PDA

View Full Version : Garland prediction


Baby Fisk
04-11-2007, 11:59 AM
A few years back, fans were losing patience with Jon Garland and his "one big inning" every game. Some folks, including fans in Toronto for example, would have been delighted to see him tossed into the Chicago River to fend for himself.

But since 2005 Ol' Giraffe Legs has been showing up each season looking more poised and throwing better than the year before.

It may not be a huge stretch, but I predict Garland will be the next 20-game winner for the Sox... assuming his relievers back him up more often than not... :rolleyes:

Dan Mega
04-11-2007, 12:01 PM
I think if Garland can't do it then Vasquez could.

Vaz is another guy who had the "big-inning-itis", but hopefully he is over it.

TWO 20 game winners would be keen as well.:bandance:

DumpJerry
04-11-2007, 12:10 PM
Our 1-4 starters have shown the potential for being 20 game winners.

Give me three more starts, and I might throw Danks' name in the mix........

veeter
04-11-2007, 12:13 PM
Jon has become so smart, it's a joy to watch him. He's a great fielder also. 20 wins is no stretch. If we had five Garlands, we'd win it all again.

Chicken Dinner
04-11-2007, 12:16 PM
I don't think so. Last year there were NO 20 game winners in both leagues. I just don't see it, especially if guys like Santana can't.

sox1970
04-11-2007, 12:22 PM
Our 1-4 starters have shown the potential for being 20 game winners.

Give me three more starts, and I might throw Danks' name in the mix........

20 game winners start 36 games. 18 is the new 20.

SBSoxFan
04-11-2007, 12:32 PM
I don't think so. Last year there were NO 20 game winners in both leagues. I just don't see it, especially if guys like Santana can't.

Santana was mediocre on the road; that's why he didn't win 20.

soxfan13
04-11-2007, 12:41 PM
20 game winners start 36 games. 18 is the new 20.

No its not, 18 is still 18 and 20 is still 20.

IlliniSox4Life
04-11-2007, 02:16 PM
No its not, 18 is still 18 and 20 is still 20.

I see what you did there...

Jerome
04-11-2007, 04:33 PM
next 20 game winner? hell, he'll be the sox next 30 game winner:redneck

jabrch
04-11-2007, 05:00 PM
If he wins 18 again, I'd be happy.

Chez
04-11-2007, 05:14 PM
Hasn't he won more games than any other righty in MLB over the past two years?

hawkjt
04-11-2007, 06:14 PM
Not sure that hawk would agree but in terms of moxie, command, bulldog competitiveness ect. I am starting to see some Catfish Hunter in Jon.

Hunter never had the greatest stuff, but he knew how to pitch and he competed. Never had the lowest ERA but he won a lot of games. That is what I see with Jon- whatever it takes to win a game- sometimes that is 5 earned runs in a blowout and other times it is a shutout in a 1-0 win.

I hope Garland is in a sox uni for many years. he has the look of a guy that will be durable and dependable. need those kinds of guys on your staff.

gobears1987
04-11-2007, 06:22 PM
I think if Garland can't do it then Vasquez could.

Vaz is another guy who had the "big-inning-itis", but hopefully he is over it.

TWO 20 game winners would be keen as well.:bandance:How about three? I'm serious here. Buehrle definitely should be a 20 game winner and would've had a 20 win season in 2002 if he had the run support.

JB98
04-11-2007, 07:05 PM
How about three? I'm serious here. Buehrle definitely should be a 20 game winner and would've had a 20 win season in 2002 if he had the run support.

Personally, I'd settle for four 15-game winners. If we get that, this is a playoff team for certain.

Zisk77
04-11-2007, 07:12 PM
Hasn't he won more games than any other righty in MLB over the past two years?

Actually I believe He is tied with Chris Carpenter as the winningest pitcher over the last 3 yrs.

What I loved about yesterday's effort is that he shut down the A's without his good stuff. His 4 seamer was down fron 94-93 to 91 and his sinker was down from 92-91 70 87-88. Also the sinker didn't have much sink nor did it run much towards righties. Yet, he still jammed hitter, pitched effectively up and battled his butt off. In that way he reminded me of a certain someone in the booth who used to win when he had nada.

delben91
04-11-2007, 07:14 PM
Personally, I'd settle for four 15-game winners. If we get that, this is a playoff team for certain.

If the rotation keeps throwing like it did this last time through (starting with Vazquez against Minnesota), I think 15 x 4 is definitely possible. And I don't think if Danks keeps this up that 12 or so wins from him would be a stretch.

All that said, what I like most about Jon, is that he seems to have developed the ability to keep the Sox in the game even without his best stuff. He was falling behind in the count a lot yesterday, but you look at his whole outing, and he did a magnificent job. (Note, I didn't see the game, so I'm just looking at the pitch-by-pitch to say it looks like he was struggling early on yesterday, I could be full of it.)

Whitesox029
04-12-2007, 12:04 PM
What a trade that was...Matt Karchner is probably working in a Burger King somewhere.

ma-gaga
04-12-2007, 12:26 PM
Santana was mediocre on the road; that's why he didn't win 20.


The Twins were shutout something like 25 times last year. The most of any playoff team, and I think something like the 5th highest in the majors.

"Wins" is a terrible stat. Because it is accepted as important, and most people argue or assume that this stat is completely dependant on the pitcher.

jabrch
04-12-2007, 12:40 PM
The Twins were shutout something like 25 times last year. The most of any playoff team, and I think something like the 5th highest in the majors.


I'm not anticipating any more offensive productivity this year from them than last year - are you?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/min/depthchart

Take a look at the guy they have in LF on their depth chart... :-)

PaulDrake
04-12-2007, 12:46 PM
In an era of 5 man rotations, and obsessions with pitch counts, it's difficult for even the best pitcher to get 20 wins. Another 18 from JG would be just fine with me.

ma-gaga
04-12-2007, 01:55 PM
I'm not anticipating any more offensive productivity this year from them than last year - are you?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/min/depthchart

Take a look at the guy they have in LF on their depth chart... :-)

The Twins only play with 8. :cool:

Well, I rechecked my original point. Last year, the Twins got shutout twice while Johan was pitching. One game was close, 0-2 and Santana pitched the complete game (vs Detroit). The other game was a 0-5 loss to Boston, and I think Johan gave up 2 runs in 7 innings. I think you could argue that the Twins bullpen saved 2-3 wins of Johan's that a lesser bullpen would have blown.

However, I would still argue that "Wins" is a lesser stat. And use Wang as the example. He had a nice year, but I don't think he's anywhere near the pitcher that Johan is.

Offensively, I expect some dropoff, but they played with Juan Castro and Tony Batista for 60 games last year, and still managed to score 800 runs. I guess I could go thru a position by position breakdown, but my gut is saying that they drop down to the 775-780 runs scored range.

It's really going to be on the pitching.

Iwritecode
04-12-2007, 02:03 PM
Was it last year or 2 years ago that Clemens kept losing 1- 0 or 2-0 because the Astros couldn't score a run to save their lives.

jabrch
04-12-2007, 02:23 PM
However, I would still argue that "Wins" is a lesser stat. And use Wang as the example. He had a nice year, but I don't think he's anywhere near the pitcher that Johan is.

I agree that WINS doesn't tell you enough to be a single stat to measure a pitcher. But that's true of nearly any stat.

I'm partial to ERA and WHIP. I'm less concerned about K, K/BB. etc/ as they don't internalize the fact that there are pitchers who are successful despite not having lots of Ks.

There is never a good single statistic to measure anything - wins is a good example of that. Taking the game out of context and onto any single number will obfuscate what actually happened on the field of play.

It's really going to be on the pitching.

I know - and that's why I am so confident that they will suck. Past Santana, and their pen, their pitching is terrible.

WhiteSox5187
04-12-2007, 03:10 PM
It is no stretch of the imagination to see Garland winning 20 games as he has come close the past two years and had a lousy April in 2006. All of these guys (exception being Danks because the jury is still out on him) have the "stuff" to be twenty game winners. Realistically though, I'm not so sure any of them will get twenty wins. I think all of them though, will get to fifteen and I could see Garland and Buerhle flirting with twenty. It's so hard to tell. We've been through the rotation only once so far, the next time around they might get shelled again in which case everyone will be wondering will they even win ten. Let's just take it one game at a time and not get ahead of ourselves.