a starter is limited and if he doesn't improve over the next 5 starts, his job will be Dan Wright's.

It's time to take off the kid gloves and use them to pimp-slap some sense into this kid.

well i guess some of it is how you view things. in my opinion if garland is anything less than one of the teams' five best options as a starter over the course of a season and remains in the rotation he is hurting the team since a more effective pitcher could be pitching in his place. whether or not you feel that you're arguing that he's hurting the team or simply not the best man for the job, i disagree with you. i feel that garland is our third best starter unless rauch really gets his stuff together or loazia has suddenly become a winner at 31 which seems unlikely. garland pitched well in the spring up until his last few starts and hasn't looked terrible so far. he's only one good start away from lowering his era to below 5 so i can't take his early performance too seriously.

bc2k
04-15-2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
well what is acceptable criteria for being able to stay in a major league rotation then? you weren't suggesting that garland should pitch better or that he could be a number three starter, right? your suggestion was that he should be removed from the rotation meaning you dont' think he's our fifth best starter.



to say garland has had three years is rather misleading in my opinion. he's started only 64 games in his career which is less than two full seasons in as starter. also, i fail to see why when the argument is whether or not he's one of our five best starters, your standard would be how close he has been to reaching his potential. clearly a pitcher with very high potential like garland could still fall "extremely short" of his potential yet be an effective starter.



well i guess some of it is how you view things. in my opinion if garland is anything less than one of the teams' five best options as a starter over the course of a season and remains in the rotation he is hurting the team since a more effective pitcher could be pitching in his place. whether or not you feel that you're arguing that he's hurting the team or simply not the best man for the job, i disagree with you. i feel that garland is our third best starter unless rauch really gets his stuff together or loazia has suddenly become a winner at 31 which seems unlikely. garland pitched well in the spring up until his last few starts and hasn't looked terrible so far. he's only one good start away from lowering his era to below 5 so i can't take his early performance too seriously.

jeremy, our opinions are closer than you might think. You basically said that as long as Garland is one of our five best starter options, he should be starting - no matter if he reaches his ceiling or not. I completely agree.

I think if we let Garland see games from the outfield for a while, and answer to Kushner, it might improve his mental approach to the game. Due to his high ceiling, we have a lot to gain from a Garland epiphany. Let's keep in mind that come 2004, when Garland might have some big #2 shoes to fill.

DrCrawdad
04-20-2003, 08:25 AM
GAME DATE: 4/19/03

INDIANAPOLIS 3 AT CHARLOTTE 9 DH GAME #1

J.Rauch (W,2-0) IP-6.0, HITS-3, RUNS-2, EARNED RUNS-2, BB-3, SO-6, HR-1, ERA-2.00

Champ Summers
04-21-2003, 01:31 PM
Dr. Crawdad, how dare you, this is a thread about Jon Garland's inadequacies as a starter...