Wood on WGN Radio Tonight

[mhuber92211]

Getting mad at Wood for being injured is like me getting mad at my mother because she had breast cancer and I had to help her out with things.

 

Sorry to hear about your Mother Vance.

[YearofDaCubs]

Man, I'll tell you what. When all healthy we probably have 3 of the most exciting pitchers to watch in Z, Wood, and Prior. Maddux is fun to watch too but he's getting older now. I personally thing the mechanics thing has gotten way out of hand. Steve Stone makes a comment about his mechanics and next thing you know we keep hearing about Wood's mechanics day in day out. Maybe Wood doesn't have the best mechanics but considering he has been pitching since he was a kid and already has changed his motions after tommy john what more do you expect? It's like me telling you to become left-handed when you have been a right-hander all your life. We need to have a healthy Wood if we are going to go anywhere so here's hoping he comes back fully healthy.

[Chris]

He's also gonna be on "Chicago Tribune Live" for the 37 people that watch that show.

 

I watch because Dan Jiggetts is the man:

 

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/images/talent/dan-j.jpg

 

Agreed. Dan is the best ever!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Getting mad at Wood for being injured is like me getting mad at my mother because she had breast cancer and I had to help her out with things.

 

Sorry to hear about your Mother Vance.

 

It's ok. She was diagnosed 4 years ago and is in complete remission. I was just using it as an example. After re-reading my post, I realize it sounds as if it is a recent occurance.

[Scott G. F.]

I just recently dislocated my right shoulder. An Authorgram (fancy MRI) revealed a Bankarts Lesion, meaning I have a tear. The good thing is I'm left handed and after 3 weeks off I returned to my softball team pain free. The three weeks off watching my team caused me to be in a depression. I couldn't imagine being in Wood's shoes, getting paid a huge amount of money, knowing you could help the team and able to do nothing about it.

I couldn't workout except to run and it pissed me off. I also didn't have people sitting on the sidelines saying I had no heart and am stubburn, unwilling to change my mechanics.

 

People seem to think the Cubs players get hurt on purpose. Do you believe for one minute that Kerry wants to hurt himself? There is no way he would. That arm is his life and by changing arm angle or using his legs more prolongs his career I guarantee he'll be working on that.

 

I hated to be hurt. It limits my ability to be the best I can be on the field and help the team and I'm paying to play the sport.

 

Give him a break and see what happens. The man is trying to do his best with the situation.

 

Use a little logic when you're talking about injuries.

[CubbieRich]

And CubbieRich I don't care if Wood only wins 10 games if he:

 

Starts 25-25

Pitches 190 innings or more

Has a sub 3.4 ERA

Has a sub .210 BAA

Has a 10+ K/IP ratio

Has at least a 2.5/1 K/BB ratio

 

In fact I don't care if he WINS 0 games since it's a FREAKIN TEAM STAT THAT PITCHERS SHOULDNT BE JUDGED ON (as long as he does the above).

 

So, you are willing to have the highest paid pitcher on your team and one of the highest paid pitchers in all of MLB, be unable to win more than 14 games in a year. That's fine-you are getting what you want. I expect and demand more from the bum. He should be leading the team not sitting on the DL. Hendry was foolish to sign him to such a $$$$ contract for what he thought Wood was going to do. I heard concerns that Wood would walk if he didn't get such a contract, Hendry blinked and caved in.

 

The good pitchers have enough sense to make changes in their mechanics if they are getting pounded, can't locate their pitches..or even when they are consistently injured and on the DL. To say Wood can't change his mechanics is even more reason to dump him. Look at Chris Carpenter(2005 Cy Young winner), he was hurt and changed his mechanics.

 

Say what you will about wins, but there is no better single measurement for a starting pitcher. It's been that way forever in baseball and always will be. Wood can't get win when you have 100 pitches in 5 innings or when your pitching coach makes 4 trips in the 1st 5 innings.

[USSoccer]

And CubbieRich I don't care if Wood only wins 10 games if he:

 

Starts 25-25

Pitches 190 innings or more

Has a sub 3.4 ERA

Has a sub .210 BAA

Has a 10+ K/IP ratio

Has at least a 2.5/1 K/BB ratio

 

In fact I don't care if he WINS 0 games since it's a FREAKIN TEAM STAT THAT PITCHERS SHOULDNT BE JUDGED ON (as long as he does the above).

 

So, you are willing to have the highest paid pitcher on your team and one of the highest paid pitchers in all of MLB, be unable to win more than 14 games in a year. That's fine-you are getting what you want. I expect and demand more from the bum. He should be leading the team not sitting on the DL. Hendry was foolish to sign him to such a $$$$ contract for what he thought Wood was going to do. I heard concerns that Wood would walk if he didn't get such a contract, Hendry blinked and caved in.

 

The good pitchers have enough sense to make changes in their mechanics if they are getting pounded, can't locate their pitches..or even when they are consistently injured and on the DL. To say Wood can't change his mechanics is even more reason to dump him. Look at Chris Carpenter(2005 Cy Young winner), he was hurt and changed his mechanics.

 

Say what you will about wins, but there is no better single measurement for a starting pitcher. It's been that way forever in baseball and always will be. Wood can't get win when you have 100 pitches in 5 innings or when your pitching coach makes 4 trips in the 1st 5 innings.

 

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

And CubbieRich I don't care if Wood only wins 10 games if he:

 

Starts 25-25

Pitches 190 innings or more

Has a sub 3.4 ERA

Has a sub .210 BAA

Has a 10+ K/IP ratio

Has at least a 2.5/1 K/BB ratio

 

In fact I don't care if he WINS 0 games since it's a FREAKIN TEAM STAT THAT PITCHERS SHOULDNT BE JUDGED ON (as long as he does the above).

 

So, you are willing to have the highest paid pitcher on your team and one of the highest paid pitchers in all of MLB, be unable to win more than 14 games in a year. That's fine-you are getting what you want. I expect and demand more from the bum. He should be leading the team not sitting on the DL. Hendry was foolish to sign him to such a $$$$ contract for what he thought Wood was going to do. I heard concerns that Wood would walk if he didn't get such a contract, Hendry blinked and caved in.

 

The good pitchers have enough sense to make changes in their mechanics if they are getting pounded, can't locate their pitches..or even when they are consistently injured and on the DL. To say Wood can't change his mechanics is even more reason to dump him. Look at Chris Carpenter(2005 Cy Young winner), he was hurt and changed his mechanics.

 

Say what you will about wins, but there is no better single measurement for a starting pitcher. It's been that way forever in baseball and always will be. Wood can't get win when you have 100 pitches in 5 innings or when your pitching coach makes 4 trips in the 1st 5 innings.

 

My students are staring at me because I'm laughing so hard right now.

 

Tell me another joke, please!

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Wins is a team stat, not an individual pitcher's stat. It's that simple. A win is a function of many things including those not influenced directly by the pitcher.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wins is a team stat, not an individual pitcher's stat. It's that simple. A win is a function of many things including those not influenced directly by the pitcher.

 

Very true. To measure a pitcher with a stat that he has at best 50% control of the outcome is ludicrous, ridiculous, and assinine. I don't care if people have been doing it for years, its still a foolish way to look at things.

[ironchef21]

Contrary to popular belief Wood HAS modified his mechanics over the past few years. To completely change how a pitcher throws immediately can be equally damaging.

 

I think Wood's mechanics were better this year, but his shoulder problems go back to years of poor mechanics in the minors and probably when he first came up.

[CubbieRich]

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

 

I asked you a couple weeks ago how your performance is measured at your place of employment. You seemed unable to give me an answer.

[E.J.]

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

 

I asked you a couple weeks ago how your performance is measured at your place of employment. You seemed unable to give me an answer.

 

What does USS' performance measurement at work have to do with anything? This is about how to measure a pitcher's performance and you can't measure that by wins. Wins is a team stat. Roger Clemens is the perfect example. He only won 13 games this year because the Astros' offense was pathetic behind him. He had the best ERA in the game. If he were playing for the Cardinals he would probably have had more wins than Carpenter this year.

[CubbieRich]

Wins is a team stat, not an individual pitcher's stat. It's that simple. A win is a function of many things including those not influenced directly by the pitcher.

 

Very true. To measure a pitcher with a stat that he has at best 50% control of the outcome is ludicrous, ridiculous, and assinine. I don't care if people have been doing it for years, its still a foolish way to look at things.

 

I think a refresher course in Baseball 101 is needed. 20 wins in a season, 250+ wins for a career are the standards by which starting pitching is measured. You can't dress up that pig to look like a winner.

[CubbieRich]

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

 

I asked you a couple weeks ago how your performance is measured at your place of employment. You seemed unable to give me an answer.

 

What does USS' performance measurement at work have to do with anything? This is about how to measure a pitcher's performance and you can't measure that by wins. Wins is a team stat. Roger Clemens is the perfect example. He only won 13 games this year because the Astros' offense was pathetic behind him. He had the best ERA in the game. If he were playing for the Cardinals he would probably have had more wins than Carpenter this year.

 

Clemens and Wood are not even in the same league. Clemens has won with every team-good and bad. Clemens finishes what he starts.

[E.J.]

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

 

I asked you a couple weeks ago how your performance is measured at your place of employment. You seemed unable to give me an answer.

 

What does USS' performance measurement at work have to do with anything? This is about how to measure a pitcher's performance and you can't measure that by wins. Wins is a team stat. Roger Clemens is the perfect example. He only won 13 games this year because the Astros' offense was pathetic behind him. He had the best ERA in the game. If he were playing for the Cardinals he would probably have had more wins than Carpenter this year.

 

Clemens and Wood are not even in the same league. Clemens has won with every team-good and bad. Clemens finishes what he starts.

 

Yet he only won 13 game this year. So by your standards of 20 games being a good year, he had a awful one, right?

[USSoccer]

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

 

I asked you a couple weeks ago how your performance is measured at your place of employment. You seemed unable to give me an answer.

 

I wasn't unable to give you an answer. I was unwilling to indulge a groundless analogy.

 

And again, Clemens in 2005, Johnson in 2004 and Wood in 2003 are great examples of how different standards and metrics can show effectiveness of a pitcher.

 

And your historical example of 20+ wins and 250 career wins is meaningless. History is replete with revisions and littered with the remains of what were once considered gospel truths. Look at home runs in baseball, for example. Or yards by a running back in football. Or record sales for musicians.

 

Measurable metrics for success change with history, and change as we gain understanding of the different ways success can be calculated, depending on the field.

[Chris]

Clemens has won with every team-good and bad.

 

The Rocket was 10-13 in 1996

[CubbieRich]

I wasn't unable to give you an answer. I was unwilling to indulge a groundless analogy.

 

And again, Clemens in 2005, Johnson in 2004 and Wood in 2003 are great examples of how different standards and metrics can show effectiveness of a pitcher.

 

And your historical example of 20+ wins and 250 career wins is meaningless. History is replete with revisions and littered with the remains of what were once considered gospel truths. Look at home runs in baseball, for example. Or yards by a running back in football. Or record sales for musicians.

 

Measurable metrics for success change with history, and change as we gain understanding of the different ways success can be calculated, depending on the field.

 

Way to dance away from the truth about performance.

 

Baseball-Reference, certainly a non-biased source, lists similiar pitchers and players. Here are the top 3 'similiar pitchers' for those mentioned.

 

Roger Clemens: Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton

 

Randy Johnson:: Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Bob Feller

 

Kerry Wood: Dave Boswell, Steve Busby, Jim Nash

 

Standards never change. 20 wins in a year, .300 BA, 100 RBI, under 2.00 ERA, etc... You can project all the numbers you want and say 'what if?'..but you have to produce on the field.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wins is a team stat, not an individual pitcher's stat. It's that simple. A win is a function of many things including those not influenced directly by the pitcher.

 

Very true. To measure a pitcher with a stat that he has at best 50% control of the outcome is ludicrous, ridiculous, and assinine. I don't care if people have been doing it for years, its still a foolish way to look at things.

 

I think a refresher course in Baseball 101 is needed. 20 wins in a season, 250+ wins for a career are the standards by which starting pitching is measured. You can't dress up that pig to look like a winner.

 

Someone needs a refresher course, but it's not me. You might want to look in the mirror.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

 

I asked you a couple weeks ago how your performance is measured at your place of employment. You seemed unable to give me an answer.

 

Why not begin by telling how performance is measured at your place of work before asking it of others, or will the SCORE not let you divulge that information?

[USSoccer]

I wasn't unable to give you an answer. I was unwilling to indulge a groundless analogy.

 

And again, Clemens in 2005, Johnson in 2004 and Wood in 2003 are great examples of how different standards and metrics can show effectiveness of a pitcher.

 

And your historical example of 20+ wins and 250 career wins is meaningless. History is replete with revisions and littered with the remains of what were once considered gospel truths. Look at home runs in baseball, for example. Or yards by a running back in football. Or record sales for musicians.

 

Measurable metrics for success change with history, and change as we gain understanding of the different ways success can be calculated, depending on the field.

 

Way to dance away from the truth about performance.

 

Baseball-Reference, certainly a non-biased source, lists similiar pitchers and players. Here are the top 3 'similiar pitchers' for those mentioned.

 

Roger Clemens: Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton

 

Randy Johnson:: Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Bob Feller

 

Kerry Wood: Dave Boswell, Steve Busby, Jim Nash

 

Standards never change. 20 wins in a year, .300 BA, 100 RBI, under 2.00 ERA, etc... You can project all the numbers you want and say 'what if?'..but you have to produce on the field.

 

Like I said, there's no way I'm going to convince you that 2003 Kerry Wood is a better pitcher than, say, 2003 Russ Ortiz, who won 20 games and a Cy Youn with a +4 ERA.

 

There's not a whole lot of point in wasting Tim's bandwidth on this.

Edited November 11, 2005 by USSoccer

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I wasn't unable to give you an answer. I was unwilling to indulge a groundless analogy.

 

And again, Clemens in 2005, Johnson in 2004 and Wood in 2003 are great examples of how different standards and metrics can show effectiveness of a pitcher.

 

And your historical example of 20+ wins and 250 career wins is meaningless. History is replete with revisions and littered with the remains of what were once considered gospel truths. Look at home runs in baseball, for example. Or yards by a running back in football. Or record sales for musicians.

 

Measurable metrics for success change with history, and change as we gain understanding of the different ways success can be calculated, depending on the field.

 

Way to dance away from the truth about performance.

 

Baseball-Reference, certainly a non-biased source, lists similiar pitchers and players. Here are the top 3 'similiar pitchers' for those mentioned.

 

Roger Clemens: Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton

 

Randy Johnson:: Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Bob Feller

 

Kerry Wood: Dave Boswell, Steve Busby, Jim Nash

 

Standards never change. 20 wins in a year, .300 BA, 100 RBI, under 2.00 ERA, etc... You can project all the numbers you want and say 'what if?'..but you have to produce on the field.

 

And Wood has performed to a tune of a 1.26 WHIP, a 212 BAA, and a career 3.67 ERA along with a 565 winning percentage all before the age of 28. When healthy, he's performed. You can dress up the ignorance of wins being the best way to measure a pitcher in any rhetoric you want and it's still pretty stupid whether you say it, Joe Morgan says it, or any other idiot says it.

[CubbieRich]

There are about 8 better, single measurments. By your logic, Roger Clemens had a crappy 2005 because he only won 13 games. Yet his ERA was below 2, and he had the lowest BAA. Is he a bum because the Astros had a terrible offense behind him?

 

We've had this exact same arugument before, probably a dozen times. Wins are a team stat, unless you expect a pitcher to drive in runs as well.

 

Clemens in 2005, Randy Johnson in 2004, Wood in 2003...You can be a dominant pitcher without a high win total.

 

Wood's health is the only acceptable knock on him. When healthy, he's a really good pitcher. But, please, for the love of God, can we just drop this conversation? No none is going to convince the win guys, and the win people aren't going to convince the rest of us, so let's just moveon and argue about Neifi :P

 

I asked you a couple weeks ago how your performance is measured at your place of employment. You seemed unable to give me an answer.

 

Why not begin by telling how performance is measured at your place of work before asking it of others, or will the SCORE not let you divulge that information?

 

USS is the the one that says performance doesn't matter in his work. I'm sure as a 'teacher', you have certain standards and requirements which must be met. I can tell you that teachers are underpaid for the contributions they make to our society. Nonetheless, they too have reviews from superiors based on previous performances and goals for the year.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Wins is a team stat, not an individual pitcher's stat. It's that simple. A win is a function of many things including those not influenced directly by the pitcher.

 

Very true. To measure a pitcher with a stat that he has at best 50% control of the outcome is ludicrous, ridiculous, and assinine. I don't care if people have been doing it for years, its still a foolish way to look at things.

 

I think a refresher course in Baseball 101 is needed. 20 wins in a season, 250+ wins for a career are the standards by which starting pitching is measured. You can't dress up that pig to look like a winner.

 

Open your mind. Think about what those stats mean and what goes into achieving them.