PDA

View Full Version : Jason Johnson


Gumshoe
12-22-2003, 10:24 AM
I saw that he was released. I like picking him up WAY more than a guy like Baez or Looper ... I've seen JJ be really good against the Yanks, and some times have poor outings, but how can the O's release him? He was their best pitcher? Anyone have idea of salary constraints?

Gumshoe

boog_alou
12-22-2003, 10:37 AM
He'll cost at least $2.5 million. And that is $2.5 million more than the Sox have to spend (they are over budget at the moment).

poorme
12-22-2003, 10:45 AM
Johnson will never be anything more than what he is now - mediocre. I'd rather take my chances on someone with more upside potential.

boog_alou
12-22-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Johnson will never be anything more than what he is now - mediocre. I'd rather take my chances on someone with more upside potential.

He's a decent #3 right now. And, he's better than Garland.

wsgdf
12-22-2003, 10:57 AM
Agreed. I'd probably take a pass on Johnson if it costs more than $1.5 mil.

SSN721
12-22-2003, 10:58 AM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsja02.shtml (http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsja02.shtml)

I dont know, I mean for the salary it looks like he will demand (2.5-3 mil) I dont see it being worth signing him. Unless we can get him from maybe 1-1.5 mil. I think I would rather take my chances with Schoenweis (not sure on the spelling there) since it looks like he wouldnt be competeing for anything better then a 5th starter spot to me. But then again as bad as the rotation is looking at the moment, I suppose he looks good enough for at least a number 4 starter to upper management. :(:

boog_alou
12-22-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsja02.shtml (http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsja02.shtml)

I dont know, I mean for the salary it looks like he will demand (2.5-3 mil) I dont see it being worth signing him. Unless we can get him from maybe 1-1.5 mil. I think I would rather take my chances with Schoenweis (not sure on the spelling there) since it looks like he wouldnt be competeing for anything better then a 5th starter spot to me. But then again as bad as the rotation is looking at the moment, I suppose he looks good enough for at least a number 4 starter to upper management. :(:

Johnson is much better than Schoeneweis. Schoeneweis really stinks as a starter. Look at Johnson's stats. He's a pretty good #3 and would be the third best starter on the team. But, the Sox can't afford him (or anybody) at the moment.

Blueprint1
12-22-2003, 11:08 AM
I don't understand why some of you hate Garland so much. Hes 24 years old and in my opinion is a pretty good ML starter. I think that he will only continue to improve as the years go by.

boog_alou
12-22-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
I don't understand why some of you hate Garland so much. Hes 24 years old and in my opinion is a pretty good ML starter. I think that he will only continue to improve as the years go by.

I don't hate him, but look at his numbers. He has proven himself to be basically a 4.50 ERA guy. That is basically average for a starter. That is ok, but not great for a #3 starter. And, for the record, Johnson's numbers are better and have been for the last three years.

kittle42
12-22-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
I don't understand why some of you hate Garland so much. Hes 24 years old and in my opinion is a pretty good ML starter. I think that he will only continue to improve as the years go by.

At his worst, he is still better than:

Scott Ruffcorn
Larry Thomas
Robert Ellis
Matt Ginter
Kevin Beirne
Aaron Myette
John Snyder
Mike Bertotti

Oh, I'm getting bored with this.

boog_alou
12-22-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by kittle42
At his worst, he is still better than:

Scott Ruffcorn
Larry Thomas
Robert Ellis
Matt Ginter
Kevin Beirne
Aaron Myette
John Snyder
Mike Bertotti
Don't forget Danny Wrong.

SSN721
12-22-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Johnson is much better than Schoeneweis. Schoeneweis really stinks as a starter. Look at Johnson's stats. He's a pretty good #3 and would be the third best starter on the team. But, the Sox can't afford him (or anybody) at the moment.

W L G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP ERA *lgERA *ERA+
Schoenweis:
7 7 49 18 7 0 0 0 146.3 156 89 82 16 55 79 7 3 641 5.08 4.69 92
Johnson:
8 13 35 32 0 0 0 0 194.3 210 117 106 28 82 124 9 7 866 4.91 4.48 91

These are just lifetime averages, and I know I am throwing in Scotts releif numbers as well as starter numbers (just dont feel like averaging his starter numbers only at the moment). I do agree with you that Johnson is definately a better starter, I guess all I am saying is that if we sign schoenweis for 1-1.5 I dont think that Johnson is worth double that amount when the numbers are just a little bit better as a starter than Johnsons. Of course if Johnson ends up wanting between 1-1.5 million I definately think he would be a good pickup, but I think he would still be the fourth starter on this team at best.

soxfan26
12-22-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
I don't understand why some of you hate Garland so much. Hes 24 years old and in my opinion is a pretty good ML starter. I think that he will only continue to improve as the years go by.

Just another case of a guy who did not live up to other people's expectations.

jeremyb1
12-22-2003, 09:41 PM
We could so worse than a pitcher like Johnson I suppose, but he's not particularly good. He's probably a better option than Schoenweis as our fourth starter. I'd sign him in that capacity for 500,000 or thereabouts but that's as far as I'd go.

compy75
12-22-2003, 10:29 PM
If anything can be said heavily positive, take a look at his ERAs over the past 3 years against AL Central teams:

KC 2.53
MIN 3.60
DET 3.38
CLE 1.13

Not bad by any stretch of the imagination, interestingly we light him up to the tune of an ERA over 5 and 5 losses.

Frater Perdurabo
12-23-2003, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by compy75
If anything can be said heavily positive, take a look at his ERAs over the past 3 years against AL Central teams:

KC 2.53
MIN 3.60
DET 3.38
CLE 1.13

Not bad by any stretch of the imagination, interestingly we light him up to the tune of an ERA over 5 and 5 losses.

This is enough reason for me to sign him up, pronto.

Dangit, Kenny, dump Konerko to someone, anyone, for free to free up the dough.

hold2dibber
12-23-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
I don't hate him, but look at his numbers. He has proven himself to be basically a 4.50 ERA guy. That is basically average for a starter. That is ok, but not great for a #3 starter. And, for the record, Johnson's numbers are better and have been for the last three years.

If you look at their 2003 numbers (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_sortable_player_stats.jsp?section2=null&sortByStat=W&statType=2&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2003&baseballScope=AL&prevPage2=1&readBoxes=true&sitSplit=&venueID=&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=1&compare.y=5&compare.x=&box1=XXXX279782chaX&box2=XXXX116595balX&statSet2=3), they were very similar. They pitched almost the exact amount of innings (JG: 191.2, JJ 189.2). Interestingly, Johnson gave up more walks (80 vs. 74) and WAY more hits (216 vs. 188), yet still had a lower ERA (4.18 vs. 4.51). That would seem to me to suggest either than Johnson did a better job of getting himself out of jams or his bullpen did a better job than JG's did at getting him out of jams. In either event, IMHO the Sox need a top of the rotation guy and a bottom of the rotation guy. Johnson is a known commodity in that he is an average starter in the AL. He'd be a top notch no. 5 starter or an average no. 4 starter. If he is signable for less than $2 million, I wouldn't be opposed to signing him. But the Sox would still need a top of the rotation guy, too.

boog_alou
12-23-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
If you look at their 2003 numbers (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_sortable_player_stats.jsp?section2=null&sortByStat=W&statType=2&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2003&baseballScope=AL&prevPage2=1&readBoxes=true&sitSplit=&venueID=&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=1&compare.y=5&compare.x=&box1=XXXX279782chaX&box2=XXXX116595balX&statSet2=3), they were very similar. They pitched almost the exact amount of innings (JG: 191.2, JJ 189.2). Interestingly, Johnson gave up more walks (80 vs. 74) and WAY more hits (216 vs. 188), yet still had a lower ERA (4.18 vs. 4.51). That would seem to me to suggest either than Johnson did a better job of getting himself out of jams or his bullpen did a better job than JG's did at getting him out of jams. In either event, IMHO the Sox need a top of the rotation guy and a bottom of the rotation guy. Johnson is a known commodity in that he is an average starter in the AL. He'd be a top notch no. 5 starter or an average no. 4 starter. If he is signable for less than $2 million, I wouldn't be opposed to signing him. But the Sox would still need a top of the rotation guy, too.
Johnson also struck out batters at a slightly higher rate. And, gave up fewer home runs. And, Johnson has been a better than Garland for each of the last three years. If he's a good 5 or average 4, then how would you classify Garland, whose stats have for the most part been worse than Johnson?

What the Sox need more than anything is affordable options. If they can move enough salary to sign Ponson, then fine. But, that is a very big IF. Otherwise, they are going to have to find decent cheap options. I think Johnson makes a lot more sense than Rogers, Reed or some other retread.

By the way, do you disagree that Johnson has been better than Garland?

jeremyb1
12-23-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Johnson also struck out batters at a slightly higher rate. And, gave up fewer home runs. And, Johnson has been a better than Garland for each of the last three years. If he's a good 5 or average 4, then how would you classify Garland, whose stats have for the most part been worse than Johnson?

If you want to compare Johnson to Garland as a starter over Garland's past three seasons then you need to compare not Johnson's last three seasons when he was 27, 28, and 29 but the three seasons when he was 21, 22, and 23 as Garland has been the past three seasons.

Jon Garland
21 3.69 ERA, 61 K's, 55 BB's in 117 IP
22 4.58 ERA, 112 K's 83 BB's in 192.7 IP
23 4.51 ERA, 108 K's, 74 BB's in 191.7 IP

Jason Johnson
21 - Did not play in the major leagues
22 - Did not play in the major leagues
23 - 6.00 ERA, 3 K's, 1 BB's in 6 IP

Looks to me like Garland is the better pitcher unless you want to argue that he's peaked at age 24. If that's the case however, Johnson - who you've deemed a solid pitcher - is a mighty odd case because he never posted an era under 5 until he was 27 years old.

boog_alou
12-24-2003, 10:22 AM
Good lord. I'm not talking about how good Garland will be in 4 years. I'm talking about the Sox rotation in 2004! And the Sox could use someone like Johnson because he is better than Garland RIGHT NOW.

Maybe Garland will be as good as Johnson when he is 27. But, what does that have to do with whether the Sox should sign Johnson for the 2004 season?

itchy
12-24-2003, 10:38 AM
All the Sox need is 5 reasonable starters to win this division, and let the cards fall where they may in the playoffs. Our top three (MB, EL and JG) aren't good enough to carry a stiff 5th starter, as we proved last year. I would be happy if Johnson was one of the 5.

poorme
12-24-2003, 10:53 AM
2003 Win Shares

Garland 10
Johnson 10

Neither one is appreciably better than the other.

boog_alou
12-24-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by poorme
2003 Win Shares

Garland 10
Johnson 10

Neither one is appreciably better than the other.

First of all, Win Shares aren't the be-all, end-all of statistical analysis. Second, it is a pretty blunt tool. Not all 10's are created equal. Third, Johnson has a good three-year track record, whereas Garland really doesn't.

I will say again, that Johnson is better right now than Garland and probably will be in 2004, unless Garland suddenly, finaly blossoms.

spanishwhite
12-24-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by boog_alou
First of all, Win Shares aren't the be-all, end-all of statistical analysis. Second, it is a pretty blunt tool. Not all 10's are created equal. Third, Johnson has a good three-year track record, whereas Garland really doesn't.

I will say again, that Johnson is better right now than Garland and probably will be in 2004, unless Garland suddenly, finaly blossoms.

wow, have you checked both of their stats over the past three years.

The only difference is Johnson's slighty lower era and Garland lets way less hits than Johnson.

Everything is pretty close.

I still wouldnt mind him being in the rotation (johnson)

Iwritecode
12-24-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by spanishwhite
wow, have you checked both of their stats over the past three years.

The only difference is Johnson's slighty lower era and Garland lets way less hits than Johnson.

Everything is pretty close.

I still wouldnt mind him being in the rotation (johnson)

Exactly. Everything is extremely close between the two. Johnson has been a bit more consistent the past three years but as previously mentioned, he's older. Garland has gotten a little bit better each of the past three years. If he has another year resembling last year, I wouldn't say that Johnson is definetly better. It's quite close IMO.

boog_alou
12-24-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by spanishwhite


wow, have you checked both of their stats over the past three years.
The only difference is Johnson's slighty lower era and Garland lets way less hits than Johnson.
Everything is pretty close.

I still wouldnt mind him being in the rotation (johnson)


Originally posted by Iwritecode


Exactly. Everything is extremely close between the two. Johnson has been a bit more consistent the past three years but as previously mentioned, he's older. Garland has gotten a little bit better each of the past three years. If he has another year resembling last year, I wouldn't say that Johnson is definetly better. It's quite close IMO.
They are similar. I never thought Johnson was MUCH better...just better.

Over the last three years:

- Johnson has had the better ERA (particularly when you just look at Garland's ERA as a starter).

- Garland has had the better WHIP (walks plus hits per innings pitched)

- Johnson has had the better K/9

- Johnson has had the beter K/BB

And, I would debate that Garland has "gotten a little bit better each of the past three years".

- His ERA has been nearly flat
- His WHIP has improved consistently
- His K/9 dropped last year
- His BB/9 has improved
- His HR/9 was worse last year

Unfortunately for the Sox, he isn't exactly a young pitcher who just keeps getting better and better.

MarkEdward
12-24-2003, 12:22 PM
For what it's worth, here are some three year averages for both Johnson and Garland, from 2001 to 2003:

Garland, average IP: 167
Johnson, average IP: 172

Garland, average ERA+: 108
Johnson, average ERA+: 103

Garland, average K/9: 5.0
Johnson, average K/9: 5.8

Garland, average BB/9: 3.9
Johnson, average BB/9: 3.4

Garland, average HR/9: 1.2
Johnson, average HR/9: 1.2

Garland walks more and strikes out less. However, Jon is six year younger, and should be expected to improve. Johnson won't get much better than his current performances.

boog_alou
12-24-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Garland walks more and strikes out less. However, Jon is six year younger, and should be expected to improve. Johnson won't get much better than his current performances.
That is why I said Johnson is better right now and would be a good acquisition for the Sox.

As far as Garland definitely improving, I would say probably, but I don't know by how much. He hasn't exactly been consistently improving over his major league career. Not all young pitchers eventually become great, or even very good. Some top out at merely average.

Iwritecode
12-24-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
That is why I said Johnson is better right now and would be a good acquisition for the Sox.

So basically we would have two Jon Garlands (more or less) in the rotation. I could live with that.

It's better than the two wide open holes they have at the #4 and #5 spots right now...

boog_alou
12-24-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
So basically we would have two Jon Garlands (more or less) in the rotation. I could live with that.

It's better than the two wide open holes they have at the #4 and #5 spots right now...
A rotation of:

Loaiza
Buehrle
Garland
Schoeneweis
Rauch

should make any Sox fan nauseous.

maurice
12-24-2003, 02:02 PM
The issue is not whether you want Johnson OR Garland in the Sox rotation. The issue is whether you want BOTH Johnson AND Garland. Apparently, the Sox are not in the market for any very good starting pitchers. Since the current alternatives are Schoenweis, Wright, Cotts, Rauch, etc. (TWO of whom make the rotation if the Sox don't add a starter), I think Johnson would be a nice addition. Unfortunately, he'll almost certainly sign elsewhere.

jeremyb1
12-24-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Good lord. I'm not talking about how good Garland will be in 4 years. I'm talking about the Sox rotation in 2004! And the Sox could use someone like Johnson because he is better than Garland RIGHT NOW.

Maybe Garland will be as good as Johnson when he is 27. But, what does that have to do with whether the Sox should sign Johnson for the 2004 season?

Exactly, we're talking about who will fare better next season. There is no reason to believe both pitchers will duplicate their performances from last season especially when there's 6 years difference between them in age, so where each pitcher is at in his career is a key determination to make in order to project which pitcher will fare better next season.

The fact that Garland is 24 years old and has steadily improved over the past few seasons is critical to examining his prognosis for next season. There is a good chance he will improve and also a chance that he will breakout while the same logic does not apply to Johnson who will be 30 next season.

Additionally, the age of the two pitchers is extremely important since you're using a three year range to determine the better pitcher. It'd be one thing if you were comparing the performance of a 23 year old to a 29 year old. I'd most certainly argue its an unfair comparision but basing your opinion of each pitchers ability to pitch well next season on Garland's performance at 21 to Johnson's performance at 27 is ridiculous.