PDA

View Full Version : Breakout year next year for Garland?


danman31
09-27-2001, 08:24 PM
I know Garland is still very young and he has the potential to be great. My question is when will he break out, if at all? Next year could be the year, but I don't think he'll be his absolute best next year. My pick is 2003 for Jon to show his potential.

KempersRS
09-27-2001, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by danman31
I know Garland is still very young and he has the potential to be great. My question is when will he break out, if at all? Next year could be the year, but I don't think he'll be his absolute best next year. My pick is 2003 for Jon to show his potential.

He really showed flashes this season. He started off rocky, but he really calmed down. Reguardless of what his ERA looks like in the end, I think he really made strides this year.

Chisox_cali
09-27-2001, 08:42 PM
I think everyone will breakout in 2003 I really think that is the year it will all click, Comiskey has the All-Star game that year Borchard, Crede, maybe even Malone and Rauch will click well with Buehrle and Garland, most of the injured guys will probbly back to 2000 form. I cant wait

FarWestChicago
09-27-2001, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS


He really showed flashes this season. He started off rocky, but he really calmed down. Reguardless of what his ERA looks like in the end, I think he really made strides this year. Well, his ERA is 3.75. That's not too shabby.

kermittheefrog
09-27-2001, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Well, his ERA is 3.75. That's not too shabby.

The 3.75 ERA looks nice but he's allowed a lot of unearned runs and a lot of baserunners. His if you tack on the unearned runs to his ERA it moves up to 4.68. He also allows a fair amount of homers and more than 1.5 baserunners inning pitched. And his strikeout rate is ridiculously low. It looks like it'll be awhile before he breaks out.

charlie browned
09-27-2001, 10:08 PM
This board should be renamed JonGarlandFanClub.com. He is consistently behind on the count, panics when he is, and then gives up the game. He does not have the mental toughness of Buerhle, or the stuff of K. Wells. Maybe as he "matures" (i.e., gains 20 lbs. in the weight room, and gets someone other than Nardi Contreras to listen to), he'll get marginally better. But he's over-hyped, IMO.

FarWestChicago
09-27-2001, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


The 3.75 ERA looks nice but he's allowed a lot of unearned runs and a lot of baserunners. His if you tack on the unearned runs to his ERA it moves up to 4.68. He also allows a fair amount of homers and more than 1.5 baserunners inning pitched. And his strikeout rate is ridiculously low. It looks like it'll be awhile before he breaks out. Uh oh, Kermie has spoken. Rocked has "mad skills" and Garland sucks. Better send Garland down to single A and forget about him. By the way, if you add unearned runs to his ERA it's not an ERA any more, Kermie. Do you have stats for Garland and other pitchers for this ARA?

FarWestChicago
09-27-2001, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by charlie browned
This board should be renamed JonGarlandFanClub.com. He is consistently behind on the count, panics when he is, and then gives up the game. He does not have the mental toughness of Buerhle, or the stuff of K. Wells. Maybe as he "matures" (i.e., gains 20 lbs. in the weight room, and gets someone other than Nardi Contreras to listen to), he'll get marginally better. But he's over-hyped, IMO. I think CharlieHatesGarland.com might be more appropriate. :)

charlie browned
09-27-2001, 10:19 PM
wrong FWC--as a Sox fan, I dearly want him to succeed. He's just disappointing. He seems diffident, not mentally tough...he seems to be taking after the nice guy Jerry Manuel/Nardi Contreras coaching environment. He seems maxed out....

FarWestChicago
09-27-2001, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by charlie browned
wrong FWC--as a Sox fan, I dearly want him to succeed. He's just disappointing. He seems diffident, not mentally tough...he seems to be taking after the nice guy Jerry Manuel/Nardi Contreras coaching environment. He seems maxed out.... I respect your opinion, but I think he's a little young to give up on, no matter what his ARA is.

kermittheefrog
09-27-2001, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Uh oh, Kermie has spoken. Rocked has "mad skills" and Garland sucks. Better send Garland down to single A and forget about him. By the way, if you add unearned runs to his ERA it's not an ERA any more, Kermie. Do you have stats for Garland and other pitchers for this ARA?

Biddle was hurt and everyone knows it. He pitched well when he was healthy. Who said anything about sending Garland to A-ball? He just isn't a good pitcher yet, he's still really young and I'd say he has a higher ceiling than Biddle.

BTW - It's not ARA, it's RA, runs allowed.

FarWestChicago
09-27-2001, 10:39 PM
BTW - It's not ARA, it's RA, runs allowed. ARA is a term I made up because you used ERA plus unearned runs without naming the "official" stat. Don't Runs Allowed need to be averaged to be comparable to ERA with allowed runs factored in? Or, if RA is an average, what do you call unaveraged runs allowed?

GASHWOUND
09-27-2001, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by charlie browned
This board should be renamed JonGarlandFanClub.com. He is consistently behind on the count, panics when he is, and then gives up the game. He does not have the mental toughness of Buerhle, or the stuff of K. Wells. Maybe as he "matures" (i.e., gains 20 lbs. in the weight room, and gets someone other than Nardi Contreras to listen to), he'll get marginally better. But he's over-hyped, IMO.

Don't you know that Garland is "my guy?"

Young pitchers usually are behind in the count and you learn mental toughness as you mature. He's only 21 years old. But I think his menal toughness is pretty good for a 21 year old. I remember 1 or 2 starts ago he loaded the bases with nobody out and pitched right out of it giving up only 1 run. He's pitced out of alot of jams this year. I can't believe you're calling him overhyped. Is this clueless??? Well, you sound alot like him. I think he's under-hyped and this year he proved that he is a good starter and will only improve as he gets older and wiser.

kermittheefrog
09-27-2001, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
ARA is a term I made up because you used ERA plus unearned runs without naming the "official" stat. Don't Runs Allowed need to be averaged to be comparable to ERA with allowed runs factored in? Or, if RA is an average, what do you call unaveraged runs allowed?

I figured out you made up ARA. And I screwed up in that last post. It should have been run average not runs allowed, sorry. I've also seen it as RAA, runs allowed average. Of course what it's called isn't the important part.

FarWestChicago
09-27-2001, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I figured out you made up ARA. And I screwed up in that last post. It should have been run average not runs allowed, sorry. I've also seen it as RAA, runs allowed average. Of course what it's called isn't the important part. Well, I might be biased because I made it up, but I think Allowed Run Average sounds cooler than RAA. Plus, it mimics the word pattern of ERA. :)

Randar68
09-27-2001, 11:00 PM
Well, untill Garland can figure a pitch, and when to throw it, that makes hitters miss and K, he will struggle. He gets behind, works back because he has enough movement to make people foul off the ball, but he doesn't have enough movement or deception to make the hitter miss on 2-2 or 3-2. Overall, he needs a better curve or change-up. Still young and still a lot of movement, but he still hasn't fully learned how and when to use it...

charlie browned
09-27-2001, 11:08 PM
Is this clueless??? Well, you sound alot like him.

I'll admit I'm usually clueless, but I'm definitely not Clueless.
Bayless is not so bad, IMO...but his unfortunate "overhyped phenoms" will resonate with paranoid Sox fans for years...and Sox fans have elephant memories. Bayless is at least honest most of the time---more than you can say about Moronotti (or Lincicome when he was here).
But looking at things objectively, of the "overhyped" phenoms, only Buerhle has proven Bayless wrong. Wells, Garland, Biddle, Barcelo, even Rauch--are statistical ciphers. And Biddle, Barcelo, and Rauch are surgical ciphers as well.
Making Garland "your guy" is like investing in JDSU--lots of potential, little proven action (and I have some JDSU).

FarWestChicago
09-27-2001, 11:45 PM
I'll admit I'm usually clueless, but I'm definitely not Clueless. LMAO!!!

I heard a radio interview with Cluless here last week. He's got an ego the size of the Moron's. He really thinks a lot of himself. That was the day I cancelled my subscription to the Merc. :)

Jerry_Manuel
09-27-2001, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I heard a radio interview with Cluless here last week. He's got an ego the size of the Moron's. He really thinks a lot of himself. That was the day I cancelled my subscription to the Merc.

I would agree with that. I have seen him many times doing tv interview's and he does indeed come across as a guy with a big ego. Hell he even had his own like 2 minute weekly thought segment on CLTV which is a cable station owned by the Trib. Now on Sunday night's on CLTV North has his own show. An hour long affair.

Bmr31
09-28-2001, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I respect your opinion, but I think he's a little young to give up on, no matter what his ARA is.



i DONT respect his opinion :)

Joel Perez
09-28-2001, 12:06 PM
Garland will be fine....he's only what, 22? Give him a couple of years.

IMO--if the Sox had a half-decent starting rotation this year, and everyone should've been healthy, then Garland would've been still at AAA or in the pen getting some much needed experience. But you cannot beat on-the-job training, so this year will be a good stepping stone.