garland a fluke or not?

[bmags]

I'm going with the unpopular answer, and saying that Garland's season was a fluke.  If you look at his numbers as a starter, its not like they were getting better and then suddenly they come out as a top pitchers in the league.  His numbers were consistantly poor, but then became damned good.

 

I think he can be a solid #3 or 4 guy, but I do not think his numbers will match those he had last year on a consistant basis.

 

i'd like to think this is due to improved defense up the middle being he's a ground ball pitcher

[Steve9347]

All last season I was waiting for the wheels to the Garland Express to fall off, but they didn't. Though he did not win as many games in the second-half, it was not because of his performance, but rather, a lack of offensive production.

 

The sole factor that makes me feel great about Garland being back is the way he pitched against Los Angeles and Houston in the playoffs. On the biggest stage, he pitched two stellar ball games (especially in the LCS).

[SoxRock05]

J-Unit.....hmmm.....#20....Valencia, CA......with Jon pitching in the middle of the best rotation in the league and with what i think to be a very dangerous offense to back him up....I'm gonna come straight out and say it.....21 wins....mark that number down somewhere and come back to me at the end of the 2006 campaign when we are back in the playoffs defending our title....Take it home and chew on it...

 

JiYea!!!

[RockRaines]

For the sake of Soxtalk, the White Sox organization, and Jon Garland himself, please never call Jon Garland "J-Unit" again.

 

[heirdog]

Here we go.  I think Garland was the best pitcher on our staff last year.  Even in the second half he ws impressive, much different from what people think, he was our second best in the 2nd half and the best in the first half.  I think he will win around 17-19 games with about the same ERA as this year.  I really think jon figured it out.

 

 

I would say that was BMac

[Balta1701]

I would say that was BMac

He only started like 4 games in the 2nd half. Yeah, he shredded everyone he faced in the 2nd half...but it's hard to be our 2nd best pitcher when you only start 4 games.

[heirdog]

He only started like 4 games in the 2nd half.  Yeah, he shredded everyone he faced in the 2nd half...but it's hard to be our 2nd best pitcher when you only start 4 games.

 

I didn't know there was a caveat to the comment but he started 5 games (from Aug. 30th on) and he pitched twice in long relief after El Duque got shelled in the first 2 or 3 innings of two other games (once going 5 2/3 innings). Regardless of the small sample size, I would argue that we was our second best pitcher in the second half last season.

 

Just like Jenks was our best closer in the second half with only 6 saves versus Hermanson who had 13. Its the quality of work as opposed to quantity...IMHO.

[RockRaines]

I didn't know there was a caveat to the comment but he started 5 games (from Aug. 30th on) and he pitched twice in long relief after El Duque got shelled in the first 2 or 3 innings of two other games (once going 5 2/3 innings).  Regardless of the small sample size, I would argue that we was our second best pitcher in the second half last season.

 

Just like Jenks was our best closer in the second half with only 6 saves versus Hermanson who had 13.  Its the quality of work as opposed to quantity...IMHO.

I dont know about that. Garland started 15 games in the second half with a 3.65 ERA. Thats three times the work, three times the value. Brandon did pitch in 7 games, but only pitches 40 innings. Garland was more valuable than Brandon was in the 2nd half. For arguments sake lets go with pitchers who were in the rotation, because thats what I was saying. Jon was the most consistantly good pitcher for us all year.

[heirdog]

I dont know about that.  Garland started 15 games in the second half with a 3.65 ERA.  Thats three times the work, three times the value.  Brandon did pitch in 7 games, but only pitches 40 innings.  Garland was more valuable than Brandon was in the 2nd half.  For arguments sake lets go with pitchers who were in the rotation, because thats what I was saying.  Jon was the most consistantly good pitcher for us all year.

 

First of all, I don't disagree that Jon was probably the best, most consistent pitcher from start to finish. But I do still disagree about the 2nd best in the 2nd half part because BMac was in the rotation down the stretch.

 

2nd half (post All-Star game stats):

 

Garland: 5 W 6L; 3.65 ERA in 99.6 innings

McCarthy: 3 W 1L; 1.70 ERA in 42.2 innings

 

So while Garland may have had more work (not quite 3 times), I don't equate that to 3 times the value. BMac's W/L and ERA more than stack up to Jon's in the second half. That is why I brought up the Jenks/Hermanson example...Jenks got many less save opps in the second half but was in my mind clearly the best closer in the second half.

[RockRaines]

First of all, I don't disagree that Jon was probably the best, most consistent pitcher from start to finish.  But I do still disagree about the 2nd best in the 2nd half part because BMac was in the rotation down the stretch.

 

2nd half (post All-Star game stats):

 

Garland:      5 W 6L; 3.65 ERA in 99.6 innings

McCarthy:    3 W 1L; 1.70 ERA in 42.2 innings

 

So while Garland may have had more work (not quite 3 times), I don't equate that to 3 times the value.  BMac's W/L and ERA more than stack up to Jon's in the second half.  That is why I brought up the Jenks/Hermanson example...Jenks got many less save opps in the second half but was in my mind clearly the best closer in the second half.

Yes I understand statistics. I was speaking about the pitchers that we would have considered our "rotation" meaning the ones who actually were on the roster in the playoffs and the beginning of the season. I didnt even include BMAC in my assessment nor am I.

[TheBigHurt]

QUOTE(MarkBuehrle_TheAce @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:54 PM)

guillen>manuel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh?

[MarkBuehrle_TheAce]

Huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i meant that guillen is better than manuel, wich is obviously true, considering guillen has a ring, and manuel doesnt

[witesoxfan]

i meant that guillen is better than manuel, wich is obviously true, considering guillen has a ring, and manuel doesnt

 

Bob Brenly has a ring too, but it's hard as hell to suggest he's better than even Manuel.

 

And green is sarcasm.

[TheBigHurt]

Yeah, obviously it was sarcasm. IMO, even comparing Manuel to Guillen is an insult.

[heirdog]

Yes I understand statistics.  I was speaking about the pitchers that we would have considered our "rotation" meaning the ones who actually were on the roster in the playoffs and the beginning of the season.  I didnt even include BMAC in my assessment nor am I.

 

Wait, you chastised me previously (don't remember the exact debate) for giving an opinion and not providing the stats to back it up and now when I learn from the error in my ways and go and get the stats (took me forever by the way) you undermine them?

 

Again, more caveats are entering your comment ("playoff roster and beginning of the season") so I really can't keep this argument going. My opinion is based off my interpretation of what you initially wrote sans the additional criteria you have since added.

 

Just a question though, if BMac were to be included in your assessment, where would he rank in the 2nd half of last season?

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

I hope this was supposed to be funny, because I found it hilarious.  

 

 

Glad somebody caught it.

[chitownsportsfan]

100% agreed. People can take their Sabermatrics or whatever that s*** is and shove it up their ass. I'm not talking about anybody from this site by the way.

 

Darn! And I was going to try and use "sabermatrics" to prove why Jon's 2005 wasn't a fluke, but since you'll just discount it maybe I shouldnt...

 

"sabermatrics" tell a few things about Jon:

 

1) He has an excellent F/G ratio--a must for pitching half your starts at the Cell

 

2) His walk rate dramatically improved in 2005.

 

"sabermatrics" also tells that the Sox have perhaps the best team defense in MLB.

 

So, call it "confidence" or "finding himself", the thing is that if Garland can keep his control problems in line, (as many have mentioned) he is an excellent candidate to not be a "fluke".

 

The fact that KW and the Sox' "sabermatric" inclined FO decided he was a better long-term bet than Contreras speaks volumes.

[SSH2005]

In my opinion, the two factors that will affect Garland's 2006 season the most are...

 

1.) Will he keep his walks down like he did in 2005?

2.) Will our infield play great defense again?

 

#1 is up to Garland. #2 has a good chance of happening seeing as how our infield stayed the same.