Wood wants to come back, open to relief. Bring him back.

[mg420]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

zambrano wasnt great last year either imo. we must have a different opinion on what "great" means. i look at some of the years pedro, maddux, clemens, johnson & sanatana have had and woods 2003 just looks like a very average year that a good pitcher would have. not a great year by any stretch imo.

 

So by your definition, there's about 1 great pitcher per year.

i wouldn't say only one but most years have a few guys who have great years. i just dont consider a 3.20 era and 14 wins a great year.

[soccer10k]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

zambrano wasnt great last year either imo. we must have a different opinion on what "great" means. i look at some of the years pedro, maddux, clemens, johnson & sanatana have had and woods 2003 just looks like a very average year that a good pitcher would have. not a great year by any stretch imo.

 

So by your definition, there's about 1 great pitcher per year.

 

One could make a serious argument that Zambrano 2004 was better than Zambrano 2005.

[goonys evil twin]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

zambrano wasnt great last year either imo. we must have a different opinion on what "great" means. i look at some of the years pedro, maddux, clemens, johnson & sanatana have had and woods 2003 just looks like a very average year that a good pitcher would have. not a great year by any stretch imo.

 

So by your definition, there's about 1 great pitcher per year.

i wouldn't say only one but most years have a few guys who have great years. i just dont consider a 3.20 era and 14 wins a great year.

 

Why are you listing win totals?

[goonys evil twin]

One could make a serious argument that Zambrano 2004 was better than Zambrano 2005.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't have to argue. 2.75 ERA, 165 ERA+, compared to 3.26 ERA and 131 ERA+.

 

 

I think there are several hitters each year who have a great season, with a handful having elite years. Likewise, I think there are several pitchers who have great seasons, and a handful with elite years. Demanding an elite year doesn't make much sense. Demanding that a highly touted player be among the 2 or 3 best to be considered having a great year is absurd.

 

In 2003 Wood led the league in K/9, K's, fewest hits allowed, was 8th in ERA, tied for 4th in QS, was 9th in WHIP, was in the top 5 for complete games and shutouts. He had the 6th lowest OPS against.

 

By any reasonable measurement he had a great season. To say otherwise indicates a clear bias against the guy, probably based on some sort of feeling of being let down in other years. Who knows. But the fact is he had a great year that season. If he ever gets healthy enough to be a starter, it would be foolish not to give him the chance.

[A New Era]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

zambrano wasnt great last year either imo. we must have a different opinion on what "great" means. i look at some of the years pedro, maddux, clemens, johnson & sanatana have had and woods 2003 just looks like a very average year that a good pitcher would have. not a great year by any stretch imo.

 

So by your definition, there's about 1 great pitcher per year.

i wouldn't say only one but most years have a few guys who have great years. i just dont consider a 3.20 era and 14 wins a great year.

 

Why are you listing win totals?

 

This is a silly arguement. You guys are arguing about ONE (nsbb member) person's view on the word "great". It's a complete waste of time. Now let's talk about Wood!

 

Wood's great, yay!!

[Andy]

3.20 ERA is a great year for any starting pitcher. It's even better when you pitch as many innings as Wood did in 2003. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

[MustangMike]

Kerry Wood should be a cub for life. It's very unfortunate that he hasn't been healthy enough to reach his potential.

 

Regardless, he single handedly provided me with the greatest game I've ever seen, and for that I will always be a Kerry Wood fan.

 

I like Kerry Wood a lot, but to say he should be a cub for life based upon what he has given the cubs seems to be putting your view of him over what he actually gives a team. Would he still be on the yankees or some other historically sucessful team?

[mg420]

One could make a serious argument that Zambrano 2004 was better than Zambrano 2005.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't have to argue. 2.75 ERA, 165 ERA+, compared to 3.26 ERA and 131 ERA+.

 

 

I think there are several hitters each year who have a great season, with a handful having elite years. Likewise, I think there are several pitchers who have great seasons, and a handful with elite years. Demanding an elite year doesn't make much sense. Demanding that a highly touted player be among the 2 or 3 best to be considered having a great year is absurd.

 

In 2003 Wood led the league in K/9, K's, fewest hits allowed, was 8th in ERA, tied for 4th in QS, was 9th in WHIP, was in the top 5 for complete games and shutouts. He had the 6th lowest OPS against.

 

By any reasonable measurement he had a great season. To say otherwise indicates a clear bias against the guy, probably based on some sort of feeling of being let down in other years. Who knows. But the fact is he had a great year that season. If he ever gets healthy enough to be a starter, it would be foolish not to give him the chance.

it would also be foolish to move him from the pen if he can be productive there back to the rotation where he has proven for 8 years that he cannot stay healthy.

[mg420]

3.20 ERA is a great year for any starting pitcher. It's even better when you pitch as many innings as Wood did in 2003. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

 

 

i think it's ludicrous to say a 3.20 era is great.

 

so there.

[goonys evil twin]

it would also be foolish to move him from the pen if he can be productive there back to the rotation where he has proven for 8 years that he cannot stay healthy.

 

He proved he couldn't stay healthy for those 8 years. But he also proved that he could go through a full year as a great starting pitcher, and healthy. And my point was to see if he can stay healthy.

 

Starting pitchers are exponentially more valuable than relievers. If he's healthy, it'd be absurd to keep him there because of people like Mateo, Marshall and Marmol.

[goonys evil twin]

3.20 ERA is a great year for any starting pitcher. It's even better when you pitch as many innings as Wood did in 2003. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

 

 

i think it's ludicrous to say a 3.20 era is great.

 

so there.

 

The difference is, you're wrong.

[mg420]

3.20 ERA is a great year for any starting pitcher. It's even better when you pitch as many innings as Wood did in 2003. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

 

 

i think it's ludicrous to say a 3.20 era is great.

 

so there.

 

The difference is, you're wrong.

 

i'm glad you think so. it lends credence to my argument.

 

thank you for your support.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A season in which a pitcher has a 203 BAA, allows only a 312 OBP and a 333 SLG is a great year by any standards while throwing 211 is a great year by any standards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

[mg420]

A season in which a pitcher has a 203 BAA, allows only a 312 OBP and a 333 SLG is a great year by any standards while throwing 211 is a great year by any standards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

 

i disagree

[Zaphkiel]

I don't think you've actually said anything worth reading in this thread. At this point, everyone's just doing a 'uh-huh! Nuh-uh! Uh-huh! Nuh-uh!' type of thing, and that's stupid. Almost as stupid as trying to argue that Wood had a great 2003 and when healthy is a great pitcher.

[Careless]

i count a 3.68 era and averaging 141 ip in 8 years as a lack of serious production on the mound.

 

You have a problem with a 3.68 ERA?

 

i do when you consider the talent that wood has. supposedly he had the best stuff in the leauge when he was healthy. he never came close to living up to his potential as a starter. hopefully he can rise from the ashes and be lights out in the pen. and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

Talent is irrelevant when deciding how good a past season was. If god (literally) came down and threw 300 innings while giving up 5 runs, you wouldn't say he sucked and you don't want him back just because he clearly wasn't trying. That's a great year, even though you know he could have done better

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A season in which a pitcher has a 203 BAA, allows only a 312 OBP and a 333 SLG is a great year by any standards while throwing 211 is a great year by any standards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

 

i disagree

 

So, what would you consider a great year in regards to those areas?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A season in which a pitcher has a 203 BAA, allows only a 312 OBP and a 333 SLG is a great year by any standards while throwing 211 is a great year by any standards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

 

i disagree

 

Then you're wrong again.

[CuseCubFan69]

You know if Wood really wanted to do something for the fans he should have gone into the stands before or after a game and signed autographs. Talk is nice but I'd like to see a little action.

[mg420]

A season in which a pitcher has a 203 BAA, allows only a 312 OBP and a 333 SLG is a great year by any standards while throwing 211 is a great year by any standards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

 

i disagree

 

Then you're wrong again.

perhaps it's a matter of opinion that doesnt have a right or a wrong answer.

 

then again perhaps the notion that you could be incorrect is unfathomable to you.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A season in which a pitcher has a 203 BAA, allows only a 312 OBP and a 333 SLG is a great year by any standards while throwing 211 is a great year by any standards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

 

i disagree

 

Then you're wrong again.

perhaps it's a matter of opinion that doesnt have a right or a wrong answer.

 

then again perhaps the notion that you could be incorrect is unfathomable to you.

 

It's the fact that a pitcher can pitch over 200 innings while limiting baserunners and extra base hits at a superb rate and yet it's not a "great" season. That's freaking ridiculous.

 

I don't care who puts up those numbers, when he does, it's a great season.

 

A pitcher who does it consistiently is an ace which you can build around. In most years, you won't find but a handful of pitchers at that level. That is a "great" season.

[Andy]

I don't think you've actually said anything worth reading in this thread. At this point, everyone's just doing a 'uh-huh! Nuh-uh! Uh-huh! Nuh-uh!' type of thing, and that's stupid. Almost as stupid as trying to argue that Wood had a great 2003 and when healthy is a great pitcher.

No, we are using statistical evidence to back up our argument, and mg420 is simply saying "no". There's a large difference there.

[mg420]

I don't think you've actually said anything worth reading in this thread. At this point, everyone's just doing a 'uh-huh! Nuh-uh! Uh-huh! Nuh-uh!' type of thing, and that's stupid. Almost as stupid as trying to argue that Wood had a great 2003 and when healthy is a great pitcher.

No, we are using statistical evidence to back up our argument, and mg420 is simply saying "no". There's a large difference there.

of course every one knows that statistics are the only thing that really matter in baseball and there is no way to interpret them to your advantage.

 

all hail the mighty numbers!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't think you've actually said anything worth reading in this thread. At this point, everyone's just doing a 'uh-huh! Nuh-uh! Uh-huh! Nuh-uh!' type of thing, and that's stupid. Almost as stupid as trying to argue that Wood had a great 2003 and when healthy is a great pitcher.

No, we are using statistical evidence to back up our argument, and mg420 is simply saying "no". There's a large difference there.

of course every one knows that statistics are the only thing that really matter in baseball and there is no way to interpret them to your advantage.

 

all hail the mighty numbers!

 

well it sure beats all hail the unsupported opinion....

[Geech]

well it sure beats all hail the unsupported opinion....

 

It's obvious that he WATCHES the PLAYERS, Vance. When are you going to learn that the numbers can't show hustle, heart or sheer gumption? We need to get all this calculator crap out of baseball.