TheBlackSox8 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 The Whitesox have a "curse", since two other teams haven't won in forever also say they have a curse... And that curse has got to be the Stats on paper curse. How long have we fielded one of the best teams in baseball on paper, but play as s***ty as the s***tiest teams in the league on the field. Now on the other hand...look at the Stl. Cardinals, they definitely didn't have a stellar team on paper, besides a reliable offense, and they are the best f***ing team in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted July 31, 2004 Author Share Posted July 31, 2004 Good old JG giving the DEt the 2 runs back in record time .......... :fyou JG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 How long have we fielded one of the best teams in baseball on paper, but play as s***ty as the s***tiest teams in the league on the field. The White Sox were hardly one of the "best teams on paper" on April 5, 2004. Not one f***ing offseason move of note other than Uribe and Takatsu. Sox were in a hole from Day 1 and success was completely dependant on too many factors that would be working against the Sox for a 6 month season. You get what you pay for and JR didn't pay for s*** until the Garcia signing and that will probably go for naught in '04 unless the Sox turn it around and turn it around quick. REALLY QUICK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 The Whitesox have a "curse", since two other teams haven't won in forever also say they have a curse... And that curse has got to be the Stats on paper curse. How long have we fielded one of the best teams in baseball on paper, but play as s***ty as the s***tiest teams in the league on the field. Now on the other hand...look at the Stl. Cardinals, they definitely didn't have a stellar team on paper, besides a reliable offense, and they are the best f***ing team in the game. I think the real curse is outlined in your sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 i give garland one more year..by the end of next season if he hasnt shown improvement then he's gone...some guys just take longer to figure it all out..garland has shown that he has good enough stuff to consistently win at the ML level...id want to make sure we gave him every chance to get his crap together before dumping him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 i give garland one more year..by the end of next season if he hasnt shown improvement then he's gone...some guys just take longer to figure it all out..garland has shown that he has good enough stuff to consistently win at the ML level...id want to make sure we gave him every chance to get his crap together before dumping him... Patience is a virtue and that virtue has been lost on me in regards to Judy Garland. He's had almost 4 full seasons of mediocrity and I've had an ass full of Judy's s***. As far as the White Sox are concerned, I guess it's just how long do you give him now to get his s*** straight. I guess JR figures time is on the White Sox side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Needs to step up NO excuses, it is time the guy wins a must game and quits his MR average label. Lets see what he has got when it counts most. We've been saying that about him in every big game he's started since he got here. My question is when are we going to see this "breakout season" we've been waiting for from him all this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 My question is when are we going to see this "breakout season" we've been waiting for from him all this time? Judy's Jockers usually take a page out of a Cub Fan's Handbook right around March..... "This year is Judy's year." When he inevitably fails to breakout and is average as ever, it's..... "Wait'll next year." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Judy's Jockers usually take a page out of a Cub Fan's Handbook right around March..... "This year is Judy's year." When he inevitably fails to breakout and is average as ever, it's..... "Wait'll next year." Exactly he starts off hot then everyone thinks he is turning the corner and of course he fails to keep it up through out the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Here are the stats of various pitchers in thew AL: Mussina... 9-6 5.20 Lowe....... 9-9 5.56 Silva....... 9-7 4.52 Zito........ 6-7 4.74 Dickey(TX) 5-7 6.04 Lackey...... 9-9 4.52 Westbrook.. 7-5 3.62 Average 8-7 4.88 Garland 7-7 4.59 These guys listed are what I percieve to be the #3 starter for each of the contending teams in the AL. In some cases another pitcher could have been selected, but it was a judgement call and I tried to pick the best or what would be a consensus (ex Zito over Redman). As you can see, Garland's stats are consistant with these guys. Some a little better, some a little worse. The only thing that is not consistant here is Garland is not our number 3 starter now ... He's our #4. You say he's so damn inconsistant and should be dumped at the first opportunity. Quality pitching is hard to find in baseball. I'd keep Garland around for a long time with those types of numbers. And the odds are, that eventually he will get better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Lopez Ghost (old) Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Here are the stats of various pitchers in thew AL: Mussina... 9-6 5.20 Lowe....... 9-9 5.56 Silva....... 9-7 4.52 Zito........ 6-7 4.74 Dickey(TX) 5-7 6.04 Lackey...... 9-9 4.52 Westbrook.. 7-5 3.62 Average 8-7 4.88 Garland 7-7 4.59 These guys listed are what I percieve to be the #3 starter for each of the contending teams in the AL. In some cases another pitcher could have been selected, but it was a judgement call and I tried to pick the best or what would be a consensus (ex Zito over Redman). As you can see, Garland's stats are consistant with these guys. Some a little better, some a little worse. The only thing that is not consistant here is Garland is not our number 3 starter now ... He's our #4. You say he's so damn inconsistant and should be dumped at the first opportunity. Quality pitching is hard to find in baseball. I'd keep Garland around for a long time with those types of numbers. And the odds are, that eventually he will get better. Yasny, I respectfully disagree. First of all when the season started he was our number 3, and you could argue with Loiaza becoming Loiaza again, he still is. Your comparison to Lowe and Mussina involves to veterans who are clearly on their downslide, and Westbrook is certainly better than Garland. But I think there's no getting around the fact that people (me included) dislike Garland for both his performance and his personality, for lack of a better word. He doesn't convey any sense of determination, or fire, or the ability to rise to the occasion. This is an important start - this is an important inning - this is an important hitter - these are all concepts that seem outside of his grasp. He makes it very hard to root for him, hard to invest my emotion into an enterprise he seems to have no emotion for himself. If I could turn him into Garciaparra, I do it without worrying about next year. In a couple of years Jon will be a free agent and gone anyway. I will say he's a better pitcher than Karchner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I stated that he's not our number 3 starter NOW. Loaiza's number's are relatively close to Garland, but since Garcia's trade he'd be considered our number 3 ... He was number 1 or 2 when the season started. Regardless .... I compared Garland's numbers to NUMBER THREE starters and he's right up the in the pack. Westbrook is the only one who has noticably better numbers than Garland. The point I'm making here is that EVEN as a number 3 Garland would be considered comparable to the CURRENT number 3 starters of the all the AL contenders. I don't care how old Mussina and Lowe are ... they are CURRENT number 3 starters. The numbers speak for themselves ... even the average numbers. Garland is pitching well enough to be a number 3 starter on a contending team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.