Was Jon Garland that Bad or Was He Never that Good?

This is why people pay him the big bucks. Don't do it Frank.

The Braves have obviously failed miserably while trying to add starting pitching this off-season, and so I tried to start thinking about whether any of the pitchers remaining were good enough to justify saying the team improved by getting them. My eye tended to go toward Jon Garland. I'm not sure why. The guy was absolutely terrible last year, but the Angels did trade an All-Star shortstop for him. And wasn't he the guy that led the White Sox to that World Series? Can he be really as bad as he was last season? Hmmm ...

First, he isn't that good. Besides his 2005 season where he had a 3.50 ERA, he hasn't had an ERA below 4.23 as a full-season starter, and even in 2005, his FIP was a robust 4.24. Why do we always hold out hope that a pitcher/player will come back to that great season instead of being what he usually is?

Second, he isn't a ground-ball pitcher. You know how everyone has always talked about how much of a ground-ball pitcher he is? He isn't. His career GB/FB rate is 1.29 which is pretty much the definition of average. Last season was actually his best ground-ball season, and he was terrible.

Third, he actually does not have great control. His career BB/9 is 2.95, which is pretty average. That is buffered by two great seasons in 2005 and 2006 where he had a 1.91 and 1.75 rates after a 3.15 and before a 2.46. Last season, he was back towards his career mark with a 2.70 rate. That's good, but it certainly doesn't balance out the fact that his K/9 rates usually fall in the mid 4 range (4.12 last season -- ouch).

Fourth, his defense isn't the problem. His FIP has never, never, been below 4.24 (2005) and has broken 5 only 5 times in 9 seasons.

He just isn't a good pitcher. Sure, we can talk about his durability (he is durable -- at least 190 IP in each of his full-season starting gigs), but it's like talking about Livan Hernandez. He's durable, but if his innings are so bad, is it really worth it? Still, someone (the Twins cringe) paid him a few million to give him a shot. He pitched the innings but was terrible. The same thing will probably happen with Garland. Here's a suggestion. Bring him in on a minor-league deal and put him in as the long-relief/mop-up guy. Then, his durability might count for something. By the time he gets in, the game's over anyway (one way or another).