PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's Todd Wright: Garland will win 15, tops


Bisco Stu
05-13-2005, 12:59 AM
He wasn't being anti-Garland, he just thought JG was going to have one of those "first half All Star/second half struggling to recapture the success" kind of seasons.

I'm biased, of course, but I'm of the opinion that JG wins 17 minimum, and matching E-Lo's 21 wins is certainly within his grasp. He's 33% of the way there on May 13th.

TheOldRoman
05-13-2005, 01:05 AM
Wright is wrong, and a moron to boot. At Garland's current rate of a win every start, being 7-0 now, I think it will take him his last 25 starts to win another 8. I mean, its not like he has showed any potential in the past! He is clearly a flash in the pan.:kukoo:

Loaiza dominated in 03 because he found unbelievable "stuff" that he hadn't had before or since. His cutter was unhittable. Garland has always had talent, but he has finally learned to pitch. Big difference. There is no reason to believe he will only win 8 out of his next 25 starts.

DrCrawdad
05-13-2005, 01:06 AM
He wasn't being anti-Garland, he just thought JG was going to have one of those "first half All Star/second half struggling to recapture the success" kind of seasons.

I'm biased, of course, but I'm of the opinion that JG wins 17 minimum, and matching E-Lo's 21 wins is certainly within his grasp. He's 33% of the way there on May 13th.

Garland should easily pass 15 wins, but we'll see.

Sox of White
05-13-2005, 01:14 AM
Garland should easily pass 15 wins, but we'll see.

I agree completely. I mean, he only needs 8 more wins for 15.

HomeFish
05-13-2005, 01:34 AM
Even if he reverts to 2004/2003/2002 form (he won 12 all three years, iirc), he's still bound to get to 15 due to the sheer stockpiling he has done.

MHOUSE
05-13-2005, 01:56 AM
I think Big John has turned the corner and we could see 15+ for several seasons. At the going rate of Pavano, Benson, Clement, Wright, etc. that contract we signed him to seems like an absolute BARGAIN. Especially when you look at those other guys have like 7 or 8 wins between them. Good job KW on sticking with Garland. Just based on his past consistency, this early-season streak could be what it takes to bump him to the next level and win more than 12 or 13 games and start a long streak of winning records.

Jurr
05-13-2005, 05:23 AM
Garland's going against fourth or fifth starters most nights, for cryin' out loud! Of course he's going to get past 15 wins.

I don't understand why these guys write this stuff. Has this guy watched a full game of Garland pitching all year? Probably not. He probably watches sportscenter to see what Garland's doing, then he looks at old stat sheets of the kid's last few years. "Ohhhh Ohhh Ohhh..he pitches badder after the break"

Then, the dolt, not having seen the fundamental improvements that Garland's made in his pitching style (pace, going inside, etc.), just grabs out of the air and says that Garland will struggle. I can't even come up with a word to describe this stupidity....maybe poppycock. Yeah..that's a good word for it.

fquaye149
05-13-2005, 05:46 AM
Garland's going against fourth or fifth starters most nights, for cryin' out loud! Of course he's going to get past 15 wins.

I don't understand why these guys write this stuff. Has this guy watched a full game of Garland pitching all year? Probably not. He probably watches sportscenter to see what Garland's doing, then he looks at old stat sheets of the kid's last few years. "Ohhhh Ohhh Ohhh..he pitches badder after the break"

Then, the dolt, not having seen the fundamental improvements that Garland's made in his pitching style (pace, going inside, etc.), just grabs out of the air and says that Garland will struggle. I can't even come up with a word to describe this stupidity....maybe poppycock. Yeah..that's a good word for it.

:stewie

"look - i've written a naughty word on the wall"

Norberto7
05-13-2005, 08:23 AM
that contract we signed him to seems like an absolute BARGAIN.

What is Garland's contract situation? He'd better start getting shelled so the Sox can afford him!

eriqjaffe
05-13-2005, 10:26 AM
15 wins? Not bad for a fifth starter!

DaleJRFan
05-13-2005, 10:27 AM
*****

Garland has to win 14 more decisions to get to 21 wins. He has roughly 25 starts left to do it in. If the Sox keep playing they way they are, there is NO reason to believe that Garland and Buehrle CAN'T win 20 games.

Does it still count as "under the radar" if everyone sees you but won't acknowledge you????

elrod
05-13-2005, 10:28 AM
There's an old saying from the 1950s about the baseball Giants and Yankees. "The Giants are New York's team. The Yankees are for the tourists." Same thing applies in Chicago.

balke
05-13-2005, 10:33 AM
:hawk

"Jon Garland could win 18 games this season. And that's no STRETCH!"

MeanFish
05-13-2005, 10:35 AM
There's an old saying from the 1950s about the baseball Giants and Yankees. "The Giants are New York's team. The Yankees are for the tourists." Same thing applies in Chicago.

I certainly hope they don't move like the Giants did....

elrod
05-13-2005, 10:38 AM
I certainly hope they don't move like the Giants did....

Well, Tampa already got its dream franchise so I don't see that happening.

Flight #24
05-13-2005, 10:44 AM
He wasn't being anti-Garland, he just thought JG was going to have one of those "first half All Star/second half struggling to recapture the success" kind of seasons.

I'm biased, of course, but I'm of the opinion that JG wins 17 minimum, and matching E-Lo's 21 wins is certainly within his grasp. He's 33% of the way there on May 13th.

Does he recognize the fallacy inherent in that statement? Basically, he's saying JG will continue as he is now for another 6 weeks, which will result in approx 8 starts. Even if he goes .500, he'll be 11-4, more likely to have 12+ wins by the end of June.

So in July - Sep, he thinkg Jon's going to only win 3-5 games max? :kukoo:

Randar68
05-13-2005, 10:48 AM
Garland's going against fourth or fifth starters most nights, for cryin' out loud! Of course he's going to get past 15 wins.

You realise that after the first 2-3 weeks of the season, due to rainouts, days off, etc, that rotations no longer match up like that, right?

I certainly hope so, because it a pretty ridiculous statement otherwise.

And last I checked, holding teams to 2 or fewer runs in almost every start is going to win you a lot of games no matter who the opposing starter is.

tstrike2000
05-13-2005, 10:58 AM
I thought Rob Neyer, Jeff Brantley, John Kruk, Harold Reynolds, along with some others were all in hallucinogenic drugs when it came to the Sox but perhaps now we can add Todd Wright to that list. Unless he's injured, Garland's a lock for 16-18 wins and if the Sox are hitting during some of his off starts, there's no reason to think he won't reach the 20 win plateau. In fact, we could potentially have 4 guys with at least 15-18 wins.

TDog
05-13-2005, 11:06 AM
Garland's going against fourth or fifth starters most nights, for cryin' out loud! Of course he's going to get past 15 wins....

I don't know if the end-of-the-rotation matchups are going to be there consistently. I also don't know if that is an important consideration for Garland's success.

If the Sox aren't the only American League team to consistently stick with a five-man rotation since opening day, they are among the few. Baltimore's opening-day starter is starting tonight, so the O's might be there with the Sox. But teams with a weakness at the end of their rotation often skip the weakest starter when off-days give them the opportunity. Minor injuries and illness cause pitchers to miss starts. Even the schedule doesn't match up perfectly. When Garland beat the Twinks in his first start, he was matched against Radke.

The Sox have played two more games than the Twinks, and Radke already has one more start than Buehrle, who will get his eighth start tonight. If the Sox were playing the Twinks tonight, MB, Sox' No. 1, would be going against Twinks' current No. 3.

I remember the rationalization in recent years about how the Sox' lack of a consistent fifth starter was not crucial because just about every other team had a problem at the end of the rotation. What I see this year is that consistent starters are taking pressure off each other and off the bullpen.

Any Sox pitcher, it seems, has a chance to win, no matter who he is matched against.

jeremydavid
05-14-2005, 10:45 PM
I can't believe he gets paid for BS like this. Anyone can look at old stats and make assumptions. Do some damn research and for god sakes watch the people you are judging.

White Sox Josh
05-15-2005, 01:07 AM
Had to do this...
:whocares

Nellie_Fox
05-15-2005, 01:12 AM
For the most part (other than extremely low-scoring games), pitchers don't match up against the other team's pitcher, they match up against their hitters. Garland has only been hit hard in one of the seven starts. There is no reason at all to believe that this is a mirage. He's 25 years old, and learned how to pitch in the majors. Most pitchers don't get into a starting rotation until they're his age, and learned in the minors.

Mohoney
05-15-2005, 01:24 AM
I'm biased, of course, but I'm of the opinion that JG wins 17 minimum, and matching E-Lo's 21 wins is certainly within his grasp. He's 33% of the way there on May 13th.

That's not biased at all. He's a lock to win 10 more games even if this is the high water mark of his season because of one simple fact: he gives you innings.

With 25 more starts to go, he's bound to have AT LEAST 10 more quality starts. Let's even play devil's advocate and say that he only wins 6 of these, gets 2 or 3 tough luck losses in great pitchers' duels, and gets a no-decision or two if the bullpen gives up a tying or go-ahead run or he leaves a tie game.

That puts us at 13, and I'm absolutely positive that he will win 4 of those 15 remaining starts to put him at 17 at the minimum because he will give you 6+ innings in at least half of his non-quality starts.

Unless this guy is predicting Garland to miss significant time (7 starts or more) because of injury, a maximum of 15 wins doesn't hold water, and the guy doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. 15 wins is a minimum at this point, not a maximum.

WhiteSox16K
05-15-2005, 01:42 AM
He wasn't being anti-Garland, he just thought JG was going to have one of those "first half All Star/second half struggling to recapture the success" kind of seasons.

I'm biased, of course, but I'm of the opinion that JG wins 17 minimum, and matching E-Lo's 21 wins is certainly within his grasp. He's 33% of the way there on May 13th.

With Jon winning 12 games in '02, '03 and '04 lets do the math.
- 12 wins is roughly 2 wins every month (6 month season)
- Right now (2 and a half months) he has 7 wins.
- So give him 8 wins through May.
Since everyone who likes stats likes to say, "Well what if he reverts back to old form, or what if they go .500 the rest of the way out, etc." lets (for stats purposes only) say he reverts back to his old - 12 win/2 win per month form.
- That would be 2 wins for 4 months, equalling 8 more wins.
- That would give him 16, and that's IF he were to do that.

Now, in my opinion, he isn't going to go back to old form and there is no way he can't break that mark (barring some unforseen injury - knock on wood). That math was (theoretically) just to try to shed some light on how bad this guy thinks Garland has to be from here on out to only win 15. ESPN, Todd Wright - worthless pieces...

gosox41
05-15-2005, 07:58 AM
He wasn't being anti-Garland, he just thought JG was going to have one of those "first half All Star/second half struggling to recapture the success" kind of seasons.

I'm biased, of course, but I'm of the opinion that JG wins 17 minimum, and matching E-Lo's 21 wins is certainly within his grasp. He's 33% of the way there on May 13th.

I'd be very disappointed if JG won 8 of his next 25 starts.



Bob

Ol' No. 2
05-15-2005, 09:19 AM
Unfortunately, this is the state of sports mediots today. I'd be willing to bet he has never seen Garland pitch and has done zero actual background research. He just pulls this stuff straight out of his ass. And we all know what you get from there.

samram
05-15-2005, 09:28 AM
Unfortunately, this is the state of sports mediots today. I'd be willing to bet he has never seen Garland pitch and has done zero actual background research. He just pulls this stuff straight out of his ass. And we all know what you get from there.

I agree and would add that sports media in this country seems to have this attitude that no pitcher who isn't with the Yankees, Red Sawx, or Cubs can ever get better as they gain experience.

soxfanreggie
05-15-2005, 09:45 AM
My thoughts on this...

knock on wood, but who's to say one of the other pitchers won't struggle or get injured. I'm sure we'd move Jon up in the rotation if he continues pitching well and someone else gets shelled. Didn't the horrible Todd Ritchie experience happen that way. He just kept moving down the rotation. I could see if Garland continues and someone does struggle, moving him up a slot or two and see how he handles it. I don't see him taking over Buerhle or Garcia's #1 or #2 this year, but Loaiza moved up from journeyman starter to a #1 or a #2.

I think the guy who wrote the article wrote it not knowing much about the Sox. Eventhough we are the best team in baseball right now, most people still don't pay attention to us. We're finally getting video and everything on Sportscenter on a consistent basis. The Cubs still suck and they're still getting it. Once we get more and more media attention, people will know our guys are for real.