Congrats to the White Sox

[USSoccer]

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

 

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF.

 

Wins for a starting pitcher is the primary way to judge the effectiveness of a starter. Anyone who tries to say different or use 'quality starts' is denying the recognized standard for starting pitching. But then some yahoos are satisfied with 14 wins at $12 million.

 

So again, by your standard, Roger Clemens was a bad pitcher this season, and Randy Johnson was bad last year?

 

Whatever. Ditch this noise.

[Connor McConnor]

The White Sox are a team that got by on their pitching and an ad-lib offense that barely won a lot of games.

 

You dont "barely win" 99 games. And then roll through the playoffs with 1 loss so far. They are obviously doing something right.

[CubbieRich]

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

 

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF.

 

Wins for a starting pitcher is the primary way to judge the effectiveness of a starter. Anyone who tries to say different or use 'quality starts' is denying the recognized standard for starting pitching. But then some yahoos are satisfied with 14 wins at $12 million.

 

So again, by your standard, Roger Clemens was a bad pitcher this season, and Randy Johnson was bad last year?

 

Whatever. Ditch this noise.

 

Call me when Wood has a Cy Young or ONE 20 win season. Lower your own standards.

[CubbieRich]

Okay, I have no idea what the first part of your post means. So moving onto the rest of it...

 

Patterson's height and speed don't preclude him from being a power hitter. There are plently of power guys shorter than 6 feet, so that's a baseless criticism. Next, how exactly do you "know" Patterson doesn't "want" do do the things you said he doesn't? Are you a beat reporter? Do you have some sort of magical insight as to the inner desires of Corey Patterson? If not, then it's more baseless criticism made by people who project what they want to be there onto the personality of an athlete.

 

Next, Wood, again, was healthy from 2001-2003. Thus, it wasn't a "stupid" signign. Now, you can debate whether or not it was wise to give him a NTC, but the dollars were equal to his market value at the time he was extended.

 

I'm not going to defend Corey Patterson's on field performance in 2005. He sucked. I'm also not going to say Wood's 2004-5 injuries haven't ticked me off, because they have, but this kind of hyperbole filled, ad hominem arguments slamming both of them and using supposed personality faults to back up said claims is worth nothing. It's silly bluster. You don't like either player? Cool, but if you're going to slam them in a public forum, use a better argument.

 

He's no Jimmy Wynn, he's no Joe Morgan..he's not even David Eckstein. Patterson could be a 5-tool player, now he's 1(maybe).

 

The market value in 2004 for Wood was $12 million a year? Prior won more games in 2003. Oops..I guess he should asked to be paid $20 million.

 

Wood doesn't want to admit that Steve Stone was correct about his flawed delivery all these years. He refuses to change, just like CPatt and that's what makes me mad. I have no personal gripes about them, as I wanted them to do great for the Cubs. But they haven't adapted, while other players do.

[goonys evil twin]

The market value in 2004 for Wood was $12 million a year? Prior won more games in 2003. Oops..I guess he should asked to be paid $20 million.

 

Wood didn't sign for $12m per year. He's made $8m and $9.5m in 2004/2005, and he'll make $11m in 2006.

[USSoccer]

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

 

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF.

 

Wins for a starting pitcher is the primary way to judge the effectiveness of a starter. Anyone who tries to say different or use 'quality starts' is denying the recognized standard for starting pitching. But then some yahoos are satisfied with 14 wins at $12 million.

 

So again, by your standard, Roger Clemens was a bad pitcher this season, and Randy Johnson was bad last year?

 

Whatever. Ditch this noise.

 

Call me when Wood has a Cy Young or ONE 20 win season. Lower your own standards.

 

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that wins are the best indicator of success as a starting pitcher.

 

So, since /johnson didn't win the Cy Young in 2004, and Clemens won't in 2005, I'll ask the question again: did they have bad years in 2004 and 2005, respectively?

[Mark_R]

I feel another silly discussion about the value of wins coming.......

[USSoccer]

Okay, I have no idea what the first part of your post means. So moving onto the rest of it...

 

Patterson's height and speed don't preclude him from being a power hitter. There are plently of power guys shorter than 6 feet, so that's a baseless criticism. Next, how exactly do you "know" Patterson doesn't "want" do do the things you said he doesn't? Are you a beat reporter? Do you have some sort of magical insight as to the inner desires of Corey Patterson? If not, then it's more baseless criticism made by people who project what they want to be there onto the personality of an athlete.

 

Next, Wood, again, was healthy from 2001-2003. Thus, it wasn't a "stupid" signign. Now, you can debate whether or not it was wise to give him a NTC, but the dollars were equal to his market value at the time he was extended.

 

I'm not going to defend Corey Patterson's on field performance in 2005. He sucked. I'm also not going to say Wood's 2004-5 injuries haven't ticked me off, because they have, but this kind of hyperbole filled, ad hominem arguments slamming both of them and using supposed personality faults to back up said claims is worth nothing. It's silly bluster. You don't like either player? Cool, but if you're going to slam them in a public forum, use a better argument.

 

He's no Jimmy Wynn, he's no Joe Morgan..he's not even David Eckstein. Patterson could be a 5-tool player, now he's 1(maybe).

 

The market value in 2004 for Wood was $12 million a year? Prior won more games in 2003. Oops..I guess he should asked to be paid $20 million.

 

Wood doesn't want to admit that Steve Stone was correct about his flawed delivery all these years. He refuses to change, just like CPatt and that's what makes me mad. I have no personal gripes about them, as I wanted them to do great for the Cubs. But they haven't adapted, while other players do.

 

I don't think Wood cares what Steve Stone says about his mechanics, nor should he. Stone isn't his pitching coach. He's a pundit on a radio station. His opinion means nothing. Nothing. There's a reason he's never been a GM, or coach, on any level.

And again, you have no idea if they "want" to do anything. That's a terrible argumentative tactic. You're assigning a trait to someone whom you don't know based on your own opinions of their performance.

[CubbieRich]

Okay, I have no idea what the first part of your post means. So moving onto the rest of it...

 

Patterson's height and speed don't preclude him from being a power hitter. There are plently of power guys shorter than 6 feet, so that's a baseless criticism. Next, how exactly do you "know" Patterson doesn't "want" do do the things you said he doesn't? Are you a beat reporter? Do you have some sort of magical insight as to the inner desires of Corey Patterson? If not, then it's more baseless criticism made by people who project what they want to be there onto the personality of an athlete.

 

Next, Wood, again, was healthy from 2001-2003. Thus, it wasn't a "stupid" signign. Now, you can debate whether or not it was wise to give him a NTC, but the dollars were equal to his market value at the time he was extended.

 

I'm not going to defend Corey Patterson's on field performance in 2005. He sucked. I'm also not going to say Wood's 2004-5 injuries haven't ticked me off, because they have, but this kind of hyperbole filled, ad hominem arguments slamming both of them and using supposed personality faults to back up said claims is worth nothing. It's silly bluster. You don't like either player? Cool, but if you're going to slam them in a public forum, use a better argument.

 

He's no Jimmy Wynn, he's no Joe Morgan..he's not even David Eckstein. Patterson could be a 5-tool player, now he's 1(maybe).

 

The market value in 2004 for Wood was $12 million a year? Prior won more games in 2003. Oops..I guess he should asked to be paid $20 million.

 

Wood doesn't want to admit that Steve Stone was correct about his flawed delivery all these years. He refuses to change, just like CPatt and that's what makes me mad. I have no personal gripes about them, as I wanted them to do great for the Cubs. But they haven't adapted, while other players do.

 

I don't think Wood cares what Steve Stone says about his mechanics, nor should he. Stone isn't his pitching coach. He's a pundit on a radio station. His opinion means nothing. Nothing. There's a reason he's never been a GM, or coach, on any level.

And again, you have no idea if they "want" to do anything. That's a terrible argumentative tactic. You're assigning a trait to someone whom you don't know based on your own opinions of their performance.

 

Are you paid for your performance at work or because you are a nice guy, in spite of your performance?

[rocket]

who the hell is suggesting that wood gets paid a lot because he's a nice guy?

 

wood is getting paid a lot because his 2001, 2002, and 2003 seasons were excellent. has he lived up to his contract since? of course not. but i really have no idea what point you're trying to make.

[USSoccer]

Okay, I have no idea what the first part of your post means. So moving onto the rest of it...

 

Patterson's height and speed don't preclude him from being a power hitter. There are plently of power guys shorter than 6 feet, so that's a baseless criticism. Next, how exactly do you "know" Patterson doesn't "want" do do the things you said he doesn't? Are you a beat reporter? Do you have some sort of magical insight as to the inner desires of Corey Patterson? If not, then it's more baseless criticism made by people who project what they want to be there onto the personality of an athlete.

 

Next, Wood, again, was healthy from 2001-2003. Thus, it wasn't a "stupid" signign. Now, you can debate whether or not it was wise to give him a NTC, but the dollars were equal to his market value at the time he was extended.

 

I'm not going to defend Corey Patterson's on field performance in 2005. He sucked. I'm also not going to say Wood's 2004-5 injuries haven't ticked me off, because they have, but this kind of hyperbole filled, ad hominem arguments slamming both of them and using supposed personality faults to back up said claims is worth nothing. It's silly bluster. You don't like either player? Cool, but if you're going to slam them in a public forum, use a better argument.

 

He's no Jimmy Wynn, he's no Joe Morgan..he's not even David Eckstein. Patterson could be a 5-tool player, now he's 1(maybe).

 

The market value in 2004 for Wood was $12 million a year? Prior won more games in 2003. Oops..I guess he should asked to be paid $20 million.

 

Wood doesn't want to admit that Steve Stone was correct about his flawed delivery all these years. He refuses to change, just like CPatt and that's what makes me mad. I have no personal gripes about them, as I wanted them to do great for the Cubs. But they haven't adapted, while other players do.

 

I don't think Wood cares what Steve Stone says about his mechanics, nor should he. Stone isn't his pitching coach. He's a pundit on a radio station. His opinion means nothing. Nothing. There's a reason he's never been a GM, or coach, on any level.

And again, you have no idea if they "want" to do anything. That's a terrible argumentative tactic. You're assigning a trait to someone whom you don't know based on your own opinions of their performance.

 

Are you paid for your performance at work or because you are a nice guy, in spite of your performance?

.

 

Okay, that's a question that has absoluetly nothing to do with anything in this conversation. I'm officially done with this.

[imb]

you would if you were signed to an unterminatble (yes i made that up) contract before your performance suffered.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

 

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF.

 

 

Patterson's a near 80% basestealer, that's pretty good. BK has pointed out in the past about Patterson's success with bunts. What stats are you talking about?

[frostwyrm]

I feel another silly discussion about the value of wins coming.......

 

Every time I talk about pitchers' W-L I feel slightly embarrassed just for having the discussion. It is such a painfully STUPID subject.

[CubbieRich]

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

 

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF.

 

 

Patterson's a near 80% basestealer, that's pretty good. BK has pointed out in the past about Patterson's success with bunts. What stats are you talking about?

 

Patterson stole 15 bases in 2005 and was caught 5 times, that's 75%. That puts him at #45 in all of the majors for the year. There is no stat for bunts attempted(unless you care to make one up). Anyone who watched the Cubs this year can not say that Patterson is a good bunter.

[CubbieRich]

Are you paid for your performance at work or because you are a nice guy, in spite of your performance?

 

Okay, that's a question that has absoluetly nothing to do with anything in this conversation. I'm officially done with this.

 

Thought so.

[rocket]

somehow you make even less sense the 2nd time you say it

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

 

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF.

 

Wins for a starting pitcher is the primary way to judge the effectiveness of a starter. Anyone who tries to say different or use 'quality starts' is denying the recognized standard for starting pitching. But then some yahoos are satisfied with 14 wins at $12 million.

 

:lmao:

 

Must be opposites day, because wins are the worst way to judge the effectiveness of a starting pitcher as he only controls half the equation if that much.

 

It's an archaic and idiotic way to judge a pitcher's performance.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Are you paid for your performance at work or because you are a nice guy, in spite of your performance?

 

Okay, that's a question that has absoluetly nothing to do with anything in this conversation. I'm officially done with this.

 

Thought so.

 

Somehow I get the idea that the opposite occurs when reading some your posts.

[Andy]

It's comforting to know that you know exactly what Patterson's desires are, nevermind the fact that he's an excellent basestealer and a pretty good bunter as well.

 

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF.

 

Wins for a starting pitcher is the primary way to judge the effectiveness of a starter. Anyone who tries to say different or use 'quality starts' is denying the recognized standard for starting pitching. But then some yahoos are satisfied with 14 wins at $12 million.

 

:lmao:

 

Must be opposites day, because wins are the worst way to judge the effectiveness of a starting pitcher as he only controls half the equation if that much.

 

It's an archaic and idiotic way to judge a pitcher's performance.

Mark Prior in May 2003 against the Battling Buckos:

 

8 2/3 IP, one unearned run (ND)

 

Remlinger came in that game, got one out, then the Cubs scored five runs in the top of the tenth, won 6-1, and Remlinger got the win.

 

That is the end of my seminar on how important wins are in measuring the effectiveness of a pitcher.

[frostwyrm]

Shawn Estes was 15-8 last year. How did we ever let him get away?

[Mark_R]

2003:

 

Jeriome Robertson was 15-9 with a 5.10 ERA

Kerry Wood was 14-11 with a 3.20 ERA.

[imb]

And Robertson made the league minimum! What a bargain.

[XZero771679666304]

The White Sox are a team that got by on their pitching and an ad-lib offense that barely won a lot of games.

 

You dont "barely win" 99 games. And then roll through the playoffs with 1 loss so far. They are obviously doing something right.

 

They did pitching right, and very well. Saying they had an effective offensive system and calling it "smartball" is giving them far too much credit. People say they are a "smallball" team, but the stats don't reflect that. Offensively, the best thing they did was hit home runs, and even then they didn't score a lot of runs. The Sox had a pedestrian offense. Pitching is why they won.

 

And when you win as many 1-run games as they did, you are riding the razor's edge. The could have just as easily finished 5 games back as finish they way they did.

[Careless]

The White Sox are a team that got by on their pitching and an ad-lib offense that barely won a lot of games.

 

You dont "barely win" 99 games.

Sure you can.

 

32-18 in 1 run games this season.

since I didn't see a site listing 1-run numbers, I'm not about to go look at every team's record to compare that. But does anyone want to say there was a team that won more (and a higher percentage of its) close games?