PDA

View Full Version : Farmer and Mac, Jurko, and Harry


gogosoxgogo
09-23-2003, 07:08 PM
What's the deal with Farmer and Rooney and Mac, Jurko, and Harry? I heard their show and heard Mac bitching about something or other regarding Farmer... anyone know the deal there?

bobj4400
09-23-2003, 08:27 PM
Mac and Jurko were ripping Jon Garland yesterday during the show about being overrated and a bust...laughing at comparisons to Glavine and Smoltz in their early years with Altanta. Farmer called in to stick up for Garland and point out that he is only 23 and Glavine and Smoltz got beat up pretty badly in the late '80's/early '90's before the Braves became a powerhouse. He wouldnt wait on hold for the next segment to go on air, so they never let him on and just ripped him for hanging up.

This is from Farmer's pov on the pregame show last night. it would be interesting to hear what Mac has to say about what happened...

jeremyb1
09-23-2003, 08:36 PM
Sports radio is the stupidist creation ever. Whose idea is it to put a number of people with "flair" but no legitimate knowledge of sports on the radio to be extremely opinionated for hours on end. What do any of these people know that qualify them to talk about sports in such a setting? Pitchers peak at 23? A 4.6 ERA makes you a bust, a below average starter? I can't believe they put that crap on the radio and I can't believe people listen to it.

JohnJeter
09-23-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Sports radio is the stupidist creation ever. Whose idea is it to put a number of people with "flair" but no legitimate knowledge of sports on the radio to be extremely opinionated for hours on end. What do any of these people know that qualify them to talk about sports in such a setting? Pitchers peak at 23? A 4.6 ERA makes you a bust, a below average starter? I can't believe they put that crap on the radio and I can't believe people listen to it.

Indeedly-eedly. Sports radio yakkers are neither informative nor entertaining. I'll get my radio sports breakdown from Jim Shorts, thank you.

SouthBendSox
09-23-2003, 10:28 PM
M, J and Harry are actually waaay above average in terms of their knowledge

IMHO

jeremyb1
09-23-2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by SouthBendSox
M, J and Harry are actually waaay above average in terms of their knowledge

IMHO

Perhaps. Unfortunately, that still doesn't seem to equate very much knowledge.

Lip Man 1
09-23-2003, 11:33 PM
No Jeremy you think they are stupid when they disagee with you...when they agree with your opinions they are fine.

Sorry...Jon Garland blows.

Another 'coulda woulda shoulda' and all the statistical imformation in exsistence can change what he is a .500 pitcher.

He's another Kip Wells... mediocre...big deal. You don't win pennants with .500 pitchers.

His string has run out... three and a half years in the majors and still nothing. When is he going to start to produce Jeremy, after the Sox lose him to free agency?

In your opinion Jeremy how much more time does he deserve? He seems to have good stuff when his head is screwed on straight the problem is that's once every four games. I agree with the others who have posted, he needs to grow some gonads.

Lip

jeremyb1
09-24-2003, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
No Jeremy you think they are stupid when they disagee with you...when they agree with your opinions they are fine.

Sorry...Jon Garland blows.

Another 'coulda woulda shoulda' and all the statistical imformation in exsistence can change what he is a .500 pitcher.

He's another Kip Wells... mediocre...big deal. You don't win pennants with .500 pitchers.

His string has run out... three and a half years in the majors and still nothing. When is he going to start to produce Jeremy, after the Sox lose him to free agency?

In your opinion Jeremy how much more time does he deserve? He seems to have good stuff when his head is screwed on straight the problem is that's once every four games. I agree with the others who have posted, he needs to grow some gonads.

Its an objective fact that Jon Garland is not a worthless pitcher Lip. He's significantly than an average starter in the AL. He's significantly better than who we would replace him with if we didn't have him on the team. I don't know how you can say .500 pitchers don't win pennants when you've repetedly stated that if we had a decent pitcher in the fifth slot we would've win the division. Which is it Lip? ".500 pitchers" may not be glamarous but they certainly help you out. Consider the fact that there are 14 teams in the AL with a minimum of 5 starters per team over the course of a season. That's 70 starters. Jon Garland finished 30 in ERA. That means he's better than most starters. He's above average ie "he doesn't blow".

As far as the claim, that it can be determined that Garland will not meet expectations at 23, its equally ridiculous. All evidence as well as conventional wisdom states pitchers typically peak around 27 or 28 so judging a pitcher at 23, is insane. Do Schilling, Kevin Brown, and Randy Johnson blow? According to you they do Lip because if you look up their stats, they weren't doing as well as Garland is at 23 years old.

There is the support for my argument Lip. Its objective in that its not based on my opinions, my opinions are based on those facts. "Teams don't win with .500 pitchers" is your opinion. Try to support your argument with fact something that can't be disputed. For instance, you can't dispute the fact that Garland finished 30 of 70 in ERA or that Randy Johnson's numbers at a young age aren't good. "Jon Garland blows" is an opinion and all I can say is "no he doesn't" so rely on facts.

Dan H
09-24-2003, 07:09 AM
All I can say is that I don't like any of the broadcast people with the Sox. I never listen to Dan McNeil. Rooney is a crybaby. Hawk doesn't have credibility. This organization needs a overhaul.

hose
09-24-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Dan H
All I can say is that I don't like any of the broadcast people with the Sox. I never listen to Dan McNeil. Rooney is a crybaby. Hawk doesn't have credibility. This organization needs a overhaul.


How about a Polish broadcast?



:gallas
"Polish? hmmmm, I like it"

NewyorkSoxFan
09-24-2003, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Dan H
All I can say is that I don't like any of the broadcast people with the Sox. I never listen to Dan McNeil. Rooney is a crybaby. Hawk doesn't have credibility. This organization needs a overhaul.

I was just saying on another thread that I enjoy watching the Yankee broadcast b/c Kenny Singleton, Jim Kaat, and even Bobby Murcer actually add some real analysis to the game. They tell some stories but they give you reasons for why things happen in the game. Hawk is ok, but DJ is just horrid. I don't know what in the world they saw when they hired that guy.

NYSF

thepaulbowski
09-24-2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Sorry...Jon Garland blows.

I think that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. This guy is only 23 years old and you want to write him off?!?!? Unbelievable, he has his good games and his bad games. Eventually he is going to learn how to avoid the big inning and get the killer instinct. This guy didn't have luxury of learning this is the minor leagues, he's been doing it at the major league level.

If he hadn't pitched an inning in the majors yet, he would be considered a top-tier prospect. And to have the experience he has at such a young age will only make him better as time goes on.

His stats are very comparable to Buehrle's & Colon (who everybody wants to keep). Colon has the same amount of losses & only three more wins with Colon pitching in three more games. There are at least 4-5 games against teams like Detroit & San Diego where the offense game him no run support while he only gave up a few runs.

I don't see how is the far away from being a pretty damn good pitcher. If we are having the same conversation in three years, I will agree with you. Otherwise and think calling him a bust is ridiculous.

hold2dibber
09-24-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
No Jeremy you think they are stupid when they disagee with you...when they agree with your opinions they are fine.

Sorry...Jon Garland blows.

Another 'coulda woulda shoulda' and all the statistical imformation in exsistence can change what he is a .500 pitcher.

He's another Kip Wells... mediocre...big deal. You don't win pennants with .500 pitchers.

His string has run out... three and a half years in the majors and still nothing. When is he going to start to produce Jeremy, after the Sox lose him to free agency?

In your opinion Jeremy how much more time does he deserve? He seems to have good stuff when his head is screwed on straight the problem is that's once every four games. I agree with the others who have posted, he needs to grow some gonads.

Lip

C'mon Lip. It is one thing to say that Garland has not met expectations or that he hasn't become a top tier starter. Those things are certainly true. But to say he "blows" is just flat out unsupportable. Let's not forget that Garland is the 4th starter on this team, and he is certainly good enough to be a no. 4 starter on a contender. Look at Garland as compared to the no. 4 starters on playoff teams:

Ted Lily: 4.18 ERA
John Burkett: 4.52 ERA
Jon Garland: 4.66 ERA
Kenny Rogers: 4.84 ERA
Shane Reynolds: 5.50 ERA (in the NL!)

Garland has been good enough this year; he's not the reason the Sox will be sitting at home watching the Twins on t.v. this fall. He's 23 years old and he's already a decent major league starter, while most of his contemporaries are playing in AA ball. Will he continue to develop and become a front of the rotation starter? I don't know, but I do know that the Sox have a young, cheap, above average no. 4 starter in Jon Garland. And that's not so bad at all.

BeerHandle
09-24-2003, 09:15 AM
The questions to ask is:

What makes a sports radio DJ an expert?

The fact of the matter is that most if not all sports radio DJ's have no professional sports experience. Therfore it means they do not know all aspects of the game (clubhouse, daily actiivities of the a sport, stress of the game, etc).

The job of the Sports Radio DJ's are to stir the kind of responses that have been written above.

Brian26
09-24-2003, 09:59 AM
Wow. This is all very interesting because....

I heard a snippet from Wills yesterday during the pregame or postgame talking about bars and restaurants in Peoria. I don't remember the exact quote here, but he said something to the effect of "and certain afternoon guys should take notes, because they might be in Peoria pretty soon". Is Wills in this feud too? I didn't know about the Farmer stuff at the time, but it sounded like Wills was taking a crack and Jurko or Harry.

KingXerxes
09-24-2003, 10:14 AM
I think everybody involved in this "feud" is wrong. The ESPN afternoon guys are full of crap (on most things) - but so is Ed Farmer for making favorable comparisons of Garland to Smoltz and Glavine.

Can Garland evolve into a 200+ games winner in the majors? Maybe. Does Garland show the upside potential to do so? It's hard to say yes to that.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I think everybody involved in this "feud" is wrong. The ESPN afternoon guys are full of crap (on most things) - but so is Ed Farmer for making favorable comparisons of Garland to Smoltz and Glavine.

Can Garland evolve into a 200+ games winner in the majors? Maybe. Does Garland show the upside potential to do so? It's hard to say yes to that.

Garland has the talent, but he is cursed with a 10 cent head. He ought to get slapped every time he walks a hitter that he had down 0-2. It happens a lot...

Jon Garland is Toni Kukoc. He needs to be made uncomfortable to bring out his true ability. A mastermind type of coach like Phil Jackson picks a guy like Garland and makes him into the team whipping boy that everyone else is afraid to become. What Jackson did to Kukoc was borderline sadistic--but it definitely made Toni a better ballplayer and rebuilt the Bulls into another 3-peat champion all over again.

The new Sox manager has got to challenge Jon Garland. The Sox will never be anything until that kid gets his act together.

KingXerxes
09-24-2003, 10:41 AM
There is no doubt that Jon Garland could evolve into more than a serviceable pitcher - but I have to take exception to Farmer's comparison of Garland to Glavine and Smoltz.

When Glavine and Smoltz came up with Atlanta - the Braves were an absolutely pathetic team.

1988 54 - 106
1989 63 - 97
1990 67 - 95

During these three years, Glavine went a collective 31 - 37, and Smoltz went 28 - 29.

Garland has been pitching for much better teams over the past three years - so to take his record and compare it with the two listed above is superficial at best.

FarmerAndy
09-24-2003, 12:08 PM
Speaking of Ed Farmer....

A couple of weeks ago I brought up the subject of Ed Farmer always talking as if he were a Notre Dame alumni, even though he never went there.

On Sunday's broadcast he began talking about Notre Dame and then he said something to the effect of: 'Now I have to say this, I never attended Notre Dame. I'm just a big fan. I'm a big fan, but I don't want to lead you to believe that I attended Notre Dame.'

Farmer has never made a disclaimer in the past stating that he didn't go to Notre Dame. He lead alot of people to believe that was the case. Now after all these years he finally brings up the fact that he didn't go there, just after it was discussed on this message board. COINCIDENCE???

maurice
09-24-2003, 12:12 PM
Actually, Glavine is an interesting comparison to Garland, since neither one is a power pitcher. Leaving aside Glavine and the Braves' won/loss record, here are his ERAs at ages 21 through 24:

Age 21: 4.56
Age 22: 3.68
Age 23: 4.28
Age 24: 2.55

Note that these were compiled (1) in the NL, and (2) before the current so-called "juiced ball" era. Here are Garland's numbers, compiled in a very juiced, 21st Century AL:

Age 21: 3.69
Age 22: 4.58
Age 23: 4.66
Age 24: ???

Looks like a legitimate comparison to me. This doesn't mean Garland will put up Glavine numbers, but it certainly undermines the crackpot notion that he's a "bust."

Lip Man 1
09-24-2003, 12:26 PM
Jeremy et al:

Here is a historical example given to discuss my Garland comments. It is offered in all seriousness without sarcasm.

When Nolan Ryan, one of the greatest statistical pitchers in baseball history signed a contract with Houston (becomming the first player to ever earn a million dollars in a season) the media went to the Angels GM (I don't remember if that was "Buzzy" Bavasi or Mike Port) and asked 'how could California replace this guy.' Then rattled off his statistical accomplishments....innings pitched, games started, complete games, no hitters, strikeouts...

The GM paused a moment looked at the media and said "I guess I'll have to go out and sign two 8-7 guys..." then walked away.

A perfect bon mot! Game, set and match.

Ryan was a great pitcher with tremendous stuff who couldn't win games and couldn't win championships with teams. (In 1969 he was a bit player on the Mets)

My point is that Garland like Ryan has tremendous stuff but can't win games. (and I'm not saying Garland is another Ryan in any sense of the word but the kid has some talent...)

You can show all the WHIP's and H/9 IP stats you want and they don't mean a thing because the kid can't seem to win. As has been pointed out he's had decent teams behind him and he still can't win games.

How much rope do you give this guy? How long do you wait on him? Do you wait until he's in his final season before free agency, then try to trade him for nothing because other clubs know that and have the Sox over a barrell?

He's a .500 pitcher who was (and this is a key point) expected to be one of the Sox big three this season I stand by my statement that you don't win pennents with .500 pitchers.

I should have been more clear in stating that this applies to your top three guys. Teams can win championships with .500 pitchers filling out the #4 and #5 spots.

Are you folks now saying this is where Garland is destined for? To be a back end of the rotation guy?

If so that's a complete reversal since many of you were "predicting" greatness for this pitcher based on the statistical evidence.

So let me ask you the same question you asked me, "which is it?" Is Jon Garland (with all this talent) a top three starter on a club and expected to produce like one or a back end of the rotation guy?

Lip

KingXerxes
09-24-2003, 12:28 PM
ESPN radio has a commercial where - I believe it's Mike Golic - says that he went to Notre Dame - just like Ed Farmer. If Farmer didn't attend Notre Dame - somebody has been lying his butt off to the point where it got through to ESPN headquarters.

hold2dibber
09-24-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
My point is that Garland like Ryan has tremendous stuff but can't win games. (and I'm not saying Garland is another Ryan in any sense of the word but the kid has some talent...)

You can show all the WHIP's and H/9 IP stats you want and they don't mean a thing because the kid can't seem to win. As has been pointed out he's had decent teams behind him and he still can't win games.

How much rope do you give this guy? How long do you wait on him? Do you wait until he's in his final season before free agency, then try to trade him for nothing because other clubs know that and have the Sox over a barrell?

He's a .500 pitcher who was (and this is a key point) expected to be one of the Sox big three this season I stand by my statement that you don't win pennents with .500 pitchers.

I should have been more clear in stating that this applies to your top three guys. Teams can win championships with .500 pitchers filling out the #4 and #5 spots.

Are you folks now saying this is where Garland is destined for? To be a back end of the rotation guy?

If so that's a complete reversal since many of you were "predicting" greatness for this pitcher based on the statistical evidence.

So let me ask you the same question you asked me, "which is it?" Is Jon Garland (with all this talent) a top three starter on a club and expected to produce like one or a back end of the rotation guy?

Lip

You have a valid point in that Garland was expected to be the no. 3 starter this year, and if Loaiza had performed like the no. 5 starter he was expected to be, Garland's performance would have been a bigger disappointment.

But that doesn't really change anything. Sure, we'd all like Garland to step it up and move to the "next level" by being the consistent 15 win, sub 4.00 ERA starter that we all believe he could be. But with that in mind, I make two important points which you have largely ignored:

(1) There is reason to believe that he will make that step to the next level; he is already LIGHT YEARS ahead of most pitchers his age in that he is an above average (if only slightly so) major league starter at age 23. Add that to the fact that he does have a ton of talent, and you've got to admit that he has a decent shot of improving to a 15 win/sub 4.00 kind of pitcher.

(2) Even if he does NOT make that improvement, he is Sox property for (I believe) at least 3 more years. And he's still dirt cheap. So even if he doesn't improve, we've got a decent starter who doesn't make a lot of money. If he leaves in 3 years without taking the next step up, the Sox have still fared pretty well by getting above average production out of a guy making below average money.

Brian26
09-24-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
Speaking of Ed Farmer....

On Sunday's broadcast he began talking about Notre Dame and then he said something to the effect of: 'Now I have to say this, I never attended Notre Dame. I'm just a big fan. I'm a big fan, but I don't want to lead you to believe that I attended Notre Dame.'


Andy,

I heard that also. I listen to a lot of games on the radio- Farmer has actually spoken that little disclaimer 2 or 3 times in the past two weeks.

I immediately thought about the subject being brought up here. I know Golic does the spot where he calls Farmer a ND alum, but timing of this is too much for coincidence. Someone obviously saw the posts on WSI and informed Farmio about it.

Farmio has never claimed to be a graduate of ND, as far as I know, so it's not like he's lying. Good to see he came clean about it, though.

jeremyb1
09-24-2003, 04:10 PM
Lip, the problem is that you're operating under the assumption that pitchers can will themselves to win games. In reality, three of the biggest factors in whether a pitcher wins or loses a game is the defense played behind him, the runs scored behind him, and luck. Jon Garland doesn't control how many balls Carl Everett gets to in centerfield, he doesn't control how well Frank Thomas hits, and he doesn't control whether a duck snort is a few inches out of an infielder's grip so its completely illegitimate to use these factors to evaluate his pitching which is exactly what you're doing.

Take a hypothetical here. You have a pitcher who makes 33 starts in a season and his team never scores a run for him. By your definition of a good starter, this pitcher is not a good pitcher regardless of how well he pitches. His ERA could be 9 or it could be 0 but he's not going to have more wins than loses so he's a worthless pitcher.

Evaluating Jon Garland based on whether or not he wins is ridiculous because he only has a very limited amount of control over how much he wins.

jeremyb1
09-24-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Actually, Glavine is an interesting comparison to Garland, since neither one is a power pitcher. Leaving aside Glavine and the Braves' won/loss record, here are his ERAs at ages 21 through 24:

Age 21: 4.56
Age 22: 3.68
Age 23: 4.28
Age 24: 2.55

Note that these were compiled (1) in the NL, and (2) before the current so-called "juiced ball" era. Here are Garland's numbers, compiled in a very juiced, 21st Century AL:

Age 21: 3.69
Age 22: 4.58
Age 23: 4.66
Age 24: ???

Looks like a legitimate comparison to me. This doesn't mean Garland will put up Glavine numbers, but it certainly undermines the crackpot notion that he's a "bust."

Yeah, if you look at the league ERA in the seasons where Glavine put up those numbers, it ranged from about 3.7 to 4 wheras now its more like 4.5 so you can make a good argument that for his first few seasons, Garland has been better than Glavine was for his first few.

DirtySouthsider
09-24-2003, 09:10 PM
Just to add some of my own comments to this Garland argument.

First of all if you go by experience then Garland is an old 23 year old pither. He has been a starting pitcher in the majors for three years now and has 100 career starts under his belt.
So with that being said....he now knows the hitters......he knows the lifestyle......and everybody knows he has the stuff, so why can't he improve. Statisically over the last two seasons he has actually gotten slightly worse. How much experience does it take to know not to groove one down the middle on 0-2?
This is what is scary about Garland...there are no guarentees that is he going to wake up one day he get IT.....and if you have been watching him then you know there have been no signs of him getting any closer to getting IT
The only answer is to keep him around because he is cheap and you have him for three more years. But as far as next year, if you want a winning ball club you have to pencil him in at #4 and hope to god you bring your top three back so Garland's problems aren't magnifyied!!

Viva Magglio
09-24-2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
Speaking of Ed Farmer....

A couple of weeks ago I brought up the subject of Ed Farmer always talking as if he were a Notre Dame alumni, even though he never went there.

On Sunday's broadcast he began talking about Notre Dame and then he said something to the effect of: 'Now I have to say this, I never attended Notre Dame. I'm just a big fan. I'm a big fan, but I don't want to lead you to believe that I attended Notre Dame.'

Farmer has never made a disclaimer in the past stating that he didn't go to Notre Dame. He lead alot of people to believe that was the case. Now after all these years he finally brings up the fact that he didn't go there, just after it was discussed on this message board. COINCIDENCE???

Farmer is what is called a "subway alumnus" of Notre Dame. "Subway alumni" are people who root for a university's teams without having done their collegiate studies there. And ND has millions upon millions of "subway alumni." But I am not among them. I'm very much looking forward to seeing Joe Tiller's Purdue Boilermakers clobber the Irish this coming Saturday.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
Just to add some of my own comments to this Garland argument.

First of all if you go by experience then Garland is an old 23 year old pither. He has been a starting pitcher in the majors for three years now and has 100 career starts under his belt.
So with that being said....he now knows the hitters......he knows the lifestyle......and everybody knows he has the stuff, so why can't he improve. Statisically over the last two seasons he has actually gotten slightly worse. How much experience does it take to know not to groove one down the middle on 0-2?
This is what is scary about Garland...there are no guarentees that is he going to wake up one day he get IT.....and if you have been watching him then you know there have been no signs of him getting any closer to getting IT
The only answer is to keep him around because he is cheap and you have him for three more years. But as far as next year, if you want a winning ball club you have to pencil him in at #4 and hope to god you bring your top three back so Garland's problems aren't magnifyied!!

Jon Garland = Toni Kukoc.

A real manager would ride his weanie ass every day, including the games he wasn't starting. He would be the whipping boy, unfairly singled out for criticism that could easily apply to several other teammates, but everyone on the team secretly Thanks God it's not them getting their ass chewed every waking minute of the day.

That's what Phil Jackson did to Kukoc, and that's what made Kukoc as good as he became--because Kukoc was hardly more than a talented pile of steaming **** when he arrived from Yugoslavia. Instead he became a key player on a 3-peat champion. The Sox will never come close without Garland pitching at full potential, and he'll never get there at the rate he is going.

Jon Garland should not have another moment's peace. That's the only way to eliminate those 0-2 creampuffs he keeps tossing to homeplate.

:jon
"See this stupid smirk on my face? Somebody needs to wipe it off."

DirtySouthsider
09-24-2003, 09:32 PM
I'm not sure if that theory is exactly true. I don't think Kukoc contributed all that much to those championships. He would come off the bench and score some points but what Phil really wanted out of him was toughness and more defense......which Phil never got.
So I'm not sure that if you sream at Garland all the time that it will teach him to be a better pitcher???

duke of dorwood
09-24-2003, 09:36 PM
There's no doubt Kukoc improved markedly the longer he played under Jackson. Garland has real talent-I think a Jim Fregosi could bring it out of him

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
I'm not sure if that theory is exactly true. I don't think Kukoc contributed all that much to those championships. He would come off the bench and score some points but what Phil really wanted out of him was toughness and more defense......which Phil never got.
So I'm not sure that if you sream at Garland all the time that it will teach him to be a better pitcher???

Kukoc was the sixth man, and a starter on any NBA team that didn't have Jordan. That's head and shoulders better than what he was when Crumbs brought him from Europe.

Who says Garland is a starter? He might be a long reliever or spot starter. The point is he will make serious contributions to a CHAMPION team only when somebody makes him serious about why he is pitching in the big leagues. You can't do that with love and kindness.... not him, anyway.

SouthBendSox
09-24-2003, 10:49 PM
Love Farmer
Love Rooney
Love Wills
Love Hawk

Eh on DJ

Love M, J and Harry

out

jeremyb1
09-25-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Jon Garland = Toni Kukoc.

A real manager would ride his weanie ass every day, including the games he wasn't starting. He would be the whipping boy, unfairly singled out for criticism that could easily apply to several other teammates, but everyone on the team secretly Thanks God it's not them getting their ass chewed every waking minute of the day.

That's what Phil Jackson did to Kukoc, and that's what made Kukoc as good as he became--because Kukoc was hardly more than a talented pile of steaming **** when he arrived from Yugoslavia. Instead he became a key player on a 3-peat champion. The Sox will never come close without Garland pitching at full potential, and he'll never get there at the rate he is going.

Jon Garland should not have another moment's peace. That's the only way to eliminate those 0-2 creampuffs he keeps tossing to homeplate.

I don't mean this to be offensive but I really don't feel you have the proper knowledge of pitching or Jon Garland to diagnose his problems. Again, the concept of "0-2 creampuffs" is a huge flaw in your logic in that you're identifiying what frustrates you the most about Garland and therefore since that sticks out to you most, you're attributing those qualties as having the most to do with his failures.

The bottom line is that Garland's biggest problems is still avoiding rough stretches and bad starts. If he his problem were the mental aspect, how can he pitch as well as he did so often? He had quite a few quality starts this season and if he was a completely scew-up that lacks the determination to pitch well, he'd struggle all the time. Basically what I'm saying here is that I think your analysis of his mental weakness is completely unfounded. Personally, I don't see how a fan could ever possess the information to make that assessment of a pro athlete.

jeremyb1
09-25-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
Just to add some of my own comments to this Garland argument.

First of all if you go by experience then Garland is an old 23 year old pither. He has been a starting pitcher in the majors for three years now and has 100 career starts under his belt.
So with that being said....he now knows the hitters......he knows the lifestyle......and everybody knows he has the stuff, so why can't he improve. Statisically over the last two seasons he has actually gotten slightly worse. How much experience does it take to know not to groove one down the middle on 0-2?
This is what is scary about Garland...there are no guarentees that is he going to wake up one day he get IT.....and if you have been watching him then you know there have been no signs of him getting any closer to getting IT
The only answer is to keep him around because he is cheap and you have him for three more years. But as far as next year, if you want a winning ball club you have to pencil him in at #4 and hope to god you bring your top three back so Garland's problems aren't magnifyied!!

First of all, judging Garland by experience punishes him for having the raw ability to reach the majors at 20 which is completly unfair. Would he be a better pitcher if he'd been a mediocre starter in AAA the past few years instead of pitching in the majors and came up and posted an ERA above league average for starters? Different pitchers take different amounts of time to put it together. Why you'd consider Garland a bust because he's merely above average at 23 is completely beyond me at this point.

As far as failing to see a lack of improvement from Garland, you obviously aren't paying any attention. His K's are up, his BB's are down, he's inducing more ground balls which is a big key. The only number that's worse for him is his home runs. If not for his poor start and his difficulty in his last two starts, his ERA would be significantly lower and you'd be talking about what great strides he made and how this was his breakout season but instead he's a bust? Give me a break.

DirtySouthsider
09-25-2003, 08:32 AM
If you read my statements again you will realize that not once did I refer to him as a bust. My main concern is that this is the best we are going to see out of Garland......which would make him just a very mediorce pitcher. The improvement in some of his numbers are minimal. The big key is that he is getting more ground balls......but then he also gave up more home runs and his walks have stayed about the same. If he keeps growing at this rate the Sox will have a geat #2 starter in 2008!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't mean this to be offensive but I really don't feel you have the proper knowledge of pitching or Jon Garland to diagnose his problems. Again, the concept of "0-2 creampuffs" is a huge flaw in your logic in that you're identifiying what frustrates you the most about Garland and therefore since that sticks out to you most, you're attributing those qualties as having the most to do with his failures.

The bottom line is that Garland's biggest problems is still avoiding rough stretches and bad starts. If he his problem were the mental aspect, how can he pitch as well as he did so often? He had quite a few quality starts this season and if he was a completely scew-up that lacks the determination to pitch well, he'd struggle all the time. Basically what I'm saying here is that I think your analysis of his mental weakness is completely unfounded. Personally, I don't see how a fan could ever possess the information to make that assessment of a pro athlete.

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express! :smile:

I shouldn't use shorthand. Those "0-2 creampuffs" you take issue with is simply short for the multiple bad pitches thrown by Garland that has him walking guys after he has them down 0-2 in the count. He's notorious for this and it has happened long enough and often enough to rule out simple mechanics as the problem. He's a talented pitcher because we've seen his stuff long enough to recognize it. So what is his problem?

If Jon Garland isn't a headcase, then there is no such thing. A good manager knows how to deal with this. I chose Phil Jackson's treatment of Toni Kukoc as a well-known if not extreme example.

:jon
"See this muscle on top of my shoulders? I hardly ever use it."

ChiSoxBobette
09-25-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
What's the deal with Farmer and Rooney and Mac, Jurko, and Harry? I heard their show and heard Mac bitching about something or other regarding Farmer... anyone know the deal there?

WHO CARES WHAT FAT, JERKO & FAIREY HAVE TO SAY THEY'RE FLUB LOVERS.

Fat likes to say how much a White Sox fan he is , but come on are any of the Chicago radio/TV media White Sox fans. If I owned the White Sox they would never be on anything that would associate itself with anything connected to the flubs , but JR must get a bundle to be on ESPN radio(White Sox flagship station my butt)and Fox Sports Net. White Sox fans should have a radio and tv outlet that is only White Sox as it was in the past. I don't want to listen to a show about the flubs on espn radio while going to a White Sox Sunday home game or find out I have to watch the Sox on WCIU because the flubs are on Fox. I've heard JR gets as much from Fox & ESPN as Steinbrenner does from the tv & radio stations the yankme's are on the only difference Steinbrenner uses the money to get the yankme's to the World Series and JR must be pocketing the money he gets.

:angry: :angry: :angry:

Paulwny
09-25-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I shouldn't use shorthand. Those "0-2 creampuffs" you take issue with is simply short for the multiple bad pitches thrown by Garland that has him walking guys after he has them down 0-2 in the count. He's notorious for this and it has happened long enough and often enough to rule out simple mechanics as the problem. He's a talented pitcher because we've seen his stuff long enough to recognize it. So what is his problem?

If Jon Garland isn't a headcase, then there is no such thing. A good manager knows how to deal with this. I chose Phil Jackson's treatment of Toni Kukoc as a well-known if not extreme example.


The difference between a mediocre pitcher and good pitcher, knowing how to put a batter away when you have him in the hole 0-2 or 1-2.
Either he hasn't been taught it or he doesn't get it. He should join Konerko at the shrinks office at the end of the season.

maurice
09-25-2003, 12:23 PM
It may well be that Garland never improves beyond a 3rd or 4th starter on a good team. OTOH, he may become much better than that. There's really no way of telling. Still, a 3rd or 4th starter on a good team is a very valuable commodity (certainly much more valuable than Matt Karchner), especially at Garland's relatively low salary.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by maurice
It may well be that Garland never improves beyond a 3rd or 4th starter on a good team. OTOH, he may become much better than that. There's really no way of telling. Still, a 3rd or 4th starter on a good team is a very valuable commodity (certainly much more valuable than Matt Karchner), especially at Garland's relatively low salary.

Good points. On a top-caliber ballclub like the Yankees, Garland is probably a spot starter and long reliever. If the Sox ever assemble a ballclub of similar aspirations, I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly the role Jon Garland will be doing for us, too.

34 Inch Stick
09-25-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
[Whose idea is it to put a number of people with "flair" but no legitimate knowledge of sports on the radio to be extremely opinionated for hours on end. What do any of these people know that qualify them to talk about sports in such a setting? Pitchers peak at 23? A 4.6 ERA makes you a bust, a below average starter? I can't believe they put that crap on the radio and I can't believe people listen to it. [/B]

I believe it was the guy who came after Marconi. Your complaint about sports radio could hold true for talk entertainment on radio or TV. Rush never held elected office or was the chief of staff to a highly elected official. Yet he is allowed to talk about politics. Dr. Judy is a doctor of kineseology. Now she may have had sex once in her life but she has not been accredited by any body (including her ex husband's) on the subject.

At the same time there are former atheletes who may have knowledge but have no ability to verbalize that knowledge (Deion Sanders, Michael Irvin).

This is entertainment. Perfect knowledge is impossible to attain in this area. You just have to hope the talent has a good balance of knowledge and charisma.

jeremyb1
09-25-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express! :smile:

I shouldn't use shorthand. Those "0-2 creampuffs" you take issue with is simply short for the multiple bad pitches thrown by Garland that has him walking guys after he has them down 0-2 in the count. He's notorious for this and it has happened long enough and often enough to rule out simple mechanics as the problem. He's a talented pitcher because we've seen his stuff long enough to recognize it. So what is his problem?

If Jon Garland isn't a headcase, then there is no such thing. A good manager knows how to deal with this. I chose Phil Jackson's treatment of Toni Kukoc as a well-known if not extreme example.

I define a headcase as someone who has a bad attitude beyond repair. Simply not realizing how to put guys away 0-2 or having enough confidence in your stuff seem to be issues of knowledge that a 23 year old player who isn't that far on the learning curve due to his age may not yet know. I don't see how its an unacceptable problem or how its at all uncorrectable.

jeremyb1
09-25-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The difference between a mediocre pitcher and good pitcher, knowing how to put a batter away when you have him in the hole 0-2 or 1-2.
Either he hasn't been taught it or he doesn't get it. He should join Konerko at the shrinks office at the end of the season.

Why is that? That seems like an incredibly arbitrary argument in my opinion. Why isn't the key to a good pitcher throwing strike one, good command of his offspeed pitches, or anything else for that matter?

If you watch the games Garland has been much better at putting batters away 0-2 this season. He's worked well up in the zone while ahead of the count and as a result his K's are up. I don't know how he could've increased his K's if he hasn't improved at all when he's ahead in the count. That'd be impossible.

Paulwny
09-25-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Why is that? That seems like an incredibly arbitrary argument in my opinion. Why isn't the key to a good pitcher throwing strike one, good command of his offspeed pitches, or anything else for that matter?

If you watch the games Garland has been much better at putting batters away 0-2 this season. He's worked well up in the zone while ahead of the count and as a result his K's are up. I don't know how he could've increased his K's if he hasn't improved at all when he's ahead in the count. That'd be impossible.

He still has a problem giving up too many hits when he has a batter in the hole. This is a common problem with younger pitchers, not knowing how to put a batter away., start off with a batter at 0-2 and 3 pitches later it's 3-2.
Wells had the same problem with the sox. It appears that it's been corrected in Pit. Either there are better coaches in Pit. or a light came on in Wells head.

jeremyb1
09-25-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
He still has a problem giving up too many hits when he has a batter in the hole. This is a common problem with younger pitchers, not knowing how to put a batter away., start off with a batter at 0-2 and 3 pitches later it's 3-2.
Wells had the same problem with the sox. It appears that it's been corrected in Pit. Either there are better coaches in Pit. or a light came on in Wells head.

This is an argument Manuel has made and it infuriates me at times. I can recall at least two starts when Manuel made noises about being upset JG didn't put batters away better with two outs when the hits he gave up were bloops over the SS's head and seeing eye grounders. He's not giving up a lot of rockets in these situations. Sometimes and perhaps more often than he should be but he's given up a ton of weak hits that were entirely bad luck and people have crucified him for it.