PDA

View Full Version : Is Garland Headed Down?


SoxFan48
01-24-2005, 12:18 PM
Baseball Prospectus (my bible) has an article up this morning about pitchers with declining K/9 ratios between 2002-2004. The article states declining K/9 is a negative "tell" about the future of the pitcher.

Many big names are on the list (including Hudson and Mulder--maybe Billy Beane was on to something about their futures) and, of course, our own Jon Garland. Has Garland peaked and started the inevitable slide toward oblivion. If so, at least he is # 5 in the rotation and can skip some starts.

HomeFish
01-24-2005, 12:22 PM
In order to peak, you must first reach heights.

I_Liked_Manuel
01-24-2005, 12:22 PM
no, jon garland hasnt changed in a while. actually, he wont change until he realizes that every time he throws that changeup, it's going to go really, really, really far.

Mohoney
01-24-2005, 03:04 PM
In order to peak, you must first reach heights.

Amen.

OurBitchinMinny
01-24-2005, 03:07 PM
Garland is a pretty solid #5 and if he can just find a way to eliminate the 3-5 run inning he would be very good. But for the most part last year I cant really remember him giving up 10 runs in the first or anything. He keeps them in games and usually gives them a chance to win. No he has not developed into the #1 or 2 we had hoped, but he is still young and many teams would like him as a 3 or 4

Ol' No. 2
01-24-2005, 03:15 PM
Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland. When will these statheads get tired of trying to predict something as complex as baseball with a single number?

infohawk
01-24-2005, 03:42 PM
While I agree that a high strikeout rate per nine innings is desirable in a pitcher, and can speak volumes about a pitcher's success, I don't necessarily think that a low strikeout rate means a pitcher is most certainly on the decline. There could be one exception, and that is with "strikeout pitchers." Obviously, if a pitcher is primarily effective because of his strikeouts, and they decline, the pitcher is going to lose effectiveness. Billy Koch is a perfect example. He had nothing but that blazing fastball. A groundball pitcher like Garland, however, can probably get by with a sinking strikeout rate.

Sabremetricians have also been concerned about Buehrle because his strikeout rate had been going down. Buehrle is a control pitcher, though, and can remain effective without having to strike guys out all the time.

chaz171
01-24-2005, 03:53 PM
Garland going Down?Wohoaa!!!

Get the Kids outta the Room!!!

Mohoney
01-28-2005, 04:21 PM
OK, maybe the statheads go too far, but here is a stat that Garland really sucks in: Home Runs Allowed.

He's not giving up solo shots, either. Only 16 of his 34 allowed home runs were solo shots. The guy allowed 18 long balls with runners on base (13 2-run shots, 4 3-run shots, and 1 grand slam).

If you're going to allow over half of your home runs with runners on base, that's a big problem.

jabrch
01-28-2005, 04:28 PM
Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland. When will these statheads get tired of trying to predict something as complex as baseball with a single number?

NEVER

santo=dorf
01-28-2005, 04:30 PM
Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland. When will these statheads get tired of trying to predict something as complex as baseball with a single number?

Of 41 qualified AL starters, Garland ranked 35. :anon:

the guys below him:

Franklin Sea.
Maroth Det.
Hendrickson TB.
Drese Tex
Anderson KC
Silva Min.

santo=dorf
01-28-2005, 04:34 PM
Of 86 Qualified MLB starters, Garland was 74th in K/9. The only guys that were below him that I would take are David Wells, Tom Glavine, Carlos Silva, and Mike Hampton.

ondafarm
01-28-2005, 04:41 PM
I don't think Garland can be sent down, at least not without his consent or for a rehab assignment, which has pretty strict limitations.

Ol' No. 2
01-28-2005, 04:42 PM
Of 41 qualified AL starters, Garland ranked 35. :anon:

the guys below him:

Franklin Sea.
Maroth Det.
Hendrickson TB.
Drese Tex
Anderson KC
Silva Min.In K/9. In other stats:

ERA: 27th
ERC: 22nd
WHIP: 19th (T)
BAA: 21st
W: 19th (T)

In fact, he's between 19th and 27th in the AL in pretty much every pitching category. But of course, you're free to ignore all that and focus on K/9 if it makes your point.

santo=dorf
01-28-2005, 04:46 PM
In K/9. In other stats:

ERA: 27th
ERC: 22nd
WHIP: 19th (T)
BAA: 21st
W: 19th (T)

In fact, he's between 19th and 27th in the AL in pretty much every pitching category. But of course, you're free to ignore all that and focus on K/9 if it makes your point.

That's not my point.

You said "Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland."

As it turns out, there are 12 pitchers with K/9 less than Garland, and they all aren't good.

I don't mind Garland as the fifth starter, but I'm really disappointed in him because he hasn't shown any signs of taking the next step to becoming a better pitcher.

wsbaseball9
01-28-2005, 04:47 PM
Garland is a pretty solid #5 and if he can just find a way to eliminate the 3-5 run inning he would be very good. But for the most part last year I cant really remember him giving up 10 runs in the first or anything. He keeps them in games and usually gives them a chance to win. No he has not developed into the #1 or 2 we had hoped, but he is still young and many teams would like him as a 3 or 4

I went to a game last year against the tigers and it was the day after Ozzie stated that he had talked to garland and was sure john would come out with a quality start. Ozzie had to take John out in the 2nd inning he obviously didnt want to but he HAD to it was just a slaughter of garland the next week they went to a 4 man rotation

Jerome
01-28-2005, 04:58 PM
Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland. When will these statheads get tired of trying to predict something as complex as baseball with a single number?


That's not my point.

You said "Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland."

As it turns out, there are 12 pitchers with K/9 less than Garland, and they all aren't good.

I don't mind Garland as the fifth starter, but I'm really disappointed in him because he hasn't shown any signs of taking the next step to becoming a better pitcher.


lol u got served

Ol' No. 2
01-28-2005, 04:58 PM
That's not my point.

You said "Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland."

As it turns out, there are 12 pitchers with K/9 less than Garland, and they all aren't good.

I don't mind Garland as the fifth starter, but I'm really disappointed in him because he hasn't shown any signs of taking the next step to becoming a better pitcher.OK. Cut me some slack. So "a dozen" involves a bit of poetic license. There were also a lot of worse pitchers (some much worse) with better K/9. It doesn't predict quality all that well.

SOX ADDICT '73
01-28-2005, 05:08 PM
Garland is a pretty solid #5 and if he can just find a way to eliminate the 3-5 run inning he would be very good.

I think Garland could be a great pitcher for eight innings every game...just not eight innings in a row. His problem seems to be with staying focused. He'll be cruising along for four innings, give up a one-out walk in the fifth, and then come apart at the seams. Maybe baseball could change its rules about substitutions: Let Jon pitch the first four frames, throw Marte in for the fifth, and Garland can pitch innings 6-8 (leaving room for ShingoTime, of course)!

voodoochile
01-28-2005, 05:46 PM
Without half trying I can find a dozen good pitchers with lower K/9 than Garland. When will these statheads get tired of trying to predict something as complex as baseball with a single number?

Beyond all of that, Garland would be a more effective pitcher if he used his sinker. I am sure his K/9 was higher when he was trying to blow people away early in his career - we all know how that worked out, right?

If his K's go down, so do his flyball outs, I would bet. In his case, it might actually be a good thing.

zach074
01-28-2005, 07:42 PM
Baseball Prospectus (my bible) has an article up this morning about pitchers with declining K/9 ratios between 2002-2004. The article states declining K/9 is a negative "tell" about the future of the pitcher.

Many big names are on the list (including Hudson and Mulder--maybe Billy Beane was on to something about their futures) and, of course, our own Jon Garland. Has Garland peaked and started the inevitable slide toward oblivion. If so, at least he is # 5 in the rotation and can skip some starts.

I sure hope he dosen't get WORSE! :(:

SABRSox
01-28-2005, 10:12 PM
The reason Buehrle succeeds with a low K/9 is because he hardly walks guys either. His 3.24 K/BB ratio was 7th best in the AL last season. Also, all the double plays he induces (33 in 2004, 3rd in AL), along with pickoffs (10, 1st in MLB) and suppression of baserunners (38.5% SB allowed, 5th in AL) are a major part of Buehrle's game and success. Buehrle pitches himself out of jams, whereas Garland does not.

Sure, Garland gave up 34 HRs last year, but Buehrle gave up 33. Garland allowed 12.4 baserunners per 9 IP, Buehrle 11.6. Over 200 innings, that's an extra 13 baserunners for Garland, it's a difference, but not a huge one. Jon's problems obviously come from not getting himself out of jams. A guy like Garland who throws the sinker should be able to induce more GIDPs, and if he ever gets confidence in his sinker, I think he'd be capable of an ERA in the high 3's, even with the high HR numbers.

By the way, the reason statheads think Buehrle is going to cave is because of the innings he puts up at his age. Nearly 1000 innings by 26 just screams for arm problems. However, Buehrle strikes me as a type of pitcher that knows his body well, and doesn't overextend himself deep into games, unlike your power pitchers. It's not the 120 pitches you throw in a game that mess up your arm, it's the one pitch you try to do too much with. That could be #121, or #10.