Greg Hibbard

Since the end of the 2001 season, we are 8-9 against them. I was one game off. So sue me.

This team has quit and it's May 24th. They are a brutal 2-20 on the road and I can't see them winning a game the rest of this month (vs. Tigers for 2, 3 @ NYY, 3 @ Oak), which would put them at 10-41... With the Central as good as it is, I can't see them avoiding 120 losses.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 24, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) Going for first sweep since 1983. The sox are 13-34 vs the A's since 2001. we also won the series May 3-5 2002 I would venture to say that we are at least .500 at home against them since 2001...

They have owned us at Oakland, but I seem to remember at least winning one series at home against them in the past five years... EDIT: August 8-10 2003

in this case, I would prefer he sit no matter what he says. If it was bad enough for him to warrant coming out of the game last night, it's obviously something they want to be careful with.

The Sox have gone 29-11 over their last 40 games! The 2005 edition went 28-12 to start the year, and had a second 28-12 stretch from May 30th to July 17th (it became 29-12 on July 18th, but then was followed up by 3 game losing streak)

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ May 23, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) I love the: "Of the 40 pitchers with 27 starts" stat. When you look at the stat it shows just how valuable Garland is. Of all the teams in baseball, only 40 starting pitchers (less than 2 per team) started 27 games. Of all of them, Garland was in the top 30 (1 per team), meaning that on any other staff Garland was on average the top 1 or 2 pitcher, but generally no worse than a 3. This reminds me of the "Vazquez should be traded" before the season started, and all the other "great" ideas that are based on rushing B-Mac into the rotation. B-Mac may be good, but he will unlikely ever be an Ace, so therefore there is no reason to press him into the starting rotation. Right now the Sox have the most talented team when Garland is starting and B-Mac is in the pen. By moving Garland you would severely weaken the pen, and possibly (in my opinion likely) weaken the starting rotation. If everyone here is worried about winning championships, then you have to keep both Garland and B-Mac, unless Garland was giving you a piece to win this year. The grass isnt always greener. My bad for not clarifying...this is of 40 AL pitchers, roughly 3 per team...

QUOTE(T R U @ May 23, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) I assume it based on my opinion of Garland and that he has been a solid pitcher his entire career Is your definition of solid "mediocre"? I'm honestly confused. Garland's 2004 rank out of 40 starting pitchers with at least 27 starts: ERA - 27/40 Wins - tied with 6 others for 19/40 WHIP - 19/40 2003: ERA: 27/40 Wins - tied with 5 others for 26/40 WHIP - 28/40 Prior to 2005, about the only thing Jon was consistently good at was giving us innings and getting about 12 wins a year, which is not bad for a 3rd or 4th starter on a middling team. His ERA and WHIP were well below average his entire career up to last year. I'm really not sure how anyone could look at his career numbers and say they've been "solid". Mark Buehrle's had a "solid" career...Garland's had a mediocre career in my opinion.

he is 44th out of 50 starting pitchers in AL ERA (Qualified pitchers only) he is 95th out of 101 starting pitchers in MLB ERA (Qualified pitchers only) Unacceptable on every level, considering his salary.

QUOTE(T R U @ May 23, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) and? his ERA is still in the mid 5's The only problem I see with Garland is that he is just getting hit around.. hes not walkin a bunch of people, he has just been giving up a crazy amount of hits which I assume will start to go down here in the coming outings.. Again, you assume this based on WHAT?

QUOTE(T R U @ May 23, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) Yeah since McCarthy and his 5.48 ERA are doin sooo much better than Garland McCarthy's WHIP is about .25 points lower than Garland...

I got blasted at the beginning of this season for saying that 2005 was an OBVIOUS fluke, so I'll just shut up about that now and let the numbers speak for themselves the rest of the way. I'm really not sure what indications anyone has been given that Garland can even give up less than 5 or 6 runs against most competitive American League teams. Let me re-iterate: Garland has an ERA above 10 against teams not named TB, KC and Seattle. You know, teams we're likely to be facing in the playoffs...

I guess you're right guys. I should look at the bright side. I mean, at least we have a guy who can beat the three last place teams in each of the American League divisions. Looking forward to that next win at Pittsburgh....

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 23, 2006 -> 09:51 AM) Utter Crap? Wow you have a short memory. 3-2, 6.12 ERA, 1.53 WHIP, .325 BAA. This is what I'm describing as utter crap. WTF would you call it? Last year has nothing to do with it. Beating three AAAA teams isn't something to laud him for....

Nitetrain, just because we have 4 other good starters does not mean we need to accept utter crap from our fifth starter, especially when we have another guy capable of starting in the bullpen and Garland has only put up good numbers in ONE year.

His stats are not good AT ALL. He's had four quality starts this season, and three of them were against KC or Tampa Bay. The other one was at Seattle against ANOTHER futile team. Against average or above average teams his ERA is probably well over 10. His WHIP is atrocious at 1.53. That's worse than Marte was last year! His BAA is .325. .325!!!! His ERA is above 6, even with the good starts. He's had 9 starts now. This is more than 1/4 into the season. I realize a lot of fans and people within the organization are unwilling to yank an important cog in the World Series run from last year, but something is way, way off, moreso than it's ever been perhaps in his career. I would give him two more starts to straighten it out, but then I think a change might have to be made if noticeable improvement isn't happening. I understand the dead arm argument, but we're going on two months of that. Or can we live with a fifth starter not having his best stuff, especially because come playoff time we'll only need four? Where do you folks stand with this?

QUOTE(Greg Hibbard @ May 22, 2006 -> 06:27 PM) God, Garland blows.

God, Garland blows.

god I hope Zito doesn't settle down and go 8 now. dammit Crede

QUOTE(Beltin @ May 22, 2006 -> 05:02 PM) That is all fine and good, but the bullpen still sucks. The White Sox have lost too many games that should have been victories thus far. I agree that if Garland starts to get back on his game (whatever that is), Vazquez avoids the big inning that has hit a few of his starts, and BA and Uribe start hitting at a more respectable level, this team will be tough to beat despite the weak bullpen. However, if this team is going to go far in the playoffs, something needs to get straightened out in the pen. Maybe those guys just haven't hit their stride, either, but I see the WS as short at least one quality RHP. Until the pen starts doing their job effectively with a high level of consistency, all those statistics comparing the 2005 pace and whatever else mean nothing. The fact is the WS faced two of the weaker hitting teams in the majors this past week and came out on the short end three times. The bullpen played a significant part in those losses. I'm not sure how Cotts didn't do his job yesterday. He induced a routine GIDP. He was left in to face a righty, which was not only a bad matchup, but was bad anyway because he's the cubs' best hitter recently. You put in Jenks right there and we're probably fine. Politte gave up an insurance run yesterday, but he's been better.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 22, 2006 -> 04:11 PM) Since when is going 30-20 a .500 team? 27-9 to 57-29 Yeah, I just caught that myself. Staying with the point....during the second half of may last year (May 14th through June 1st - 1 under), and at the end of the 1st half, we really limped along, so I like our chances of having a better first half record than last year.

* If we go 7-3 over our next ten games, we equal our 2005 record after 53 games. I don't see that as being impossible, but 7 of the 10 are on the road and all ten are against .500 or better teams. 6-4 is probably more realistic, but that would put us just 1 game back of last year. * Even playing well short of our potential, since the first two series losses and our 2-4 start, the White Sox have only lost two series since, 1 to Seattle on the West Coast trip and 1 to Tampa, where we never seem to win. * We are still on pace to win 105.5 games, even taking into account a 1-4 start, a DL stint by our best pitcher, inconsistency from Jon Garland, and putrid plate performances by Brian Anderson and Juan Uribe. A true testament to how unbelievably good this team will be when they put it all together. * from May 14th of 2005 (27-9) until the all-star break of that year (57-29) we were a .500 team. I'm looking forward to hopefully getting 60 wins by the all star break this year, and with being a 27-11 team in the past 38 games, we are well on our way! EDIT: Sorry, can't do math. We were actually 10 over in this stretch. * whereas August set up as our most brutal month in 2005, it's setting up as our easiest month this season, IMO August: @ KC 1-2 @ Tor 4-6 (looking softer than imagined) vs NYY 8-10 (we tend to handle Yanks here) vs Det 11-13 vs. KC 15-17 @ Min 18-20 @ Det 21-24 vs. Min 25-27 vs. TB 29-31 We get 4 days off in the dog days...and although detroit and @ min will be tough, that's a month we could easily go 17-10 or 18-9.

wow, we must be talking to totally different Cubs fans. "It was nice to see some emotion from SOMEONE...." "I would've punched him" "It was worth whatever suspension to see that idiot get clocked" "At least a Cub player hit something..." "AJ started it with the shoulder" That's all I heard all weekend.

The reason AJ got tossed is because another brawl would've broken out with him still behind the plate. Guaranteed. Not saying it's right. But that's the reason.

Inning over. They won't score again.