PDA

View Full Version : Why Garland's a loser


Bisco Stu
10-02-2004, 12:03 AM
"I made all my starts and I got over 200 innings," Garland said tonight. "I think that's what I'm happiest with this year. To get 200 or more innings, you've got to be doing something right."

Erik The Red
10-02-2004, 12:25 AM
I guess that's the only thing he really has to be happy about. It's not like he had 15 wins, or a decent ERA, or pitched consistently, or...

StillMissOzzie
10-02-2004, 12:35 AM
"I made all my starts and I got over 200 innings," Garland said tonight. "I think that's what I'm happiest with this year. To get 200 or more innings, you've got to be doing something right."
As Carlton Fisk once said, referring to a prior wave of underachieving young pitchers (and I am paraphrasing here), "Maybe they wouldn't change a thing, but you'd better do something different, because they're getting their brains beat in out there"

Sometimes I thing that Garland is happy being a .500 pitcher, making a decent living at $3 million a year ( and more at next year's arbitration?) when he has the potential to be much more. Of course, that's all we keep hearing about Garland is potential.

SMO
:(:

Lip Man 1
10-02-2004, 12:36 AM
'Garland'... it's an attitude...

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-02-2004, 12:47 AM
From Bob Foltman's recap story in the Tribune:

"At some point in a career, one has to wonder if a player is simply what his numbers indicate he is.


Garland, 25, is 46-51 in his career and has double-digit victories in each of his three full seasons in the majors.

His biggest downfall has been giving up one big inning. He has allowed three or more runs in an inning 13 times this season.

The expectations for Garland may be lowered next season. With Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia and Jose Contreras expected to be the top three in the rotation, Guillen said Garland and Jason Grilli will be the candidates for the fourth and fifth spots in the rotation."

Lip

The Cheat
10-02-2004, 01:48 AM
From Bob Foltman's recap story in the Tribune:

"At some point in a career, one has to wonder if a player is simply what his numbers indicate he is.


Garland, 25, is 46-51 in his career and has double-digit victories in each of his three full seasons in the majors.

His biggest downfall has been giving up one big inning. He has allowed three or more runs in an inning 13 times this season.

The expectations for Garland may be lowered next season. With Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia and Jose Contreras expected to be the top three in the rotation, Guillen said Garland and Jason Grilli will be the candidates for the fourth and fifth spots in the rotation."

Lip

Foltman's wrong... He's allowed 3 or more in 16 innings...

Mark Buehrle has allowed 3 or more in 13 innings...

and if Grilli was a horse he'd be glue by now.

kitekrazy
10-02-2004, 10:32 AM
From Bob Foltman's recap story in the Tribune:

"At some point in a career, one has to wonder if a player is simply what his numbers indicate he is.


[i]With Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia and Jose Contreras expected to be the top three in the rotation, Guillen said Garland and Jason Grilli will be the candidates for the fourth and fifth spots in the rotation."

Lip

This really doesn't get me excited for next season. This team still need a #1 and #2 starter. Or at least someone who can deliver in big games. No one on that list has proven that.

LuvSox
10-02-2004, 10:32 AM
If he can hang around in the bigs long enough (:o: ) he may grow up after he turns 30. Maybe something will come to him, he'll start acting mature.

Soxfest
10-02-2004, 10:46 AM
Jg can go today he is a .500 and will always be.

DonkeyKongerko
10-02-2004, 11:12 AM
Why do I get the feeling that the year we stop caring about Garland will be the year he finally gets his 18 wins?

munchman33
10-02-2004, 11:28 AM
Why do I get the feeling that the year we stop caring about Garland will be the year he finally gets his 18 wins?
For the Cubs! :wired:

balke
10-02-2004, 12:58 PM
I actually like Garland this season. He started out as being the one who didn't seem to get as much run support as everyone else, then came out and pitched games for us every 3-days, made a relief appearance, won as many games as JOse Contreres, was fairly consistant, and cheap.


I don't care what you say about his age and experience, and "we can't wait any longer, blah blah blah." He's fairly solid. He can give a lot of innings, and I'd accept him as #4 on a decent team, #5 on a great team, or #3 on a rebuilding team. In the end, he really did pitch fairly tough, not the toughest in the league, but for some of the crap he went through, he could've said a lot more stupid things than he did.
I just wish he could pitch against the freakin Twins.

Man Soo Lee
10-02-2004, 01:19 PM
then came out and pitched games for us every 3-days Garland and Buehrle pitched once each on three days rest. They never really went to a four-man rotation.

jeremyb1
10-02-2004, 03:08 PM
I don't get it. It's bad that Garland threw 200 innings? It's bad that he's pleased he threw 200 instead of 180? Huh?!

SoxxoS
10-02-2004, 03:35 PM
Biggest. mental. midget. ever.

shagar69
10-02-2004, 03:59 PM
won as many games as JOse Contreres,

.
yeah and thats a HUGE accomplishment since contreras had a cy young type of year

JB98
10-02-2004, 04:56 PM
"I made all my starts and I got over 200 innings," Garland said tonight. "I think that's what I'm happiest with this year. To get 200 or more innings, you've got to be doing something right."

Quite frankly, the best thing about Garland is the fact that he took the ball 33 times and logged a lot of innings for us this year. He should be happy with that. There have been times that I've been furious with Garland this year, but this is not one of them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the above statement. 200 innings is a number that any starting pitcher in baseball would be pleased with. I just hope to see a better won-loss record from Jon next year. Although, 12-11 is not all that bad when you consider the team is only 82-78 overall.

batmanZoSo
10-02-2004, 05:53 PM
"I made all my starts and I got over 200 innings," Garland said tonight. "I think that's what I'm happiest with this year. To get 200 or more innings, you've got to be doing something right."

That's just tough guy talk, he's really crying inside. He has this great image of himself and he's just not getting it done, refuses to criticize himself, and instead he talks up his performance. Really, the only reason he got 200 innings is because Ozzie left him in longer than Manuel would have. None of our 2000 starters logged 200 innings and 4 were considerably better than Garland of 04. What does that tell you?

kitekrazy
10-02-2004, 09:53 PM
None of our 2000 starters logged 200 innings and 4 were considerably better than Garland of 04. What does that tell you?
It made a lot of hitters happy.

StillMissOzzie
10-03-2004, 01:10 AM
I've got another question that maybe some of you statheads can put their finger on quickly. How many no-decisions did JG have this year, and what was the ultimate outcome of those ND's? I'm wondering if he either:

A) Left the game ahead, but the bullpen coughed up a hairball, or
B) Left the game behind, but the offense bailed his butt out to get the win

My ultimate concern, then, is if B > A, then he was even less effective than his W-L record might indicate, bit if A > B, then the reverse would be true.

My gut feeling is that B > A, but I have no stats to go by.

SMO
:dunno:

MisterB
10-03-2004, 03:42 AM
I've got another question that maybe some of you statheads can put their finger on quickly. How many no-decisions did JG have this year, and what was the ultimate outcome of those ND's? I'm wondering if he either:

A) Left the game ahead, but the bullpen coughed up a hairball, or
B) Left the game behind, but the offense bailed his butt out to get the win

My ultimate concern, then, is if B > A, then he was even less effective than his W-L record might indicate, bit if A > B, then the reverse would be true.

My gut feeling is that B > A, but I have no stats to go by.

SMO
:dunno:
Garland had 10 no-decisions. The Sox were 4-6 in those games:

3 of the wins he left behind and was bailed out by the offense.
1 win he left a tie game and was bailed out.
3 losses he left a tie game and the BP blew it.
2 losses he left with a lead and the BP blew it.
1 loss he left behind, the Sox tied it up and the BP blew it.

How that all fits into your formula, I don't know.

doublem23
10-03-2004, 07:37 AM
I just hope to see a better won-loss record from Jon next year. Although, 12-11 is not all that bad when you consider the team is only 82-78 overall.
This is true. If Jon is the #5 guy, 12 wins would be superb next year.

Soxfest
10-03-2004, 09:47 AM
I hope JG is gone this offseason