PDA

View Full Version : Garland Question


soxyes
01-05-2005, 03:25 PM
I know Garland has 36 victories the last 3 years. Over those three years, where does he rank among all pitchers & where does he rank in the American League?

Thanks - just wondering.

fledgedrallycap
01-05-2005, 03:26 PM
Outside the city of Chicago, Jon Garland would fetch the same interest as Clement, Benson, etc...

ARoman27
01-05-2005, 03:30 PM
That's what is so amazing about the contracts that some pitchers signed this off-season. Pavano, Clement, Benson and Wright all signed huge contracts at 3 years or more all making $7M or more per season. All the above mentioned pitchers carry sub-.500 career records.

Garland is a couple games under .500 on his career but isn't making nearly what the above four will take in. I think Garland will look very nice in the 5th spot in our rotation. Just imagine if he was our 5th starter last year....

MUsoxfan
01-05-2005, 03:32 PM
Outside the city of Chicago, Jon Garland would fetch the same interest as Clement, Benson, etc...
I seriously doubt that Garland would get Clement/Benson $$. I just don't see ESPN having deep discussions about where a Garland would wind up in the offseason.

fledgedrallycap
01-05-2005, 03:40 PM
I seriously doubt that Garland would get Clement/Benson $$. I just don't see ESPN having deep discussions about where a Garland would wind up in the offseason.Dollars and pub, you're probably right. However, look at the guys like Clement and Perez and countless others who are barely .500 pitchers...or not even, and are fetching 3 yr/ $25 MM contracts.

With Jon's age and heathy track record, he would get A LOT of interest from other clubs.

ARoman27
01-05-2005, 03:45 PM
Garland is certainly a highly attractive pitcher out there in the market. Why do you think that every team brings his name up when discussing trade options with us? We got a young pitcher who can give us close to 200 innings and has a track record of being able to throw up 12 wins a year in our 5th spot. Looks good to me.

Just imagine in a couple of years as Garland keeps maturing he'll be turning losses into wins and he'll have season records of 15-10, 17-11.

soxyes
01-05-2005, 03:50 PM
Can someone (any one of you stat freaks) tell me where I can find out how he ranks over the last 3 years.

Ol' No. 2
01-05-2005, 03:57 PM
Can someone (any one of you stat freaks) tell me where I can find out how he ranks over the last 3 years.Garland's 36 wins ranks him tied for 37th in baseball and 17th in the AL.

Frater Perdurabo
01-05-2005, 03:59 PM
Garland's 36 wins ranks him tied for 37th in baseball and 17th in the AL.

That's pretty good for a #3, great for a #4 and fantastic for a #5.

soxyes
01-05-2005, 04:01 PM
Garland's 36 wins ranks him tied for 37th in baseball and 17th in the AL.Thank you very much for the info - not bad for a number 5 starter (considering there are only 30 number 1's)

Ol' No. 2
01-05-2005, 04:03 PM
Thank you very much for the info - not bad for a number 5 starter (considering there are only 30 number 1's)Actually, if you look at Garland's stats for last year, he's no worse than 27th and as high as 17th in the AL in just about all statistical categories.

MUsoxfan
01-05-2005, 04:05 PM
Actually, if you look at Garland's stats for last year, he's no worse than 27th and as high as 17th in the AL in just about all statistical categories.
That's amazing. I just think Sox fans just connected him too closely with being part of the 5th starter woes

Ol' No. 2
01-05-2005, 04:11 PM
That's amazing. I just think Sox fans just connected him too closely with being part of the 5th starter woesUnfortunately, the one statistic where he's much worse is a pretty important one. Percentage of quality starts: 48%, tied for 41st in the AL.

OurBitchinMinny
01-05-2005, 04:15 PM
Garland is not a great pitcher, but as of right now he is a very serviceable #4/#5. And he is still young. I mean pavano, schmidt, clement, those guys were pretty average until they got older. Plus he very rarely gets absolutely shelled. He keeps the sox in most games. He is underrated by most sox fans. Is he frustrating?Yes at times, but he isnt what has been wrong with this team. Just like some people on this team are vastly overrated.

Flight #24
01-05-2005, 04:15 PM
Unfortunately, the one statistic where he's much worse is a pretty important one. Percentage of quality starts: 48%, tied for 41st in the AL. 14AL teams * 3 starters = 42.

So even by that one, he's still among the worse #3 starters in the AL, or among the better #4 starters.

konerko1413
01-05-2005, 04:16 PM
Unfortunately, the one statistic where he's much worse is a pretty important one. Percentage of quality starts: 48%, tied for 41st in the AL.yeah he needs to work on stayin out of that one big inning, especially now that we are an ozzie-ball team and wont hit 5,6,or7 homers in a game

ARoman27
01-05-2005, 04:18 PM
Garland is not a great pitcher, but as of right now he is a very serviceable #4/#5. And he is still young. I mean pavano, schmidt, clement, those guys were pretty average until they got older. Plus he very rarely gets absolutely shelled. He keeps the sox in most games. He is underrated by most sox fans. Is he frustrating?Yes at times, but he isnt what has been wrong with this team. Just like some people on this team are vastly overrated.
I think Garland in the #5 spot in our rotation could be very successful this season. With the pressure off him, with his laid back attitude, he could flourish. I mean are any of us going to be upset if he posts a 12-12 record with a 4.50 ERA? At least that is what I'm expecting of him....

Ol' No. 2
01-05-2005, 04:26 PM
14AL teams * 3 starters = 42.

So even by that one, he's still among the worse #3 starters in the AL, or among the better #4 starters.Agreed. But what it says to me is that he's getting his stats from a few very good outings rather than a lot of good ones. The consistency isn't there.

Averages can be very deceiving. ON AVERAGE, the Sox outscored their opponents by more runs than the Twins for two years running. So they should have won more games. But they didn't, mainly because of lack of consistency.

idseer
01-05-2005, 04:35 PM
Actually, if you look at Garland's stats for last year, he's no worse than 27th and as high as 17th in the AL in just about all statistical categories.
and it verifies what i've been saying all along. people here were NUTS to call for his head. he was one of the best #4's in the league this past year and for those who wanted to give him away .. yadda yadda .... :booty:

Flight #24
01-05-2005, 04:38 PM
Agreed. But what it says to me is that he's getting his stats from a few very good outings rather than a lot of good ones. The consistency isn't there.

Averages can be very deceiving. ON AVERAGE, the Sox outscored their opponents by more runs than the Twins for two years running. So they should have won more games. But they didn't, mainly because of lack of consistency.
Well, using the stat that shows the consistency (quality starts), you just showed that he was more consistent than most #4 starters. Add to that his other stats, and I think as a #4 or a #5 he's a great asset to the team.

Ol' No. 2
01-05-2005, 04:45 PM
Well, using the stat that shows the consistency (quality starts), you just showed that he was more consistent than most #4 starters. Add to that his other stats, and I think as a #4 or a #5 he's a great asset to the team.But his other stats put him as a high #3 or even a #2. Which, I think, shows what he's capable of if he can just get more consistent. But inconsistency is a hallmark of young players, and despite the fact that he has 4 years of experience, he's still only 25. If a lot of the people here were GM's, they'd NEVER develop a young player because they don't have the patience.

konerko1413
01-05-2005, 04:50 PM
If a lot of the people here were GM's, they'd NEVER develop a young player because they don't have the patience.
thats the key to the whole topic of big ben, crede, garland, cotts, and anyother young ball player, some of the best ballplayers dont shine until they get more experience, people are spoiled when they get a guy like maggs, pitchers especially need the time to mature

DumpJerry
01-05-2005, 05:00 PM
I think there were two things about Garland that frustrated us last year. One was his big inning tendency. He had several games where but for his Big Inning, the Sox would have won. The other was his attitude where he did not appear to accept responsibility for his actions (hence the nickname "Judy").

I think both problems will mitigate over time as he grows into the position. I certainly hope the Sox have him on the roster when he is 30 (if healthy), he will be devastating then!:D:

cburns
01-05-2005, 05:39 PM
Itd be nice if Jon could strike people out when he gets ahead in the count. I can't remember how many times I'd see him get ahead in the count, then not put the guy away, and waste pitches. I guess you can't expect a sinkerballer to strike guys out, but it'd be nice if he could pitch more effectively.

OEO Magglio
01-05-2005, 05:43 PM
thats the key to the whole topic of big ben, crede, garland, cotts, and anyother young ball player, some of the best ballplayers dont shine until they get more experience, people are spoiled when they get a guy like maggs, pitchers especially need the time to mature
Ben ain't that young........

konerko1413
01-05-2005, 05:44 PM
Ben ain't that young........
young as in experience in the majors

OEO Magglio
01-05-2005, 05:49 PM
young as in experience in the majors
Ben has been in the league in full since 99, granted he doesn't have a ton of at bats but he's definitely had opportunities to prove himself unfortunately all he's proven so far is that he can't hit worth a lick.

SoxFan48
01-05-2005, 06:00 PM
Garland has a VORP of 25.2 last year, #84 in the majors, behind starters like Kenny Rogers, Woody Williams and Jose Lima, ahead of starters Bronson Arroyo, and, yes, Javier Vasquez and Mike Mussina.

mike squires
01-05-2005, 11:28 PM
Garland is a lot like Crede. Without a consistent performance from your other pitchers he's going to go overlooked. Crede's numbers weren't exactly awful but when you don't have a Thomas/Maggs you look very average. His usual 13 wins will look pretty good if those other pitchers rack up their wins as well.

champagne030
01-06-2005, 01:09 AM
14AL teams * 3 starters = 42.

So even by that one, he's still among the worse #3 starters in the AL, or among the better #4 starters.well, i don't agree that being the 27th rated pitcher in the AL translates to a low rated second starter. he'd be a great two on tampa, but for a playoff contender, no. don't get me wrong, i think he's a great five (but i also don't think el duque holds up as a three and that's a whole other thread), but i believe his win totals have benefited because he's been no lower than 28th over the last three years in run support (as high as 6th in '03). i understand that, with our past offense this can be from a few games, but he just doesn't seem to hold up when we don't score a lot of runs (imo).

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/statistics?stat=rs&league=al&season=2&year=2004&split=0

doublem23
01-06-2005, 09:44 AM
thats the key to the whole topic of big ben, crede, garland, cotts, and anyother young ball player, some of the best ballplayers dont shine until they get more experience, people are spoiled when they get a guy like maggs, pitchers especially need the time to matureHow are we spoiled by a guy like Maggs? He was awful his first year or so in the bigs. Not coincidentally, the 1998 and 1999 White Sox were, too.

Let Montreal/Washington develop talent.

SoxFanTillDeath
01-06-2005, 10:01 AM
Jon Garland is one of my favorite players on the sox, and he always has been. So my opinion is very biased, but I think he is a very underrated pitcher.

Everybody is talking about the big innings and all that, which is true, but you all need to realize that minus that one inning every game, JG's ERA would be miniscule. A good majority of his starts that I have seen (and that is most of them) he will hold a team scoreless for 4 or 5 innings, and then give up 4 or 5 runs. I have noticed though that his big innings have become less and less big over time. He is getting better.

Under Manuel he was yanked at the first sign of trouble, but Ozzie has shown confidence in Jon and kept him in there. (about 15 more innings pitched this year) Most of the time he will put another 0 on the board the next inning, which to me is a good sign of a growing maturity. He is capable of calming himself down, and that to me proves that there is hope.

Every time Ozzie shows faith in him he helps build this guy's confidence just a little more. His confidence was absolutely shot by JM, and you don't just recover from that by snapping your fingers. I have watched a ton of Jon's games and I have been very impressed.

There is not a team in the league that would not want Jon Garland. He wouldn't get the same publicity from ESPN, but I think he would make as much money as a Clement because he would get a ton of offers and it would start up a sizable bidding war.

Jon Garland is a very good, still young pitcher. He may not ever win 20 games like everyone was saying he was destined to do, but he is "inconsistently consistent". He is inconsistent in that he throws a killer game one day, then gives up a handful of runs 5 days later. However, he's consistent in his stats year to year.

If Jon Garland continues what he has done over the last three years throughout his career (12 wins, 4.6 ERA) and retires in 2017 (he will turn 38 at the end of that season), he will have 190 wins for his career. I don't care how many ways you spin that, that is good.

Cut the guy some slack. He just finished his first winning season of his career. He very well might take the next step next season, and I'm sure all of you will jump the bandwagon and claim that "you believed in him all along and always knew he would do it, never doubting him." I hope Garland's here to stay.

daveeym
01-06-2005, 10:32 AM
Sure Garland is a more than adequate 4 or 5 but he's been a dissapointment as to what he's been billed as. A young developing top tier pitcher. Problem is he's not developing all that quickly or even steadily. On top of that his biggest problem is he's a whiny apathetic brat that never takes responsibility for his poor performances and can't handle the adversity of an error occuring. This is something I don't see changing no matter how much rope ozzie gives garland to hang himself with. Just wait until Garland has the inevitable injury (not because he's a sox but because he's a pitcher) and watch what happens. No communication with the team or dr's, going to outside dr's and not being professional about it and then starting a pissing match in the media. Garland just strikes me as an arrogant, uncoachable stuck up mental midget that's never going to get it. This isn't to be confused with cockiness etc. that a good ball player needs either.

Hope I'm wrong for the sox sake but I just don't see it happening with Garland.

Ol' No. 2
01-06-2005, 11:58 AM
well, i don't agree that being the 27th rated pitcher in the AL translates to a low rated second starter. he'd be a great two on tampa, but for a playoff contender, no. don't get me wrong, i think he's a great five (but i also don't think el duque holds up as a three and that's a whole other thread), but i believe his win totals have benefited because he's been no lower than 28th over the last three years in run support (as high as 6th in '03). i understand that, with our past offense this can be from a few games, but he just doesn't seem to hold up when we don't score a lot of runs (imo).Count up how many teams have 4 better starters than Garland. He'd be the #3 on most teams in the league, and no lower than #4 on even the best pitching staff.

Mohoney
01-06-2005, 12:35 PM
Count up how many teams have 4 better starters than Garland. He'd be the #3 on most teams in the league, and no lower than #4 on even the best pitching staff.
Now, is this just strictly stat-wise, or can I go pitcher-by-pitcher on a team and ask myself "Would I rather have (blank) than Garland"?

Ol' No. 2
01-06-2005, 01:23 PM
Now, is this just strictly stat-wise, or can I go pitcher-by-pitcher on a team and ask myself "Would I rather have (blank) than Garland"?Whatever floats your boat. Maybe you'd rather have Derek Lowe, but it's a tough sell. Statistically, you'd be a lot better off with Garland.

champagne030
01-06-2005, 06:21 PM
Count up how many teams have 4 better starters than Garland. He'd be the #3 on most teams in the league, and no lower than #4 on even the best pitching staff.He wouldn't crack the rotation in NY or Boston and wouldn't be higher than 5th for the Angels. Yes, going into this season and not counting salary i would rather have the following on the mound:

NY: Johnson, Mussina, Pavano, Wright and Brown
Boston: Schilling, Clement, Arroyo, Wells and either Miller or Wakefield.
Angels: Colon, Escobar, Washburn, Lackey and IMO Byrd.

Ol' No. 2
01-06-2005, 06:38 PM
He wouldn't crack the rotation in NY or Boston and wouldn't be higher than 5th for the Angels. Yes, going into this season and not counting salary i would rather have the following on the mound:

NY: Johnson, Mussina, Pavano, Wright and Brown
Boston: Schilling, Clement, Arroyo, Wells and either Miller or Wakefield.
Angels: Colon, Escobar, Washburn, Lackey and IMO Byrd.You're entitled to your opinions. But consider the following:

Brown has managed to start more than 22 games only once in the last 4 years. When you average his performance with whoever replaces him for the other 10 starts, I'm not so sure the result is better than 32 starts of Jon Garland.

Arroyo had a pretty good 2004, but he'd never pitched 100 MLB innings before in 4 seasons. Next year is somewhat of a leap of faith.

I'll take Garland over Byrd. It's even a close call with Lackey.

But let's think about this for a minute. On the three best pitching rotations in MLB, Garland is a legitimate #5. Not bad.

Edit: And RJ may not be going to NY if the D-backs can't get Green signed to an extension.

ja1022
01-06-2005, 06:43 PM
The intriguing thing about Garland is that he will be only 25 next season. Hopefully he matures mentally. I wish he would lose the cool guy, laid back California thing he seems to have going on. People could swallow three years of 35 starts, 200 innings and 12-12 if they thought they were getting the guy's best effort day in and day out.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-06-2005, 06:44 PM
....

But let's think about this for a minute. On the three best pitching rotations in MLB, Garland is a legitimate #5. Not bad. There's just one problem with this line of thinking. Until the Sox picked up Contreras and Hernandez, Jon Garland wasn't #5. He was #3.

Combined with pretender #4 Scott Schoenweis and a complete void at #5 (for the *fourth* straight season), the Sox had one of the worst pitching staffs in all of baseball. Our team ERA confirms this fact.

We look greatly improved in 2005 precisely because Jon Garland has been pushed back. Now that ****ing headcase needs to produce or risk getting skipped in the rotation.

I can't think of any better candidate for some tough love than that cement head idiot.

Cement head idiot ----> :jon

Ol' No. 2
01-06-2005, 06:45 PM
The intriguing thing about Garland is that he will be only 25 next season. Hopefully he matures mentally. I wish he would lose the cool guy, laid back California thing he seems to have going on. People could swallow three years of 35 starts, 200 innings and 12-12 if they thought they were getting the guy's best effort day in and day out.I've played with guys who were hyperactive and guys who were laid back. Both gave their best effort. Don't judge the book by its cover.

FedEx227
01-06-2005, 06:49 PM
Yeah, theres not much you can say about Garland, he has great starts, and then starts where he hits "the big inning"...its kinda hard to say, yes hes good, but like Nellie's Boy said, he would be a no.3 on most pitching staffs in the AL, besides Yanks/BoSox/Angels..

Well see, but I have a great feeling this year in the 5th starter spot we're going to see a solid Jon Garland..not the 21 wins some people guess, but I could see 16-17 wins. The only thing he needs to do, is make sure he doesn't hit that "BIG INNING" if he stays away from that, he would be a great young pitcher.

a big plus, hes still young...hes got time to learn.

ja1022
01-06-2005, 07:16 PM
I've played with guys who were hyperactive and guys who were laid back. Both gave their best effort. Don't judge the book by its cover.
As have I. Your point is well taken. Said more directly, from a mental standpoint, it doesn't seem to me that we get 100% of what Jon's got on a consistent basis. That's a big intangible. If it's a maturity issue, I hope he matures.