PDA

View Full Version : Danks just can't catch a break


jabrch
05-02-2007, 04:37 PM
5 starts
4 of them QS
Hasn't allowed more than 4 runs yet
Hasn't been walking hitters
The team hasn't scored more than 2 runs while he's been on the field

And he still hasn't gotten a win.

The kid has looked pretty damn good - and deserves a better fate.

Corlose 15
05-02-2007, 04:40 PM
Garland has had some tough luck as well. Twice he's lost wins after the 26th out of the game.

Really, the offense has to feel like crap the way they've left the whole rotation hanging most of the year.

kevingrt
05-02-2007, 04:46 PM
No starter can catch a break right now with this team.

cnw8052
05-02-2007, 04:48 PM
Maybe the pitcher's need to start taking the DH spot in the lineup???:o:

Chicken Dinner
05-02-2007, 04:58 PM
No starter can catch a break right now with this team.

Yeah, it's not just Danks. A pitcher should be able to give up 2 or 3 runs.

Tragg
05-02-2007, 05:06 PM
Danks has pitched pretty well and has a long career in front of him. He'll get his share of breaks.
This team's losing games because it isn't scoring runs- that's what I don't like.

whitesoxfan
05-02-2007, 05:08 PM
Yeah, it's not just Danks. A pitcher should be able to give up 2 or 3 runs.

Exactly, it's not just Danks. Every starter is getting robbed by this crappy offense.

The Immigrant
05-02-2007, 05:16 PM
Remember the good old days when the 5th starter was our biggest worry?

WhiteSox5187
05-02-2007, 05:18 PM
If you take the idea that every team is going to win a third of their games, lose a third and then what you do with the other third is what counts, we're in trouble because really there have only been like five or six games where you go "Well, that was a game we were going to lose." Most of these games have been very very winnable.

UserNameBlank
05-02-2007, 05:36 PM
If you take the idea that every team is going to win a third of their games, lose a third and then what you do with the other third is what counts, we're in trouble because really there have only been like five or six games where you go "Well, that was a game we were going to lose." Most of these games have been very very winnable.

I agree with what you are saying, but I can't help but think "we're going to lose" if the opposition scores 3 or more runs.

Last year the pitching sucked, and if the opposition scored 6-8 runs we still weren't out of the game. This year it is quality start after quality start after quality start and we get nothing. I'm surprised Buehrle won his no hitter.

Etownsox13
05-02-2007, 05:58 PM
4 runs seems to be the magic number for winning a major league baseball game. With our staff, we need to be able to push accross 4 a night and we will be fine.

DumpJerry
05-02-2007, 06:16 PM
We need to sprinkle some Red Bull on the bats or something. The Sox have to start hitting right now.:angry: :angry: :angry:

sox1970
05-02-2007, 06:25 PM
5 starts
4 of them QS
Hasn't allowed more than 4 runs yet
Hasn't been walking hitters
The team hasn't scored more than 2 runs while he's been on the field

And he still hasn't gotten a win.

The kid has looked pretty damn good - and deserves a better fate.

Danks has 2 quality starts. There's no question it should be 3 with the Uribe popup in Detroit. He'll be fine, just as Garland will be too.

Garland has 3 quality starts out of 5 starts and the Sox are 0-5 in his games.

chidonez
05-02-2007, 06:25 PM
At least Danks got a nice little standing-O from the fans behind the visitor's dugout today for his effort.

dickallen15
05-02-2007, 06:27 PM
When you read about Brandon McCarthy last season and Danks this season you would never guess they gave up homeruns at almost exactly the same rate and that McCarthy had a lower ERA.

lumpyspun
05-02-2007, 07:42 PM
At least Danks got a nice little standing-O from the fans behind the visitor's dugout today for his effort.

Yea, if all the Sox fans that were at the game were consolidated we may have outnumbered M's fans. Not that there were that many Sox fans, but there just weren't many people there.

Unfortunately, over 18 innings the Sox didn't give us much to cheer for.

Parrothead
05-02-2007, 08:35 PM
Danks has been less than ok overall. Look at his ERA it is 5.02. I don't know about anyone else but to me that means over 5 runs per game and that is not good, especially the way the Sox are hitting or not hitting right now. The only props I will give him at this time is that his ERA is lower the Joses'.

thomas35forever
05-02-2007, 09:11 PM
Danks does not deserve this lack of run support and neither does the rest of this rotation. He might be average at best, but he should have his first win by now.

oeo
05-02-2007, 09:14 PM
Danks has been less than ok overall. Look at his ERA it is 5.02. I don't know about anyone else but to me that means over 5 runs per game and that is not good, especially the way the Sox are hitting or not hitting right now. The only props I will give him at this time is that his ERA is lower the Joses'.

So you want our rookie 5th starter to compete for the Cy Young?

What, exactly, were you expecting because this is exactly what I was expecting. He's given us a chance to win in each of his starts, you can't ask for much more than that.

I think this is another example of just looking at stats and not actually watching him pitch, because if you did, you would be giving him more 'props' than his ERA being lower than Contreras'.

CLR01
05-02-2007, 09:22 PM
So you want our rookie 5th starter to compete for the Cy Young?

What, exactly, were you expecting because this is exactly what I was expecting. He's given us a chance to win in each of his starts, you can't ask for much more than that.

I think this is another example of just looking at stats and not actually watching him pitch, because if you did, you would be giving him more 'props' than his ERA being lower than Contreras'.

Right, he has pitched better than his record and ERA look. Danks has been fine.

Jurr
05-02-2007, 09:42 PM
Right, he has pitched better than his record and ERA look. Danks has been fine.
It's hard having to be perfect. I can do my job all day long, but when a licensing board comes along and I have to do something routine perfectly, I get a little nervous. Everybody has those examples.

It's the same here. Danks is sitting there as a friggin' rookie, knowing that he's probably not going to get any run support. He has NO MARGIN FOR ERROR, and that's when the nerves are going to lead to mistakes.

If the kid could get a decent lead, he could cruise a little and let his talent take over. No such luck so far. He's been having to hold the opposing team to absolutely NOTHING to keep his team in the game. That's just way too much to ask.

Parrothead
05-02-2007, 10:18 PM
So you want our rookie 5th starter to compete for the Cy Young?

What, exactly, were you expecting because this is exactly what I was expecting. He's given us a chance to win in each of his starts, you can't ask for much more than that.

I think this is another example of just looking at stats and not actually watching him pitch, because if you did, you would be giving him more 'props' than his ERA being lower than Contreras'.

You were expecting 0 -4 with a ERA over 5? WOW ! You were probably happy with Danny Wright too.......I expect alot more. At least .500 record and a ERA about 4.5. To be clear I am not exactly asking for Doc Gooden in his rookie year. I have seen him pitch and I see a guy who is giving up runs on a long ball when he can't afford to. Sure he has a few good innings but he has to do better especially since the team is not hitting.

JermaineDye05
05-02-2007, 10:22 PM
He's had a lot of really tough luck runs too. Biggest examples being Juan losing the pop fly in Detroit and the double by Ibanez today that hit the wall, had it gone right to Rob that run wouldn't have scored.

oeo
05-02-2007, 10:28 PM
You were expecting 0 -4 with a ERA over 5? WOW ! You were probably happy with Danny Wright too.......I expect alot more. At least .500 record and a ERA about 4.5. To be clear I am not exactly asking for Doc Gooden in his rookie year. I have seen him pitch and I see a guy who is giving up runs on a long ball when he can't afford to. Sure he has a few good innings but he has to do better especially since the team is not hitting.

I was expecting around a 5 ERA, yes. He should have a few wins to his credit, as well. Come on, man, how can you hold his 0-4 record against him, he should have won at least 3 of those if he had some offensive support. And it's the things that are not shown in the stat book that are exceeding my expectations.

Just so you know, our fifth starter in 2005 finished with a 5.12 ERA. We don't need much better than that.

itsnotrequired
05-02-2007, 10:29 PM
You were expecting 0 -4 with a ERA over 5? WOW ! You were probably happy with Danny Wright too.......I expect alot more. At least .500 record and a ERA about 4.5. To be clear I am not exactly asking for Doc Gooden in his rookie year. I have seen him pitch and I see a guy who is giving up runs on a long ball when he can't afford to. Sure he has a few good innings but he has to do better especially since the team is not hitting.

His ERA is what it is but those in the know realize it could easily be a full run lower. He caught some bad breaks with the defense. For a rookie punk, he has done a phenomenal job. Anyone believing Danks is part of the Sox struggles needs to wander into the world of reality.

CLR01
05-02-2007, 11:23 PM
His ERA is what it is but those in the know realize it could easily be a full run lower. He caught some bad breaks with the defense.

And the offense has scored a very generous 10 runs in his 5 starts. 5 of those came in one game and 6 of the 10 came after he was pulled. If the bum 22 year old rookie would just learn to throw no-hitters like Buehrle he could be 5-0.

Jerome
05-02-2007, 11:35 PM
yeah i'm pretty happy with Danks so far :cool:

guillen4life13
05-02-2007, 11:54 PM
You were expecting 0 -4 with a ERA over 5? WOW ! You were probably happy with Danny Wright too.......I expect alot more. At least .500 record and a ERA about 4.5. To be clear I am not exactly asking for Doc Gooden in his rookie year. I have seen him pitch and I see a guy who is giving up runs on a long ball when he can't afford to. Sure he has a few good innings but he has to do better especially since the team is not hitting.

Dude, are you friggin serious?

His ERA should be in the 4's if it weren't for the Uribe play (after all, it still is pretty early in the season and every run has an effect on the ERA). The lack of run support for him has been atrocious.

In his first start he pitched 6 innings and gave up 3 runs. That's a good start for a 5th starter my friend. The Sox scored one run that game (against MIN). That's bad run support. This offense underperformed, horribly that game. Danks pulled his own. If the offense had performed to its capabilities, the Sox should have easily won that game.

Second start: 5 1/3 innings, 2 ER. That's not that bad either. Against Cleveland, no less. Result? Sox get shut out, losing 4-0. No chance for Danks (or anyone) to win that game, though he pitched long enough to be the pitcher of record, and only gave up two runs.

Third start: The Uribe game. His stat line is 4.2 IP, 4 ER. That doesn't reflect his performance. He was rocky, that's for sure, but IIRC, two of those runs shouldn't have happened had the defense done its job. He got pulled because I think Guillen wasn't sure to trust him under pressure. The Sox scored 5 that game, but Danks wasn't the pitcher of record in the end.

Fourth start: 6 IP 4 ER. Not great. But the Sox only scored two runs that whole game, giving them little chance to win in the end anyways.

Fifth start: 6.2 IP, 3ER. That's a good start for a 5th starter. Sox score two.

This Sox offense should be capable of averaging 5+ runs per game through the season. Hell, even 4.5 would be a bit of a help! Through the games Danks has started, the Sox average runs scored is... 2.00. Subtract that Uribe game, the Sox scored (in four of five Danks starts) 1.25 runs per game. To be able to even come close to having a .500 record when that's the type of run support you're getting is preposterous.

Subtract the two runs from the Uribe play, and Danks' ERA is 4.40. 14 ER's in 28 2/3 innings. That's pretty damn good for a 5th starter. If the offense were performing, he should be above .500, if anything.

Nellie_Fox
05-03-2007, 12:08 AM
Danks is way down on the list of things we need to be concerned about. I'll be interested to see how he does if he gets spotted to a nice lead and can go after hitters.

Parrothead
05-03-2007, 12:09 AM
Dude, are you friggin serious?


Yes, I am. I expect wins ! Good performances and loses are not getting the Sox in the playoffs. Make all the excuses you want. Good pitchers find a way to win. Remember Jack McDowell? He for the most part pitched well enought to win. If the other guy gave up 4, he would give up 3, ect....Again, he is not getting alot of offense, in fact, almost none, therefore he must be better (along with all the other pitchers too). Being "good" will have us watching other teams during the playoffs. I paid alot for my season tickets and expect / demand better.

CLR01
05-03-2007, 12:11 AM
Yes, I am. I expect wins ! Good performances and loses are not getting the Sox in the playoffs. Make all the excuses you want. Good pitchers find a way to win. Remember Jack McDowell? He for the most part pitched well enought to win. If the other guy gave up 4, he would give up 3, ect....Again, he is not getting alot of offense, in fact, almost none, therefore he must be better (along with all the other pitchers too). Being "good" will have us watching other teams during the playoffs. I paid alot for my season tickets and expect / demand better.

Perfect games or bust. The new Sox motto. :rolling:

Ridiculous

southsideirish71
05-03-2007, 12:33 AM
You were expecting 0 -4 with a ERA over 5? WOW ! You were probably happy with Danny Wright too.......I expect alot more. At least .500 record and a ERA about 4.5. To be clear I am not exactly asking for Doc Gooden in his rookie year. I have seen him pitch and I see a guy who is giving up runs on a long ball when he can't afford to. Sure he has a few good innings but he has to do better especially since the team is not hitting.

Well I expect our sure handed shortstop to catch a simple fly ball that a child can catch. However he waved everyone off and let the ball bounce. That bounced Danks ERA into the 5s from the 3.38 range. But then again from your superstar requirements, Danks should of struckout the side with 9 pitches. Good players dont let their shortstops look stupid waving off other players and letting the ball donk in front of them. Then again maybe Danks isnt allowing the hitters to hit also. His large amount of runs are his fault also.

I see a young guy, who should be in AAA getting his control better. However he is here, with big stones, throwing strikes and keeping his team in the game. What a 5th starter should do. He is giving up solo homers mind you, but then again he should be striking out everyone on the minimum number of pitches. He is pounding the strikezone and making the hitters beat him. He is not walking the world, and giving up large innings. But then again, for whatever reason. You have him as one of the weak links. Take a gander at our hitting before you throw stones at anyone that toes the rubber. Thank God Buerhle Garland and the rest didnt have to live up to your requirements or they would kill themselves.

IlliniSox4Life
05-03-2007, 12:41 AM
Yes, I am. I expect wins ! Good performances and loses are not getting the Sox in the playoffs. Make all the excuses you want. Good pitchers find a way to win. Remember Jack McDowell? He for the most part pitched well enought to win. If the other guy gave up 4, he would give up 3, ect....Again, he is not getting alot of offense, in fact, almost none, therefore he must be better (along with all the other pitchers too). Being "good" will have us watching other teams during the playoffs. I paid alot for my season tickets and expect / demand better.

So what if a pitcher left every game in the lead, but the bullpen blew all his saves so the guy had no win? Is he still a bad pitcher because he didn't pitch longer/find a way to win it?

The fact is Danks has looked pretty good. The blame for pretty much all of his loses should fall squarely on the shoulders of the offense (and defense behind him). Pitchers who pitch well enough to win aren't guys with 5 major league starts. They are guys who have been around a while and learned how to win like that. Most of the rookies who come in and win consistently to start their careers are guys like Liriano and Hernandez who just have overpowering stuff. Most pitchers who have that "find a way to win" instinct don't develop it until they have a little more seasoning.


edit: nobody here is saying that Danks is God's gift to baseball. They are saying that he has pitched well enough to have a few wins, but his team hasn't given him the run support.

Nellie_Fox
05-03-2007, 12:42 AM
Perfect games or bust. The new Sox motto. :rolling:

RidiculousIt's really quite simple. Just watch what the other pitcher does and give up one less run. How hard is that? I ask you?

CLR01
05-03-2007, 01:02 AM
It's really quite simple. Just watch what the other pitcher does and give up one less run. How hard is that? I ask you?

Who knew it was that easy. I guess we can add Cooper to the unemployment line too.

IlliniSox4Life
05-03-2007, 01:27 AM
Yes, I am. I expect wins ! Good performances and loses are not getting the Sox in the playoffs. Make all the excuses you want. Good pitchers find a way to win. Remember Jack McDowell? He for the most part pitched well enought to win. If the other guy gave up 4, he would give up 3, ect....Again, he is not getting alot of offense, in fact, almost none, therefore he must be better (along with all the other pitchers too). Being "good" will have us watching other teams during the playoffs. I paid alot for my season tickets and expect / demand better.

Cy Young also has the record for most loses, as well as most wins. So I guess that makes him both the best and worst pitcher ever.

Parrothead
05-03-2007, 06:34 AM
It's really quite simple. Just watch what the other pitcher does and give up one less run. How hard is that? I ask you?

Agreed! :thumbsup: That is what I am saying.

For everyone else who thinks I am expecting Cy Young you are missing the point. Again....a 5+ ERA is not good. Somewhere along the lines that became acceptable. Back in the day the guy would be sent down.

Parrothead
05-03-2007, 06:36 AM
Agreed! :thumbsup: That is what I am saying.

For everyone else who thinks I am expecting Cy Young you are missing the point. Again....a 5+ ERA is not good. Somewhere along the lines that became acceptable. Back in the day the guy would be sent down.

Who knew it was that easy. I guess we can add Cooper to the unemployment line too.

Everyone should be on notice. Just because the pitchers had a good year in 2005 he should not be given a pass. What kind of job did he do last year?

itsnotrequired
05-03-2007, 07:22 AM
Everyone should be on notice. Just because the pitchers had a good year in 2005 he should not be given a pass. What kind of job did he do last year?

What about Danks? Is he "on notice" as well?

:rolleyes:

Craig Grebeck
05-03-2007, 08:05 AM
Actually Parrothead, a 5.02 ERA is quite good for a fifth starter. There was an article on BP in the offseason about defining pitchers 1-5 by average era. I believe the average fifth starter era was around 5.6. Danks has done a fine job and has shown that w/l records for pitchers are absolutely meaningless.

rdwj
05-03-2007, 08:59 AM
Agreed! :thumbsup: That is what I am saying.


Just because it's not in teal doesn't mean it's not sarcastic. And honestly, have you watched Danks pitch?

IndianWhiteSox
05-03-2007, 09:18 AM
Agreed! :thumbsup: That is what I am saying.

For everyone else who thinks I am expecting Cy Young you are missing the point. Again....a 5+ ERA is not good. Somewhere along the lines that became acceptable. Back in the day the guy would be sent down.

And back in your day your age would have already been close to death.

Seriously, what Danks is doing is phenomenal! He and Buehrle are single handedly carrying this rotation.

INSox56
05-03-2007, 09:25 AM
Danks has been less than ok overall. Look at his ERA it is 5.02. I don't know about anyone else but to me that means over 5 runs per game and that is not good, especially the way the Sox are hitting or not hitting right now. The only props I will give him at this time is that his ERA is lower the Joses'.

You should look up the definition of ERA.. Earned Runs x 9 / Innings Pitched... not runs per game

lostfan
05-03-2007, 09:47 AM
I cannot believe I actually see someone bashing Danks. What do you expect he's supposed to look like? Everyone is not a Liriano. Come on now. He's doing a fine job and he'll only get better.

guillen4life13
05-03-2007, 10:11 AM
Yes, I am. I expect wins ! Good performances and loses are not getting the Sox in the playoffs. Make all the excuses you want. Good pitchers find a way to win. Remember Jack McDowell? He for the most part pitched well enought to win. If the other guy gave up 4, he would give up 3, ect....Again, he is not getting alot of offense, in fact, almost none, therefore he must be better (along with all the other pitchers too). Being "good" will have us watching other teams during the playoffs. I paid alot for my season tickets and expect / demand better.

lost cause = Parrothead

Maybe you should demand more out of the aspect of the team that isn't performing. If you need a hint, that part of the team would be the offense.

I tell you right now that there isn't a single pitcher, who, given the run support Danks has been getting, would be even close to .500.

If you want to expect the impossible, prepare to be disappointed. Repeatedly.

Oh, and Blackjack pitched for the Sox until I was in the second grade, so to be honest, I never saw him pitch. However, if you're going to compare a 21 year old rookie with an average of two runs of support per game pitched, whose ERA should legitimately be 4.40, to a guy that won 20 games twice and won a Cy Young Award and came second in CYA voting in another year... that's just beyond insane.

You can't go to McDonald's and expect a 12 oz. filet mignon, garlic mashed potatoes and asparagus with a glass of red wine on the side. Likewise, if you're going to a game where the rookie, 21 year old 5th starter is pitching, you can't reasonably expect a CGS with 20K and 0 BB. You CAN expect a line like, 6 IP, 3 ER, 6 K, 4 BB. About that, averaging just less than 6 innings per start, and with a K:BB ratio of 3:1, which outperforms what I would expect from a 5 starter.

The thread title says it all.

FedEx227
05-03-2007, 10:14 AM
Ugh, and they say us "Free Brian Anderson" people are nuts.

Have you watched a game Danks has pitched? In my mind he is light years better then ERA can show. Yes, he's prone to giving up the long ball and thats something we probably have to work on. But he is leaps and bounds the best option we have for the 5-spot right now.

He's only giving up 2.5 walks per game, 2nd on the team and almost half of what Jose is giving up.

His 1.40 WHIP is better than Contreras.

He's eating up more innings then Contreras.

He has given up as many runs as Garland and 3 less then Jose.

Only Garland has allowed less stolen bases.

Parrothead
05-03-2007, 10:24 AM
Actually Parrothead, a 5.02 ERA is quite good for a fifth starter. There was an article on BP in the offseason about defining pitchers 1-5 by average era. I believe the average fifth starter era was around 5.6. Danks has done a fine job and has shown that w/l records for pitchers are absolutely meaningless.

To all yes, I have seen him pitch....I see a pitcher who had a lead and then promptly gave it up in the next innning.

Yes, who needs those pesky wins?

Everyone should be on notice. If you don't perform there should be a consenquence. Not will be be better tomorrow. That is what happened last year.

Yes, the offense is terrible but this thread is about Danks that is why I am not addressing the offense.

Forgive me all for not being all supporting and the Sox world not being all puppies and rainbows. IMO right now Danks has a problem.

lostfan
05-03-2007, 10:26 AM
Not that I have been posting on this forum for a long time at all, but I think it's pretty bad ass how you barely even read what people are replying to you with and saying the same thing using different words over and over.

itsnotrequired
05-03-2007, 10:40 AM
To all yes, I have seen him pitch....I see a pitcher who had a lead and then promptly gave it up in the next innning.

Yes, who needs those pesky wins?

Everyone should be on notice. If you don't perform there should be a consenquence. Not will be be better tomorrow. That is what happened last year.

Yes, the offense is terrible but this thread is about Danks that is why I am not addressing the offense.

Forgive me all for not being all supporting and the Sox world not being all puppies and rainbows. IMO right now Danks has a problem.

I guess if a pitcher isn't Johan Santana, he should be on notice. Oh wait, even Santana has blown a couple games this year. How can the Twins stand having such a non-performer on their team?!

jabrch
05-03-2007, 10:45 AM
Forgive me all for not being all supporting and the Sox world not being all puppies and rainbows. IMO right now Danks has a problem.

That's completely ridiculous.

Jaffar
05-03-2007, 11:33 AM
IMO right now Danks has a problem.

Indeed he does, lack of offense in games he starts.

cws05champ
05-03-2007, 12:37 PM
Yes, I am. I expect wins ! Good performances and loses are not getting the Sox in the playoffs. Make all the excuses you want. Good pitchers find a way to win. Remember Jack McDowell? He for the most part pitched well enought to win. If the other guy gave up 4, he would give up 3, ect....Again, he is not getting alot of offense, in fact, almost none, therefore he must be better (along with all the other pitchers too). Being "good" will have us watching other teams during the playoffs. I paid alot for my season tickets and expect / demand better.

You are not being realistic. Yes we would all like him to have a .500 record or better, but he can not hit as well! His ERA is what it is as somebody else pointed out...but If Uribe had not dropped that pop up in Detroit his ERA would be 4.14. How can you expect ANY pitcher to win when he gets no run support. In his 28 2/3 IP(over 3 full complete games) he has received 4 Runs of support while on the mound total! I'd like to see the record of even the best SP in BB if they received 4 runs of support over 28 2/3 IP.

Lets compare Danks against the best P in baseball for comparison sake, just ER, W per start and total run support:

Santana(3-2)
ER W Total Run support
4 1 7
0 1 3 (Sox)
4 0 2
1 1 6
4 0 3
3 0 3
4 R/game

Danks (0-4)
ER W Total Run support
3 0 1
2 0 0
4 0 5
4 0 2
3 0 2
2 R/game

Take this for what it is as they have faced different teams to acheive these stats, but a pitcher can't win if he does not get any run support. If Johann had onlyt received 2 R/game this year he'd be 1-4....would you take Johann on the Sox?

TDog
05-03-2007, 01:55 PM
So you want our rookie 5th starter to compete for the Cy Young? ....


I have high expectations. In 2005, Garland started the fifth game of the season, technically making him the fifth starter. He beat the Twins' opening day starter, Radke, in his first outting and should have picked up one or two Cy Young votes.

If the White Sox faced a rookie pitcher with an 0-4 record and 5.02 ERA, people around WSI would be screaming about hitting incompetence if they went down in order in the first inning. Sox fans look at stats for other team's pitchers and can't understand why they don't hit them while ignoring the same stats in some of their own pitchers because they see flashes of brilliance.

Danks could be a good pitcher, but he has no one to blame but himself for Wednesday's loss. He had the lead with 2 out in the 6th and gave up a home run for the second time in the day. With 2 out and none on in the 7th, he gave up a hit and a double. Maybe he got a bad break because of the character of the ballpark, but he gave up well-hit balls when he needed only one out to get out of the inning. He didn't even have to worry about the pressure of having a runner in scoring position.

Maybe Danks deserves better. I didn't like McCarthy's attitude last year and supported the trade. I like Danks, but I don't understand why he generates such extreme support from Sox fans, many of whom can't stand Erstad, who has been a relative bright spot on this season.

oeo
05-03-2007, 02:08 PM
I have high expectations. In 2005, Garland started the fifth game of the season, technically making him the fifth starter. He beat the Twins' opening day starter, Radke, in his first outting and should have picked up one or two Cy Young votes.

What's the difference whether El Duque was in the first spot in the rotation, the fourth, or the fifth? He had the worst season on the staff, making him the fifth best starter.

If the White Sox faced a rookie pitcher with an 0-4 record and 5.02 ERA, people around WSI would be screaming about hitting incompetence if they went down in order in the first inning. Sox fans look at stats for other team's pitchers and can't understand why they don't hit them while ignoring the same stats in some of their own pitchers because they see flashes of brilliance.That's because people jump to conclusions by just looking at stats...a lot like yourself and Parrothead are doing right now.

Danks could be a good pitcher, but he has no one to blame but himself for Wednesday's loss. He had the lead with 2 out in the 6th and gave up a home run for the second time in the day. With 2 out and none on in the 7th, he gave up a hit and a double. Maybe he got a bad break because of the character of the ballpark, but he gave up well-hit balls when he needed only one out to get out of the inning. He didn't even have to worry about the pressure of having a runner in scoring position.Danks gave them a chance to win (which is, BTW, the job of a fifth starter). You wanted him to pitch 8 innings of 1 run ball? You're kidding me...I hope.

Maybe Danks deserves better. I didn't like McCarthy's attitude last year and supported the trade. I like Danks, but I don't understand why he generates such extreme support from Sox fans, many of whom can't stand Erstad, who has been a relative bright spot on this season.Because if you watch the games, you see the little things that you can't put in a stat book. This is a big reason why you see guys on ESPN sounding like total morons because they don't watch them play everyday. You can't get everything from stats, stop trying. And honestly, I can't believe you don't consider Danks a bright spot to the short season.

It's Dankerific
05-03-2007, 02:10 PM
These anti-Danks posts have to be posted by people more used to sitting in the Chewing Gum Bleachers drinking beer instead of watching a baseball game.

CLR01
05-03-2007, 02:23 PM
In 2005, Garland started the fifth game of the season, technically making him the fifth starter. He beat the Twins' opening day starter, Radke, in his first outting and should have picked up one or two Cy Young votes.

Garland was 25 and starting his 6th year in the big leagues and his 128th game, Danks was 21 starting his 1st game. Garland gave up 10 hits, 3 ER's, 1 HR and struck out 1 person over 6 innings. Danks gave up 4 hits, 3 ER's, 1 HR, 2 BB, and struck out 6 over 6 innings. The difference? The offense scored 8 runs in that game in 2005 compared to a whole 1 run this year.



If the White Sox faced a rookie pitcher with an 0-4 record and 5.02 ERA, people around WSI would be screaming about hitting incompetence if they went down in order in the first inning. Sox fans look at stats for other team's pitchers and can't understand why they don't hit them while ignoring the same stats in some of their own pitchers because they see flashes of brilliance.The problem is we KNOW that his era would likely be almost a full run lower if not for one boneheaded play by Uribe and that his record could be different if the offense could score more than the 2 run average they are giving him.

BanditJimmy
05-03-2007, 02:29 PM
Danks is the last guy on this roster I would ever point a finger to.


By far he has kept this anemic offense in every game, and they have failed.


For a rookie 5th starter, not more you can do.


I do want to see him try to avoid the long balls, the arguement why McCarthy is gone was because of his tendancy to give up the long ball. This kid so far is right there with him. But I guess if he's going to attack the zone, this is what will happen. His ERA would be about 2.20 if not for the long ball. Amazing.

Vestigio
05-03-2007, 03:31 PM
To all yes, I have seen him pitch....I see a pitcher who had a lead and then promptly gave it up in the next innning.

Over 12.1 IP (his first two outings), Danks was pitching without a lead. In his third outing, Danks had the lead but it went for naught when Uribe gaffed the flyball. His next outing of 6 IP, the offense did not score. And finally yesterday, where Danks had and blew the lead, eventhough he only allowed 3 runs.

So Danks should really have only one outing where he gave up the lead- yesterday.

It's Dankerific
05-03-2007, 03:41 PM
Seriously. All the posts by parrothead, I've printed out and started using as toilet paper.

no one can seriously believe what hes saying. I dont know why we're even responding. It like the people who still believe the moon is made out of cheese.

TDog
05-03-2007, 04:39 PM
...
That's because people jump to conclusions by just looking at stats...a lot like yourself and Parrothead are doing right now.

Danks gave them a chance to win (which is, BTW, the job of a fifth starter). You wanted him to pitch 8 innings of 1 run ball? You're kidding me...I hope. ... And honestly, I can't believe you don't consider Danks a bright spot to the short season.

I'm not just looking at stats. And I'm not the one complaining about the Sox' inability to hit a guy with a ERA around 6, as if they aren't even trying, when chances are the pitcher has only had one or two bad outings, and, with starters only going 6 or 7 innings anymore, it takes a lot of strong 1-, 2-run outings to make that ERA look respectable.

I would be more impressed with Danks if he hadn't given up a 2-out homer to tie yesterday's game and a 2-out single and double to lose it. Also I would have been more impressed if he had pitched 8 innings and given up 1 run, but he didn't even get out of the 6th with the lead he came into it with and didn't get out of the 7th before the 3rd run had scored. If he were Josh Stewart, he would be considered the "fifth-starter problem" rather than some sort of folk hero.

You could argue that Danks has pitched well enough to win. In fact, he also pitched well enough to lose, even when he had a lead Wednesday. If you consider Danks one of the bright spots to the short season -- and he may be -- it speaks to the miserable state of the short season.

oeo
05-03-2007, 04:44 PM
I'm not just looking at stats. And I'm not the one complaining about the Sox' inability to hit a guy with a ERA around 6, as if they aren't even trying, when chances are the pitcher has only had one or two bad outings, and, with starters only going 6 or 7 innings anymore, it takes a lot of strong 1-, 2-run outings to make that ERA look respectable.

I would be more impressed with Danks if he hadn't given up a 2-out homer to tie yesterday's game and a 2-out single and double to lose it. Also I would have been more impressed if he had pitched 8 innings and given up 1 run, but he didn't even get out of the 6th with the lead he came into it with and didn't get out of the 7th before the 3rd run had scored. If he were Josh Stewart, he would be considered the "fifth-starter problem" rather than some sort of folk hero.

You could argue that Danks has pitched well enough to win. In fact, he also pitched well enough to lose, even when he had a lead Wednesday. If you consider Danks one of the bright spots to the short season -- and he may be -- it speaks to the miserable state of the short season.

Sorry, but you're being ridiculous. You're acting like Danks is some 10 year vet. You can't pitch a 1-run gem every day, and if you expect that from Danks, then you're dreaming (how many times have we even seen that from our 1-4, besides Buehrle's no-no?). 6 and 2/3, giving up 3 runs should equate to a win against someone like Batista.

How is Danks not a bright spot? He's pitching well, and shows great promise in his future. Tell me back in December when McCarthy was traded that you were expecting us to have a legit 5th starter? *****, TDog...our 'miserable' season isn't because of Danks and the rest of our pitching, it's because we're batting .220 as a team.

TDog
05-03-2007, 06:00 PM
Sorry, but you're being ridiculous. You're acting like Danks is some 10 year vet. You can't pitch a 1-run gem every day, and if you expect that from Danks, then you're dreaming (how many times have we even seen that from our 1-4, besides Buehrle's no-no?). 6 and 2/3, giving up 3 runs should equate to a win against someone like Batista.

How is Danks not a bright spot? He's pitching well, and shows great promise in his future. Tell me back in December when McCarthy was traded that you were expecting us to have a legit 5th starter? *****, TDog...our 'miserable' season isn't because of Danks and the rest of our pitching, it's because we're batting .220 as a team.

I'm being realistic. I'm sure Mariners fans would expect that Baista giving up two runs in 7 innings should be enough to beat someone like Danks. I also don't have different standards for different pitchers based on what order they pitch in the rotation. And, frankly, Danks isn't pitching as well as I had hoped Gavin Floyd would be pitching this year. The idea that the winless Danks looks great "for a fifth starter" is no reason for me to find him a bright spot, unless your team is having a miserable season.

With the Sox having only four front-line starters, I didn't have any problem with Josh Stewart being the fifth starter, and I don't have any problem with Danks being the fifth starter. As far as excellence is concerned, the Sox starters in Oakland (except for the first-inning by Buehrle who has distingushed himself otherwise) all pitched better games than Danks has at any time this year. So has Vazquez.

You can only be excited about Danks if you are expecting him to be better in the future or if you consider him with a double standard because his is "the fifth starter." He may get better, but I thought Bugs Moran had a future the Saturday night I saw him shut down the A's in 1974.

Garland (who is every bit the tough-luck pitcher this year that Danks is) was the fifth starter at the beginning of the 2005 season, as I noted earlier. As you noted, he didn't finish as the fifth-best starter. Buehrle began the 2001 season as the No. 4 starter. He ended it as the staff ace. We're one month into the season, and people are still referring to Danks as the fifth starter.

I'm not saying he's a bum. I'm saying that I am baffled at the adoration for Danks. It's like 1969 when people were raving about Paul Edmonson and his 1-6 record.

FarWestChicago
05-03-2007, 07:30 PM
Well, we've certainly seen this before:

Parrothead = shoota

:rolleyes:

JB98
05-03-2007, 07:31 PM
I'm being realistic. I'm sure Mariners fans would expect that Baista giving up two runs in 7 innings should be enough to beat someone like Danks. I also don't have different standards for different pitchers based on what order they pitch in the rotation. And, frankly, Danks isn't pitching as well as I had hoped Gavin Floyd would be pitching this year. The idea that the winless Danks looks great "for a fifth starter" is no reason for me to find him a bright spot, unless your team is having a miserable season.

With the Sox having only four front-line starters, I didn't have any problem with Josh Stewart being the fifth starter, and I don't have any problem with Danks being the fifth starter. As far as excellence is concerned, the Sox starters in Oakland (except for the first-inning by Buehrle who has distingushed himself otherwise) all pitched better games than Danks has at any time this year. So has Vazquez.

You can only be excited about Danks if you are expecting him to be better in the future or if you consider him with a double standard because his is "the fifth starter." He may get better, but I thought Bugs Moran had a future the Saturday night I saw him shut down the A's in 1974.

Garland (who is every bit the tough-luck pitcher this year that Danks is) was the fifth starter at the beginning of the 2005 season, as I noted earlier. As you noted, he didn't finish as the fifth-best starter. Buehrle began the 2001 season as the No. 4 starter. He ended it as the staff ace. We're one month into the season, and people are still referring to Danks as the fifth starter.

I'm not saying he's a bum. I'm saying that I am baffled at the adoration for Danks. It's like 1969 when people were raving about Paul Edmonson and his 1-6 record.

I thought Danks pitched well yesterday by any standard. I've been pleased with three of his first five outings.

Parrothead
05-03-2007, 07:45 PM
I'm being realistic. I'm sure Mariners fans would expect that Baista giving up two runs in 7 innings should be enough to beat someone like Danks. I also don't have different standards for different pitchers based on what order they pitch in the rotation. And, frankly, Danks isn't pitching as well as I had hoped Gavin Floyd would be pitching this year. The idea that the winless Danks looks great "for a fifth starter" is no reason for me to find him a bright spot, unless your team is having a miserable season.

With the Sox having only four front-line starters, I didn't have any problem with Josh Stewart being the fifth starter, and I don't have any problem with Danks being the fifth starter. As far as excellence is concerned, the Sox starters in Oakland (except for the first-inning by Buehrle who has distingushed himself otherwise) all pitched better games than Danks has at any time this year. So has Vazquez.

You can only be excited about Danks if you are expecting him to be better in the future or if you consider him with a double standard because his is "the fifth starter." He may get better, but I thought Bugs Moran had a future the Saturday night I saw him shut down the A's in 1974.

Garland (who is every bit the tough-luck pitcher this year that Danks is) was the fifth starter at the beginning of the 2005 season, as I noted earlier. As you noted, he didn't finish as the fifth-best starter. Buehrle began the 2001 season as the No. 4 starter. He ended it as the staff ace. We're one month into the season, and people are still referring to Danks as the fifth starter.

I'm not saying he's a bum. I'm saying that I am baffled at the adoration for Danks. It's like 1969 when people were raving about Paul Edmonson and his 1-6 record.

Well said. I am baffled too. Like you I am not saying that he will be bad in the future I am just baffled about all the love.

Anyway, everyone else convinced me. I would rather have a guy who is 0 -4 with a high ERA but pitched "good" than a guy with wins. Thanks everyone !

Parrothead = shoota ? Perhaps I am missing something but UH?

rdwj
05-04-2007, 07:45 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if EVERYONE should be entitled to their own opinion.

Jaffar
05-04-2007, 07:59 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if EVERYONE should be entitled to their own opinion.

Winning is the only cure for most of the threads on this board.

itsnotrequired
05-04-2007, 08:02 AM
Winning is the only cure for most of the threads on this board.

Most of the time but there is always something to complain about.

:tongue:

cws05champ
05-10-2007, 08:36 AM
Hey...Danks caught a break!!!! He also pitched really well too. But I guess if the BP blew the game last night some on here would say that Danks didn't get the job done.