PDA

View Full Version : As Garland Goes, So Goes The Sox?


Railsplitter
08-25-2007, 08:01 AM
Is it just me, or do the Sox' fortunes mirror those of John Garland? It seems when he has a good season the Sox do too. Conversely, he's not doing well this year, and neither are the Sox.

soxfan80
08-25-2007, 02:28 PM
yep. i was just talking about this to my mailman today( a cub fan).
when the sox are mediocre, JG is 12-12
when they suck, you get JG the last two months
when they are great or above average, you get 17 and 18 win seasons.

JB98
08-25-2007, 02:34 PM
I don't think I agree with this. Jon was pretty bad the first half of 2006, but team-wise, we still piled up the wins. The second half of last year, Jon caught fire. He was carrying the pitching staff. Yet we were still sub-.500 after the break.

A starting pitcher only works once every five days. He doesn't have that much effect on the four days where he's not pitching.

JermaineDye05
08-25-2007, 02:38 PM
I'd say it's just a coincidence. With that logic you could just as easily say when Pablo Ozuna is on the club you have 90+ win seasons but when he's not the best you can hope is 3rd place. There's been way too many injuries this year, and I don't know if Garland's been there mentally the rest of the season I don't know if he's trying as hard as he usually does or not.

johnny bench
08-25-2007, 02:53 PM
Not sure if I agree with you, but it does seem clear that Garland is successful when he doesn't walk people.

BRDSR
08-26-2007, 10:35 AM
You know what I've noticed? When Garland, Konerko, Dye, Jenks, Buerhle, Contreras, Uribe, Crede, Iguchi, Pierzynski, Podsednik, and Rowand all have great or career years and El Duque tosses one fantastic inning in the division playoffs, the Sox tend to win the World Series.

Still, if Garland had won 4 or 5 more games thusfar, I bet the Sox would be 8-10 less games under .500.

itsnotrequired
08-26-2007, 10:40 AM
Not sure if I agree with you, but it does seem clear that Garland is successful when he doesn't walk people.

In his last six starts, Garland has averaged one walk a game. His record? 1-3 with a 8.13 ERA.

Walks are not his problem, at least not recently.

DoItForDanPasqua
08-26-2007, 10:58 AM
It may be the opposite case where Jon Garland goes as the team goes. When the rest of the starting staff struggles so does Garland. I have never thought of him as a stopper: the kind of pitcher who can shut the opposing team down during a losing streak. Buerhle may have that ability, but not Garland.

JB98
08-26-2007, 01:20 PM
In his last six starts, Garland has averaged one walk a game. His record? 1-3 with a 8.13 ERA.

Walks are not his problem, at least not recently.

Garland has a mechanical problem that has caused him to lose his sinker and hang his breaking ball. He's striding out too far, he's not staying on top and his arm is dragging. That causes pitches to stay up in the zone, and we all know Jon gets hit when he leaves his pitches up.

All year, Jon's best pitch has been his change. He has a good change, but his bread and butter is that sinker. When and if he gets his sinker back, he'll start winning again.

I agree with you. Control is a non-issue. Jon throws strikes. Right now, those strikes are getting put in play hard. Garland has given up more home runs this month than he did the entire first half.

soxinem1
08-27-2007, 09:30 PM
In his last six starts, Garland has averaged one walk a game. His record? 1-3 with a 8.13 ERA.

Walks are not his problem, at least not recently.

I agree 100%. With Garland location and pitch selection are the biggest things. He gets beat when he makes mistakes. You can say that about any pitcher, but more so with Garland because he rarely has an overpowering fastball, but a strong tendancy to leave ptches up.

HomeFish
08-28-2007, 03:52 PM
2000 and 2003 come to mind as years where Garland was terrible and the Sox did fairly well. But then again, that was a different Jon Garland.

salty99
08-28-2007, 04:08 PM
You could say the exact same thing about Jose Contreras

kitekrazy
08-28-2007, 08:35 PM
It may be the opposite case where Jon Garland goes as the team goes. When the rest of the starting staff struggles so does Garland. I have never thought of him as a stopper: the kind of pitcher who can shut the opposing team down during a losing streak. Buerhle may have that ability, but not Garland.

I think you're right. I'm beginning to think Garland is not in the Sox future plans if he wants Zambrano money.
Outside of 2005,2006, Jon is a .500 pitcher. Maybe he'll be that way the rest of his career.