Jon Garland

[DBAHO]

I don't exactly have a list of the relievers that we could have gotten, but yes, I do think that BMac + Heilman would be a better combination than BMac + Garland, and if we traded for Heilman, we would have also been able to bolster the farm system in the same trade.

First of all we don't know how Brandon McCarthy will have done as a starter for a whole year. He's never been in that situation in the majors before, and being that it would be his first full season doing that, he would hit some bumps along the road. Remember he did have problems with the longball early on (although it was much better in the 2nd half)

 

At least Garland has the runs on the board, and Coop knows how to get him pitching well. I'm sure he'll get him turned around sooner rather than later.

 

Also have to remember, Heilman would be moving from a pitcher's park at Shea to a hitter's park at U.S Cellular. He put up a 3.17 ERA so you would expect that to rise, and he wants to be starting as well.

Edited April 14, 2006 by DBAH0

[Felix]

Also have to remember, Heilman would be moving from a pitcher's park at Shea to a hitter's park at U.S Cellular. He put up a 3.17 ERA so you would expect that to rise, and he wants to be starting as well.

Thats a good point. I hadn't looked at Heilman's splits, but looking at them now.. well.. they're ugly. In 2005, he had a 1.62 ERA at home compared to a 5.17 ERA on the road. That could be a result of having a relatively ugly first half to the year (4.63 ERA) then having a 0.68 ERA in the second half.

 

First of all we don't know how Brandon McCarthy will have done as a starter for a whole year. He's never been in that situation in the majors before, and being that it would be his first full season doing that, he would hit some bumps along the road. Remember he did have problems with the longball early on (although it was much better in the 2nd half)

BMac did have issues in his first major league run in 2005, but then he went back to AAA and fixed a flaw in his pitching motion. When he came back up, he dominated (even moreso than Count). Given his age, talent, and minor league track record, I have no doubt that BMac would do well this year as a starter.

[DBAHO]

BMac did have issues in his first major league run in 2005, but then he went back to AAA and fixed a flaw in his pitching motion.  When he came back up, he dominated (even moreso than Count).  Given his age, talent, and minor league track record, I have no doubt that BMac would do well this year as a starter.

What would be your expectations of B-Mac in terms of ERA and WHIP if he was starting for us this season?

 

I think he would a pretty good job for us as well (not as good as the 2nd half in 05, but still good nonetheless), but he seems really valuable in a Scott Shields type of role in that bullpen right now, which is really quite big for this team cinsidering all the question marks we had on this pen going into the season.

[Greg Hibbard]

Guys, a pitcher with that low a K/9 total over an entire season/career is not going to be able to sustain an elite ERA or WHIP. Really, this is elementary statistical analysis. He was 37th in qualified pitchers in the AL in K/9 in 2005, yet he had one of the lowest ERAs. That, my friends, is a fluke.

 

A greater percentage of balls he throws are put into play than other pitchers. It's not about the defense doing things for you. It's about the fact that when balls are put into play, things like hits and runs tend to happen slightly more often than when a pitcher strikes a hitter out. When things like hits and runs happen slightly more, your ERA and WHIP tends to suffer.

 

Jon is and always will be a very serviceable 4/5 starter, occasionally when he's really on (like last year) he's a 3. He will probably end up this season with 14-16 wins and an era between 4.2 and 4.4. Those are extremely realistic projections based on his career numbers. They are also just fine for what this team needs from him.

[Felix]

What would be your expectations of B-Mac in terms of ERA and WHIP if he was starting for us this season?

 

I think he would a pretty good job for us as well (not as good as the 2nd half in 05, but still good nonetheless), but he seems really valuable in a Scott Shields type of role in that bullpen right now, which is really quite big for this team cinsidering all the question marks we had on this pen going into the season.

Well, last year he had something like a 1.6 ERA in the second half (IIRC) and probably had a ~1.00 WHIP. Naturally, I highly doubt he would be able to duplicate this. I think that if he were to be a starter this year, he could possibly put up a low 3 ERA (3.20ish), along with a ~1.10 WHIP, but would be more likely to post something like a 3.55 ERA and 1.15 WHIP.

 

I have a feeling I am exaggerating a bit (I'm a rather large BMac supporter), but I have no doubt in my mind that he would put up better numbers than Garland will on the year.

Edited April 14, 2006 by Felix

[DBAHO]

Guys, a pitcher with that low a K/9 total over an entire season/career is not going to be able to sustain an elite ERA or WHIP. Really, this is elementary statistical analysis. He was 37th in qualified pitchers in the AL in K/9 in 2005, yet he had one of the lowest ERAs. That, my friends, is a fluke. 

Well you could argue that Mark Buehrle isn't a big strikeout pitcher either (although he does have a little more K's than Garland), and his ERA has been good for the last few seasons.

 

Being a damn good strikeout pitcher isn't the end all to be all to be a good pitcher.

 

One of the main reasons Garland was so good in 2005 besides walking hitters less, was the fact that he gave up 8 less home runs that he did the year before.

[LosMediasBlancas]

It took a lot for Garland to convince me that he had the stones to pitch in the big leagues. It's going to take a lot more than two starts for me to start questioning his abilitlies again.

[fathom]

I watched the game on tape when I got home, and Garland's offspeed pitchers were terrible. Not only were they up in the zone, his curve and change-up were just extremely flat. He doesn't have a good enough fastball to be a one pitch pitcher.

[Greg Hibbard]

Well you could argue that Mark Buehrle isn't a big strikeout pitcher either (although he does have a little more K's than Garland), and his ERA has been good for the last few seasons.

 

Being a damn good strikeout pitcher isn't the end all to be all to be a good pitcher.

 

One of the main reasons Garland was so good in 2005 besides walking hitters less, was the fact that he gave up 8 less home runs that he did the year before.

 

Buehrle is in the top 20 in K/9...

 

For 2005...

Santana is #1 in K/9 and #2 in ERA

Lackey is #2 in K/9 and #6 in ERA

Millwood is #11 in K/9 and #1 in ERA

Colon is #16 in K/9 (and I would argue he had an off strikeout year) and #8 in ERA

Contreras is in the top 12 in both categories...

 

Buehrle is 20 in K/9 and #3 in ERA (a little fluky, but not really that much)

 

The only pitcher to have a similar outlying statistic to Garland's is Jarrod Washburn, who has a similar K/9 and a similarly low ERA, but again I would argue that that is a fluke season more than a trend.

 

bottom line, there's a very strong correlation.

[Steff]

It took a lot for Garland to convince me that he had the stones to pitch in the big leagues.  It's going to take a lot more than two starts for me to start questioning his abilitlies again.

 

 

 

^^

[WinningUgly85]

jon just needs to find his groove again. Give him time it's only the start of the season. Once hes locked in no one can stop him.

[RME JICO]

Buehrle is in the top 20 in K/9...

 

For 2005...

Santana is #1 in K/9 and #2 in ERA

Lackey is #2 in K/9 and #6 in ERA

Millwood is #11 in K/9 and #1 in ERA

Colon is #16 in K/9 (and I would argue he had an off strikeout year) and #8 in ERA

Contreras is in the top 12 in both categories...

 

Buehrle is 20 in K/9 and #3 in ERA (a little fluky, but not really that much)

 

The only pitcher to have a similar outlying statistic to Garland's is Jarrod Washburn, who has a similar K/9 and a similarly low ERA, but again I would argue that that is a fluke season more than a trend.

 

bottom line, there's a very strong correlation.

I wouldn't call that a very strong correlation. There is some, but K/9 and ERA are just as much related as BB/9 and ERA or WHIP and ERA.

 

Look at some of these pitchers and where they rank for K/9 and ERA for 2005:

 

Randy Johnson

Doug Davis - NL

Javier Vazquez - NL

Jason Schmidt - NL

Daniel Cabrera

 

They all had good K/9 ratios but higher ERAs. There are a lot more than them too.

 

Also if Buehrle is 20th in K/9 in the AL, that is not that high. It would be better to compare how many pitchers are in the top 10 for both and how many are not. I bet it is about the same, which shows that there is not that much correlation.

[Hatchetman]

K's are important, but so are BB's and HR's. tommy john never struck anyone out but didn't walk people and kept the ball in the park.

[ZoomSlowik]

The difference between Buehrle's and Garland's strikeout rates is minimal. Garland retired 82.65 percent of batters last year without striking them out, Buehrle did the same thing at a 79 percent rate. There is no way that 3 balls out of 100 outs makes the difference between a very good pitcher and a mediocre one. That comes out to roughly 3 more balls in play against Garland in every 5 starts. Even assuming that all of those are converted into hits, that difference is minuscule.

[Rowand44]

Guys, a pitcher with that low a K/9 total over an entire season/career is not going to be able to sustain an elite ERA or WHIP. Really, this is elementary statistical analysis. He was 37th in qualified pitchers in the AL in K/9 in 2005, yet he had one of the lowest ERAs. That, my friends, is a fluke. 

 

A greater percentage of balls he throws are put into play than other pitchers. It's not about the defense doing things for you. It's about the fact that when balls are put into play, things like hits and runs tend to happen slightly more often than when a pitcher strikes a hitter out. When things like hits and runs happen slightly more, your ERA and WHIP tends to suffer.

 

Jon is and always will be a very serviceable 4/5 starter, occasionally when he's really on (like last year) he's a 3. He will probably end up this season with 14-16 wins and an era between 4.2 and 4.4. Those are extremely realistic projections based on his career numbers. They are also just fine for what this team needs from him.

Garland is a sinkerballer, he wants guys to put the ball in play. The end.

[SnB]

Its much more sickening that you feel it necessary to use language like that.  There are young people that visit this site and they do not need to be exposed to your limited vocabulary.

hahahahahahaha

 

let's just say the language rules here are um........loose.

[greg775]

I didn't want to start a new thread but how bout a list here. Answer if you

are worried or not worried about these guys. Here are my answers.

 

Anderson - Worried

Scott P - Not worried.

Garland - Not worried.

Politte - Very worried.

Uribe - Not worried.

Our bullpen - Worried.

[DBAHO]

Garland is a sinkerballer, he wants guys to put the ball in play.  The end.

Yeah god forbid for pitchers like Brandon Webb to ever be sucessful because they want to put the ball in play.

[Ishmookie]

i bet garland will bounce back. he pitched too well last year and this year in spring training to revert back to his old form. i think the stuff with politte is location. even with all of the things going wrong with pods, brian anderson garland and politte we're still 6-5.

[Felix]

i bet garland will bounce back. he pitched too well last year and this year in spring training to revert back to his old form.

One year wonders. They exist throughout baseball. For example, look at Adrian Beltre, or hell, Brady Anderson in 1996.

[YASNY]

One year wonders.  They exist throughout baseball.  For example, look at Adrian Beltre, or hell, Brady Anderson in 1996.

 

That may be the case here with Garland, but I seriously doubt it.

[DBAHO]

One year wonders.  They exist throughout baseball.  For example, look at Adrian Beltre, or hell, Brady Anderson in 1996.

I call Beltre a perfect example of what a player can do in a "contract year". Too bad Bill Bavasi was dumb enough to take the bait.