PDA

View Full Version : is garland all that bad as a #3?


idseer
10-12-2004, 09:52 PM
i keep reading over and over how bad jon is. he's certainly no number 3 or even a #4. even i have been saying he'd be a good #5 for the sox.

or is this just a 'the grass is greener' thing?

i checked out every other american league team for this season and low and behold ... garland appears to be no worse than the 4th best #3 in the league. only boston, minnesota and oakland clearly had a better 3rd stater this past season.
now i'm sure someone will make an argument that so and so was better, but before you do .... check out the stats. ny with vasqeuz MIGHT be considered better, but not by much.

perhaps we should rethink this 'trade garland he sucks' or 'he should only be counted upon as a 5th starter' talk, huh?

OEO Magglio
10-12-2004, 10:00 PM
i keep reading over and over how bad jon is. he's certainly no number 3 or even a #4. even i have been saying he'd be a good #5 for the sox.

or is this just a 'the grass is greener' thing?

i checked out every other american league team for this season and low and behold ... garland appears to be no worse than the 4th best #3 in the league. only boston, minnesota and oakland clearly had a better 3rd stater this past season.
now i'm sure someone will make an argument that so and so was better, but before you do .... check out the stats. ny with vasqeuz MIGHT be considered better, but not by much.

perhaps we should rethink this 'trade garland he sucks' or 'he should only be counted upon as a 5th starter' talk, huh?

Your right on with your explanation here. I stated in another thread that he's comparable to most 4th starters in the al and even some 3 starters, Garland would be a great 5th starter to have. People get so down on Jon because we all had high expectations for him and for the most part he's very annoying to watch pitch. We've had a glaring hole in the 5th starter spot for the last two years, if kenny can go find another starter bumping Jon down to the 4th spot, 1-5 the sox rotation will be more then solid.

munchman33
10-12-2004, 10:29 PM
i keep reading over and over how bad jon is. he's certainly no number 3 or even a #4. even i have been saying he'd be a good #5 for the sox.

or is this just a 'the grass is greener' thing?

i checked out every other american league team for this season and low and behold ... garland appears to be no worse than the 4th best #3 in the league. only boston, minnesota and oakland clearly had a better 3rd stater this past season.
now i'm sure someone will make an argument that so and so was better, but before you do .... check out the stats. ny with vasqeuz MIGHT be considered better, but not by much.

perhaps we should rethink this 'trade garland he sucks' or 'he should only be counted upon as a 5th starter' talk, huh?
Great post. I had no idea the league is that hard up for pitching. I think the real problem is Buerhle and Garcia are both #2's and more pressure is put on Garland to perform.

shagar69
10-12-2004, 10:31 PM
people are so down on garland because SO MANY people have been hyping him as a guy who could be a 17, 18 game winner(hawk, farmio, etc)

OEO Magglio
10-12-2004, 10:34 PM
people are so down on garland because SO MANY people have been hyping him as a guy who could be a 17, 18 game winner(hawk, farmio, etc)
OEO Magglio. :D: :tongue:

Hank Kimball
10-12-2004, 10:52 PM
Nice job on the research.


Well, very interesting stats.


Anyway, I think this is even more reason to.....

How old is this kid?

I'd sure hate to see him blossom in another uniform.


Well, not really blossom, more like.....

(wouldn't he have to bat in the NL?)


Hank

MRKARNO
10-12-2004, 11:02 PM
Garland might be a number 3 on some teams, but not any of the serious playoff contending teams and our goal is to win a world series, so unless he's a five, we have no reason to be happy.

munchman33
10-12-2004, 11:05 PM
Garland might be a number 3 on some teams, but not any of the serious playoff contending teams and our goal is to win a world series, so unless he's a five, we have no reason to be happy.
You missed whole point of idseer's research. He'd be the #3 on the Yankees staff. THE FRIGGIN' YANKEES. They don't get more "playoff contending with the goal to win the World Series" than the Yankees.

nitetrain8601
10-12-2004, 11:17 PM
I agree with the Yankees statement. I think the problem is by some he was predicted to be a Cy Young candidate in his career and a 20 game winner. So far he hasn't shown anything.

MRKARNO
10-12-2004, 11:25 PM
You missed whole point of idseer's research. He'd be the #3 on the Yankees staff. THE FRIGGIN' YANKEES. They don't get more "playoff contending with the goal to win the World Series" than the Yankees.

I beg to differ. Garland would not beat out Mussina, Brown, El Duque or Vazquez. Probably not Lieber either. I know Vazquez had a worse year this year but it was an uncharacteristically bad year whereas Garland's year wasn't that much worse than normal.

idseer
10-12-2004, 11:34 PM
I beg to differ. Garland would not beat out Mussina, Brown, El Duque or Vazquez. Probably not Lieber either. I know Vazquez had a worse year this year but it was an uncharacteristically bad year whereas Garland's year wasn't that much worse than normal.
i don't think i agree on vazquez, however, the thing is that the yankees could get by with jon at number three because of their relief and their hitting.

fquaye149
10-12-2004, 11:38 PM
he would beat out el duque more than likely and the way vazquez has been pitching lately . . .

santo=dorf
10-12-2004, 11:40 PM
You missed whole point of idseer's research. He'd be the #3 on the Yankees staff. THE FRIGGIN' YANKEES. They don't get more "playoff contending with the goal to win the World Series" than the Yankees.And he wouldn't even be in the rotation of the non-playoff team, Oakland A's. What's your point?:?:

Daver
10-12-2004, 11:42 PM
Starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in MLB, and the big spenders will make a play for every FA starter on the market, whether they really need pitching or not.

Gonna be interesting to see what KW does.

MRKARNO
10-12-2004, 11:49 PM
i don't think i agree on vazquez, however, the thing is that the yankees could get by with jon at number three because of their relief and their hitting.

I'll agree with you if you mean Jon Lieber.

shagar69
10-13-2004, 12:37 AM
You missed whole point of idseer's research. He'd be the #3 on the Yankees staff. THE FRIGGIN' YANKEES. They don't get more "playoff contending with the goal to win the World Series" than the Yankees.
so what? the yanks didnt make the series based on SP. they got Arod, jeter, sheff, matsui, and posada. last time i checked we dont have any of those guys

jabrch
10-13-2004, 09:52 AM
We could be fine with Garland in the rotation, 3, 4, 5, whatever. The problem is with whomever else holds those 2 spots. That's our issue - not JG.

Baby Fisk
10-13-2004, 10:04 AM
As evidenced by countless outraged gametime posts by people here, Garland's "one bad inning" per game is what gets people down on him. You can't argue the stats, but you also can't ignore his "mental midgetry" when it counts. I like him as a #4 or 5, but if we think of him as a # 3... [*shudders*] :(:

Mickster
10-13-2004, 10:10 AM
We could be fine with Garland in the rotation, 3, 4, 5, whatever. The problem is with whomever else holds those 2 spots. That's our issue - not JG.
Completely agree. I think we are spending too much time focusing on where Jon would be in our rotation (i.e. #3). E-Lo started 2003 as our #5 and ended up our #1. We got Freddy to be our ace and I'd venture to say he's our #2 as consistancy-wise, MB is better. I would not mind Garland being on our staff at all provided that we get a serious SP, not Grilli, Diaz, etc. Those guys can be nice long relief, mop-up type pitchers but ones that I don't feel comfortable as a 2005 SP out of spring training. The impression I have is that most people that want Jon gone do so based less on his performance and more on his attitude, which clearly needs some work.

Buehrle
Garcia
Garland
Contraras
XXXXXXX (Insert real SP here)

Get a decent bullpen and I feel that we will be fine. Cooper needs to spend some time with Contreras to make him more consistant!

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2004, 10:20 AM
Completely agree. I think we are spending too much time focusing on where Jon would be in our rotation (i.e. #3). E-Lo started 2003 as our #5 and ended up our #1. We got Freddy to be our ace and I'd venture to say he's our #2 as consistancy-wise, MB is better. I would not mind Garland being on our staff at all provided that we get a serious SP, not Grilli, Diaz, etc. Those guys can be nice long relief, mop-up type pitchers but ones that I don't feel comfortable as a 2005 SP out of spring training. The impression I have is that most people that want Jon gone do so based less on his performance and more on his attitude, which clearly needs some work.

Buehrle
Garcia
Garland
Contraras
XXXXXXX (Insert real SP here)

Get a decent bullpen and I feel that we will be fine. Cooper needs to spend some time with Contreras to make him more consistant!Garland seems to be able to get 10-12 wins per year. Maybe he'll get better, but that's what you can count on, so that's what matters in my book. To be a serious contender you need 70-75 wins from your starting rotation. To get there you're going to need 4 pitchers better than Jon Garland. If he breaks out and wins 16 games, great. But I still want four starters better than 10-12 wins.

idseer
10-13-2004, 04:22 PM
Garland seems to be able to get 10-12 wins per year. Maybe he'll get better, but that's what you can count on, so that's what matters in my book. To be a serious contender you need 70-75 wins from your starting rotation. To get there you're going to need 4 pitchers better than Jon Garland. If he breaks out and wins 16 games, great. But I still want four starters better than 10-12 wins.there were only 2 teams in ALL OF BASEBALL who had four 13 or more game winners.

1. st louis with the highest being 16
2. atlanta with the highest being 15

there were only 2 other teams with three!

1. boston
2. la (all 3 pitchers won 13)

i suggest what your asking for is unreasonable. jon has averaged 12 wins for 3 straight years (and 12 losses) and is still only 25 no matter his experience.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2004, 04:40 PM
there were only 2 teams in ALL OF BASEBALL who had four 13 or more game winners.

1. st louis with the highest being 16
2. atlanta with the highest being 15

there were only 2 other teams with three!

1. boston
2. la (all 3 pitchers won 13)

i suggest what your asking for is unreasonable. jon has averaged 12 wins for 3 straight years (and 12 losses) and is still only 25 no matter his experience.Maybe it's just a coincidence that all 4 of these teams made the playoffs? It's also a little misleading because many of the other top teams had only a few guys who started 30 games, primarily due to injuries. With few exceptions, playoff teams get 70-75 wins from their starting rotation and 20 or so from the BP. If your top 3 are good enough, you can afford to have two starters with only 10-12 wins, but that means those top three have to win 17 each.

idseer
10-13-2004, 04:52 PM
Maybe it's just a coincidence that all 4 of these teams made the playoffs? It's also a little misleading because many of the other top teams had only a few guys who started 30 games, primarily due to injuries. With few exceptions, playoff teams get 70-75 wins from their starting rotation and 20 or so from the BP. If your top 3 are good enough, you can afford to have two starters with only 10-12 wins, but that means those top three have to win 17 each.
2003 ws winner had 3 - all 14 game winners
2002 ws winner had 3 with the lowest being 14 (after that was 9)
2001 ws winner had 2 with more than 13 wins

i think you're wrong.

santo=dorf
10-13-2004, 05:05 PM
2003 ws winner had 3 - all 14 game winners
2002 ws winner had 3 with the lowest being 14 (after that was 9)
2001 ws winner had 2 with more than 13 wins

i think you're wrong.
Proving that it takes an entire team to win a World Series, not just a sole player.

idseer
10-13-2004, 05:07 PM
Proving that it takes an entire team to win a World Series, not just a sole player.
good point!

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2004, 05:25 PM
2003 ws winner had 3 - all 14 game winners
2002 ws winner had 3 with the lowest being 14 (after that was 9)
2001 ws winner had 2 with more than 13 wins

i think you're wrong.How many starters on those teams started 30 or more games? Obviously, if you have 6 or 7 starters over the course of the season with most of them starting only 20-25 games, you're not going to have many 15 game winners. Look back over those teams and count up the number of wins from the starting rotation. If the Marlins had three 14-game winners, that adds up to only 42 wins. Where did all the other wins come from? Either they had a bunch of other pitchers dividing up the wins or their bullpen amassed an unusually high number of wins.

It's pretty simple math. You typically need 90+ wins to make the post-season. That normally means 70+ from the rotation and 20 or so from the BP. 70 wins divided by 5 starters is an average of 14 each. If you have a couple of guys getting only 10-12, you need 17 each from the other three to make your nut. If your third-best starter gets only 12 wins, you'd better have two 20-game winners at the top of the rotation. Of course, all this assumes 5 starters. With 6 or 7, it's obviously going to add up differently.

idseer
10-13-2004, 05:53 PM
How many starters on those teams started 30 or more games? Obviously, if you have 6 or 7 starters over the course of the season with most of them starting only 20-25 games, you're not going to have many 15 game winners. Look back over those teams and count up the number of wins from the starting rotation. If the Marlins had three 14-game winners, that adds up to only 42 wins. Where did all the other wins come from? Either they had a bunch of other pitchers dividing up the wins or their bullpen amassed an unusually high number of wins.

It's pretty simple math. You typically need 90+ wins to make the post-season. That normally means 70+ from the rotation and 20 or so from the BP. 70 wins divided by 5 starters is an average of 14 each. If you have a couple of guys getting only 10-12, you need 17 each from the other three to make your nut. If your third-best starter gets only 12 wins, you'd better have two 20-game winners at the top of the rotation. Of course, all this assumes 5 starters. With 6 or 7, it's obviously going to add up differently.
well duh! you think i don't know it's the total amount of wins that matters? :?:

the point of the thread is that garland can fit on this team and if he can contribute 12 to 14 wins.

santo=dorf
10-13-2004, 05:58 PM
the point of the thread is that garland can fit on this team and if he can contribute 12 to 14 wins.
I'm more concerned with Judy's K/BB ratio and thenumber of homers he gives up on the road.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2004, 06:03 PM
well duh! you think i don't know it's the total amount of wins that matters? :?:

the point of the thread is that garland can fit on this team and if he can contribute 12 to 14 wins.I agree, he can. But counting on him for 12 wins, they need 4 more starters to win at least that many and more, which was what I said in the first place. Assuming a 5-man rotation, if your 4th best starter wins only 12 games, your top 3 have to average 17 each, which is tough. And if your 3rd best starter wins only 12, you're pretty much SOL.

SoxxoS
10-13-2004, 06:28 PM
Put it this way...do you want Jon Garland starting game 3 and possibly game 7 of a playoff series?

idseer
10-13-2004, 06:32 PM
Put it this way...do you want Jon Garland starting game 3 and possibly game 7 of a playoff series?
i'd give most anything to have that happen next year. how about you?

idseer
10-13-2004, 06:33 PM
I agree, he can. But counting on him for 12 wins, they need 4 more starters to win at least that many and more, which was what I said in the first place. Assuming a 5-man rotation, if your 4th best starter wins only 12 games, your top 3 have to average 17 each, which is tough. And if your 3rd best starter wins only 12, you're pretty much SOL.
flat not true.

Mickster
10-13-2004, 07:04 PM
Maybe it's just a coincidence that all 4 of these teams made the playoffs? It's also a little misleading because many of the other top teams had only a few guys who started 30 games, primarily due to injuries. With few exceptions, playoff teams get 70-75 wins from their starting rotation and 20 or so from the BP. If your top 3 are good enough, you can afford to have two starters with only 10-12 wins, but that means those top three have to win 17 each.
Interestingly enough, I pulled the stats of all 8 teams that made the post season this year and this is what I found with respect to wins specifically from starting pitchers:

NL
STL 75
HOU 70
ATL 69
LA 70

AL
NYY 71
BOS 75
ANA 68
MIN 61

Sox: 59

Kind of ironic that the starting pitchers of these teams all had approx. 70 wins with the exception of the Twins.

I don't think that you can state that "If your #1 or your #4 has x # of wins then your #2, 3 and 5 SPs need to win X number of games...." There will be injuries, missed starts, relievers starting, etc. But you seem to be correct in your generalization that your starters need to win 70 or so games and the rest will come from the relievers.

SoxxoS
10-14-2004, 12:45 AM
i'd give most anything to have that happen next year. how about you?
If we are in the playoffs, I want to win the series...and I wouldn't feel the LEAST bit confident going into it with Garland as our #3 pitcher.

Mohoney
10-14-2004, 12:46 AM
I beg to differ. Garland would not beat out Mussina, Brown, El Duque or Vazquez. Probably not Lieber either. I know Vazquez had a worse year this year but it was an uncharacteristically bad year whereas Garland's year wasn't that much worse than normal.

Thank God that the Voice of Reason finally showed up.

Garland over Vazquez or El Duque as a #3? No thanks. Just get me Russ Ortiz and make the point moot.

Ol' No. 2
10-14-2004, 11:42 AM
Interestingly enough, I pulled the stats of all 8 teams that made the post season this year and this is what I found with respect to wins specifically from starting pitchers:

NL
STL 75
HOU 70
ATL 69
LA 70

AL
NYY 71
BOS 75
ANA 68
MIN 61

Sox: 59

Kind of ironic that the starting pitchers of these teams all had approx. 70 wins with the exception of the Twins.

I don't think that you can state that "If your #1 or your #4 has x # of wins then your #2, 3 and 5 SPs need to win X number of games...." There will be injuries, missed starts, relievers starting, etc. But you seem to be correct in your generalization that your starters need to win 70 or so games and the rest will come from the relievers.Did you think I just pulled that number out of thin air?

Moses_Scurry
10-14-2004, 01:56 PM
2001 ws winner had 2 with more than 13 wins


When your #1 and #2 are Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, you can have Jon Rauch as your number 3, let alone Jon Garland!

Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling >>>>> Freddy Garcia and Mark Beuhrle

maurice
10-14-2004, 03:41 PM
Garland can be a #3 on a winning team that invests in its lineup and bullpen. On a team like the Sox that appears to be content with a weak bullpen and a weakening lineup, you need to get the best starting pitching available. Unfortunately, it looks like we're destined to be mediocre in all three areas.

:angry:

Prove me wrong, JR.

idseer
10-14-2004, 04:31 PM
When your #1 and #2 are Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, you can have Jon Rauch as your number 3, let alone Jon Garland!

Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling >>>>> Freddy Garcia and Mark Beuhrle
they won 21 and 22 games respectively. you make it sound like they won 52 games between them.

so in your opinion garcia cannot win 21 and buehrle 22?

interesting that arizona's 3rd best starter won a total of 6 games. now if you add 6 to that and get garland's 12 wins then you only need 19 from mark and 18 from freddy. is that possible?
in addition the other 2 diamondback starters won only 4 apiece!
now their top reliever did get 11 wins but they also had 8 pitchers on that squad with losing records.

my point being that there are a LOT of factors that create a potential ws champion. and in no way is jon garland a hinderance.

idseer
10-14-2004, 04:32 PM
Garland can be a #3 on a winning team that invests in its lineup and bullpen. On a team like the Sox that appears to be content with a weak bullpen and a weakening lineup, you need to get the best starting pitching available. Unfortunately, it looks like we're destined to be mediocre in all three areas.

:angry:

Prove me wrong, JR.
another good point.