my absolutely last thread on Garland

[Hideaway Lights]

Garland's success in 2005 was predicted by his 2004 first half...

 

After 18 starts in 2004, Garland was 7-6. That seems about right....doesn't it?

 

However, looking beyond the record, he had 10 quality starts in that span. 10 starts of giving at least 7 IP, and giving up 3 ER or less. His record? 6-3 with 1 ND. That is pretty unlucky/bad in the AL in my opinion. The White Sox, especially the slugging White Sox of the last few years, should've given him a 8-2 record during those starts minimum. He lost a 1-0 heartbreaker to Baltimore. He lost a 4-2 game at Oakland (4th run was unearned) and lost a 3-1 game to the Yankees at the cell. His ND was vs the Angels...7IP, 2ER. Another one of his NDs? 6.2 IP and 3 earned runs. Not a quality start, but close enough in my book. In other words, in 2004 Garland pitched 11 really good games in his first 18 starts....nearly 2/3rds.... and only won 7 of the 18 with 5 no decisions.

 

The next three starts after those first 18? 6.0 IP, 4 ER in all three. Not terrible. Pretty par for the course in the AL, as a matter of fact. His record? 0-1, two NDs. The team lost all three games.

 

For the 2004 season, if we count minimum 6 IP, 2ER or less starts and also count that 6.2/3ER game, Garland had 15 "quality" starts...out of 33 total starts in 2004. Almost half of his starts were what I would call "quality". His record was 9-3 with 3 no decisions in those games. Again, getting 9 wins out of 15 "quality" starts is pretty low in my opinion...it's not nearly enough.

 

Also, as far as run support, the team scored 3 runs or less for the entire game in 10 of his 33 starts. That run support also seems low for the AL. I don't know where to find actual run-support stats, but I'd love to see them if anyone knows.

 

My conclusion? Garland could have and should have EASILY won 15 games last year given this analysis. Perhaps if he had gotten a couple of breaks, he would have and people wouldn't be as surprised at his start this season...

[Kyyle23]

Garland's success in 2005 was predicted by his 2004 first half...

 

After 18 starts in 2004, Garland was 7-6. That seems about right....doesn't it?

 

However, looking beyond the record, he had 10 quality starts in that span. 10 starts of giving at least 7 IP, and giving up 3 ER or less. His record? 6-3 with 1 ND. That is pretty unlucky/bad in the AL in my opinion. The White Sox, especially the slugging White Sox of the last few years, should've given him a 8-2 record during those starts minimum. He lost a 1-0 heartbreaker to Baltimore. He lost a 4-2 game at Oakland (4th run was unearned) and lost a 3-1 game to the Yankees at the cell. His ND was vs the Angels...7IP, 2ER. Another one of his NDs? 6.2 IP and 3 earned runs. Not a quality start, but close enough in my book. In other words, in 2004 Garland pitched 11 really good games in his first 18 starts....nearly 2/3rds.... and only won 7 of the 18 with 5 no decisions.

 

The next three starts after those first 18? 6.0 IP, 4 ER in all three. Not terrible. Pretty par for the course in the AL, as a matter of fact. His record? 0-1, two NDs. The team lost all three games. 

 

For the 2004 season, if we count minimum 6 IP, 2ER or less starts and also count that 6.2/3ER game, Garland had 15 "quality" starts...out of 33 total starts in 2004. Almost half of his starts were what I would call "quality". His record was 9-3 with 3 no decisions in those games. Again, getting 9 wins out of 15 "quality" starts is pretty low in my opinion...it's not nearly enough.

 

Also, as far as run support, the team scored 3 runs or less for the entire game in 10 of his 33 starts. That run support also seems low for the AL. I don't know where to find actual run-support stats, but I'd love to see them if anyone knows.

 

My conclusion? Garland could have and should have EASILY won 15 games last year given this analysis. Perhaps if he had gotten a couple of breaks, he would have and people wouldn't be as surprised at his start this season...

 

Are you still insisting that Garland should be a consistent 15 game winner? You need to get out a little bit more

[Hideaway Lights]

I didn't say every year, but he was definitely robbed of winning 15 in 2004 by lack of run support and bad luck.

[Balta1701]

Every pitcher ends up dealing with some bad luck and poor run support. That's why you have people pitching more quality starts than wins. That's why Jose Contreras and Mark Buehrle don't have 10 wins a piece.

 

When John Garland is on, he's one of the best around. Does anyone other than me remember that game last year where Garland came out pitching against the Twins (I believe against Santana), El Cabayo hit a home run in the first inning after taking a pitch that should have been strike 3, and then that was all that Garland needed?

 

There's no reason Garland can't be one of the best sinker ball pitchers in the Big leagues. He needs to keep his slider moving, but his sinker and straight fastball combo is as good as anyone's when he's smart enough to change speeds on them. We've seen that plenty this year.

 

He's grown up enough now that he shouldn't get too rattled if someone commits an error behind him or if someone hits one out of the Cell. If he keeps his head in the game, keeps the ball down, and doesn't change what he's doing when he makes a mistake...then he will win 15 or more consistently. End of story.

[Hideaway Lights]

Every pitcher ends up dealing with some bad luck and poor run support.  That's why you have people pitching more quality starts than wins.  That's why Jose Contreras and Mark Buehrle don't have 10 wins a piece.

 

My hunch is that Garland had worse luck last year than most pitchers and worse run support during that first half.

[Balta1701]

My hunch is that Garland had worse luck last year than most pitchers and worse run support during that first half.

 

Yeah, but it's somewhat evening out this year...Garland's mostly had bats there to carry him when he needs them (aside from that start in Anaheim) - he gave up 6 to Toronto and the bats bailed him out, he gave up 6 yesterday and the bats bailed him out.

[Hideaway Lights]

Yeah, but it's somewhat evening out this year...Garland's mostly had bats there to carry him when he needs them (aside from that start in Anaheim) - he gave up 6 to Toronto and the bats bailed him out, he gave up 6 yesterday and the bats bailed him out.

 

 

True, but even with average luck he would've still only lost a couple more games. At worst, he'd probably be 8-5 at this point if he had lost all three games where he had mediocre to bad outings that he won, and that's if he would've gotten decisions in all three....still well on pace for 15+ wins. No matter what run support he had he would've won those back to back shutouts he tossed, that's for sure.

[BuehrleTheAce]

Every time I hear "poor run support" I always always ALWAYS think of Mike Sirotka. Man, he was probably one of the most cursed lefies around when it came to the team picking him up offensively.

[RockRaines]

My guess is that Garland had a nice hot streak, and now is reverting back to his old self, but I could be wrong and this is a cold streak. But the way he threw the ball last night, looked like old Garland, the big inning.

[Jimenez4MVP]

My guess is that Garland had a nice hot streak, and now is reverting back to his old self, but I could be wrong and this is a cold streak.  But the way he threw the ball last night, looked like old Garland, the big inning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well to be fair the inning would have been over if Kong gets the ball out of his glove..

[southsider2k5]

Well to be fair the inning would have been over if Kong gets the ball out of his glove..

 

Not to mention that Clarks 3 run "homer" was nothing but a medium fly ball. Garland threw the ball fine. His sinker wasn't as sharp as it has been, but he literally had to have the entire ball over the plate to get a strike called, which never happens in this day and age. Then when you factor in two poor defensive plays, it is easy to see how the numbers lie once again. On the surface it shows that Jon gave up 6 runs and had 3 walks, in reality he probably should have been something like 7-8 innings with about 2 runs against.

[gettysburg32]

Well to be fair the inning would have been over if Kong gets the ball out of his glove..

 

Or if Crede can start the DP properly. If either Crede or Konerko makes not easy, but still fairly expected, plays then it's 2-1 Arizona instead of 6-1.

[Kyyle23]

His sinker wasn't as sharp as it has been, but he literally had to have the entire ball over the plate to get a strike called, which never happens in this day and age. 

 

In that vein, I would have to say the umpiring crew for this series was not consistent with either team in the strikezone whatsoever. Vazquez plate was about 4 inches wider than El Duque's, and last night the plate widened and shrunk literally with each pitch. Not a good series for the men in blue.