PDA

View Full Version : How will Garland do this year?


SoxBoy14
03-27-2004, 06:58 PM
I think he's going to have a great season this year. I think that the number 3 spot will pressure him to practice more and prepare more which will make him an even better pitcher. He should have at least 14 wins this season.

ChiSoxFann
03-27-2004, 08:55 PM
id say he would win 15-19 hes been pitching for 3 seasons up here hes gonna break through this year

MRKARNO
03-27-2004, 08:59 PM
Two things I want from Garland:

1. Be consistant like the majority of last year. Garland had a period of about 19 consecutive starts last year where he didnt give up more than 4 runs. He also had a lot of quality starts relative to his ERA and wins. He doesn't need to be dominant, but if he's consistantly good, we're in good shape.

2. Carry the good spring over the the regular season. Garland, along with Buehrle and Wright, is having a very good spring. He just needs to keep up the good work and he should be fine.

If Buehrle, Wright and Garland pitch anywhere near they have in ST, then we're in great shape. But then again if Schoenweis and Loaiza pitch the way they have, we really aren't in great shape.

jeremyb1
03-27-2004, 09:34 PM
Wins are way too arbitrary in my opinion. As far as ERA, I'll say around 4.

voodoochile
03-27-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Wins are way too arbitrary in my opinion. As far as ERA, I'll say around 4.

arbitrary? Well I agree that wins aren't always the best way to evaluate a pitchers effectiveness, arbitrary is a bit extreme.

I am sure there is an expected win total for any starting pitcher in the AL who stays healthy and has an ERA around 4.00. I would bet it is in the area of 15 or even higher.

You make wins and losses sound completely random. That's just not true.

Thunderstruck30
03-27-2004, 11:57 PM
I thought last year was gonna be his breakout year, but it wasnt. So this year it will be. Id say about 15 wins with 3.96 ERA.

bc2k
03-28-2004, 12:12 AM
Can't count on Keanu-like California cats. Under 15 wins is my guesstimate.

WhiteSox = Life
03-28-2004, 12:46 AM
This question has been posed for years now and the same answer remains...

How will Garland do this year?

http://www.planet-rcs.de/phpBB2/images/avatars/50870b193e5526453aa88.jpg
Only the Shadow knows.



The problem is, he ain't sayin'.

jeremyb1
03-28-2004, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
arbitrary? Well I agree that wins aren't always the best way to evaluate a pitchers effectiveness, arbitrary is a bit extreme.

I am sure there is an expected win total for any starting pitcher in the AL who stays healthy and has an ERA around 4.00. I would bet it is in the area of 15 or even higher.

You make wins and losses sound completely random. That's just not true.

It may not be completely arbitrary but its close. Derek Lowe had the best run support of any starter in baseball last season with 7.26 runs scored per 9 innings he pitched. By comparison, Nate Cornejo had 3.24 runs per 9 innings scored for him, less than half that figure. That theoretically means Cornejo has to pitch twice as well as Lowe to win an equal number of games. Cornejo's ERA was 4.67 and Lowe's 4.47. Lowe's record? 17-7. Cornejo's was 6-17. I don't think that's explained by two tenths of a run per nine innings difference.

SoxBoy14
03-28-2004, 11:22 AM
How about strike outs? I say he gets about 150 strike outs.

soxfan26
03-28-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
It may not be completely arbitrary but its close. Derek Lowe had the best run support of any starter in baseball last season with 7.26 runs scored per 9 innings he pitched. By comparison, Nate Cornejo had 3.24 runs per 9 innings scored for him, less than half that figure. That theoretically means Cornejo has to pitch twice as well as Lowe to win an equal number of games. Cornejo's ERA was 4.67 and Lowe's 4.47. Lowe's record? 17-7. Cornejo's was 6-17. I don't think that's explained by two tenths of a run per nine innings difference.

Is your argument that we should judge a pitcher based on ERA alone?

Brian26
03-28-2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Is your argument that we should judge a pitcher based on ERA alone?

I thought his argument was pointed towards the importance of run support, even more so than ERA.

Brian26
03-28-2004, 02:16 PM
By the way, I've got Garland penciled in for 18 wins this year.

soxfan26
03-28-2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Wins are way too arbitrary in my opinion. As far as ERA, I'll say around 4.


Originally posted by Brian26


I thought his argument was pointed towards the importance of run support, even more so than ERA.

I understand what he means about run support being vital to wins and I agree. Our own Mark Buehrle could have probably won 17 games last year with better run support on a few occasions.

So then the only question I have is does he believe that ERA is the only true reflection of how well a guy pitches?

voodoochile
03-28-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I understand what he means about run support being vital to wins and I agree. Our own Mark Buehrle could have probably won 17 games last year with better run support on a few occasions.

So then the only question I have is does he believe that ERA is the only true reflection of how well a guy pitches?

Bring back Jose DeLeon, or whatever that guys name was who Hawk acquired for Bobby Bonilla...

There are extreme examples in almost any situation. A good starter should be able to rise above some factors like run support except in extreme examples like where they receive amazing support (Lowe) or play for one of the worst team in the history of baseball (Cornejo).

jeremyb1
03-28-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I understand what he means about run support being vital to wins and I agree. Our own Mark Buehrle could have probably won 17 games last year with better run support on a few occasions.

So then the only question I have is does he believe that ERA is the only true reflection of how well a guy pitches?

No, I don't believe only in ERA. I believe in BB and K rates amongst other stats but I don't believe in wins as a means of evaluating a pitcher.

CubKilla
03-28-2004, 03:59 PM
A game or two above or below .500. W-L numbers around 13-15. 4.27 ERA.

Paragon of mediocrity as usual. He'll look like Cy Young one start and Jaime Navarro the next.

TornLabrum
03-28-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Bring back Jose DeLeon, or whatever that guys name was who Hawk acquired for Bobby Bonilla...

There are extreme examples in almost any situation. A good starter should be able to rise above some factors like run support except in extreme examples like where they receive amazing support (Lowe) or play for one of the worst team in the history of baseball (Cornejo).

The classic example of no run support for the Sox was Ross Baumgarten in, iirc, 1980. He went something like 2-12 with a decent ERA.

WSox8404
03-28-2004, 09:21 PM
To be quite honest, I bet Garland ends up with close to 20 wins. He knows damn well this is a huge year for him. If he sux it up, well his future will look uncertain. I voted for 15 to 19 wins, thinking that the total will be closer to 18 or 19. He has great stuff and pretty good mechanics. Now all he has to do is put it all together.

CubKilla
03-28-2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by WSox8404
If he sux it up, well his future will look uncertain.

JG surely hasn't disappointed in making Sox fans "uncertain" of his ability. He is nothing more than a game or two above .500 starting pitcher as years end. Mediocrity defined. I'm sick and tired of every year being "the year" for JG.

CWSGuy406
03-28-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
JG surely hasn't disappointed in making Sox fans "uncertain" of his ability. He is nothing more than a game or two above .500 starting pitcher as years end. Mediocrity defined. I'm sick and tired of every year being "the year" for JG.

Yeah, this darn well better be the year for Jon Garland. I thought he did a pretty good job last season as our number four - now he's a number three. Manuel's gone, Guillen is going to let him pitch.

Take it as you want - Unluckily/Luckily, the first team Jon will get prove himself against is the Yankees.

jeremyb1
03-28-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
JG surely hasn't disappointed in making Sox fans "uncertain" of his ability. He is nothing more than a game or two above .500 starting pitcher as years end. Mediocrity defined. I'm sick and tired of every year being "the year" for JG.

Hehe. I'm glad people thought long and hard about the conversation about the value of wins in this thread.