Wood on WGN Radio Tonight

[bc2k]

what kind of tough question were you wanting to ask?

 

Have you fixed your bad mechanics so you won't get injured again?

 

Isn't it Ironic that you joked/took a stab at Steve Stone criticizing your mechanics earlier in the year by saying "Maybe someone can teach me better Mechanics, I don't know", and then later in the year you were shut down YET AGAIN!!?

 

When you go down again next year, will you please stay in the 8th inning, because that's the only way you can actually help this team.

 

Would you please waive your non trade clause to get traded so you don't ruin another one of our chances with your injuries?

 

feel free to use any one of those. . . :roll:

 

why is it that people expect wood to be able to 'fix' his broken mechanics? if his mechanics are bad and are the cause of his injury, complain about the coaching staff failing to fix them, not a guy in his mid 20s w/ no coaching/mechanic fixing experience.

 

it's not like rothschild has the magic key to fix the problem but wood has refused to use it.

 

At $12 million for 2006, I expect this bum to lead the team. I expect more than 14 wins. I expect him to be man enough to change his mechanics in order to fulfill his obligations. Take responsiblity for your previous failures and waive your no-trade clause.

 

No kidding. If we fans who have never played professional baseball can tell he needs to correct his pitching mechanics, then KW should be able to recognize and fix his problem.

 

Just because he's in his 20s and isn't a coach doesn't absolve him of his responsibility.

[bc2k]

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

 

Dan Jiggetts is not the man. He's a horrible moderator. He asks a question to a 4-man panel that has a lot to say, but he constantly interrupts the expert panel to inject his own opinion.

 

Let the experts speak, conversational bully. :evil:

[bc2k]

You guys have a valid point about wins not being the end all be all of a starting pitcher, but you lose ground when comparing Wood to pitchers like Clemens and Nolan Ryan. Those pitchers have won 20 games and are great pitchers. Sure they have had years when their win totals were low, but comparing them to KW doesn't work. KW hasn't won more than 14 games in a season... ever. Ryan and Clemens have. So before you spout that KW's win total is an aberration of his poor offense or bullpen, look at his career as a whole.

 

Besides, blaming poor bullpens for KW not having won more than 14 wins in a single year is pathetic. If he had better control, he wouldn't walk so many guys and run up his pitch count, leaving him too tired to throw deep into games he was leading when he left.

[imb]

what kind of tough question were you wanting to ask?

 

Have you fixed your bad mechanics so you won't get injured again?

 

Isn't it Ironic that you joked/took a stab at Steve Stone criticizing your mechanics earlier in the year by saying "Maybe someone can teach me better Mechanics, I don't know", and then later in the year you were shut down YET AGAIN!!?

 

When you go down again next year, will you please stay in the 8th inning, because that's the only way you can actually help this team.

 

Would you please waive your non trade clause to get traded so you don't ruin another one of our chances with your injuries?

 

feel free to use any one of those. . . :roll:

 

why is it that people expect wood to be able to 'fix' his broken mechanics? if his mechanics are bad and are the cause of his injury, complain about the coaching staff failing to fix them, not a guy in his mid 20s w/ no coaching/mechanic fixing experience.

 

it's not like rothschild has the magic key to fix the problem but wood has refused to use it.

 

At $12 million for 2006, I expect this bum to lead the team. I expect more than 14 wins. I expect him to be man enough to change his mechanics in order to fulfill his obligations. Take responsiblity for your previous failures and waive your no-trade clause.

 

No kidding. If we fans who have never played professional baseball can tell he needs to correct his pitching mechanics, then KW should be able to recognize and fix his problem.

 

Just because he's in his 20s and isn't a coach doesn't absolve him of his responsibility.

 

Ok, well how would you fix his mechanics? Oh, right, you wouldnt, because you have no idea how to do that, do you?

[Mark_R]

IMB, I don't think its a stretch to say that Wood needs to work on his mechanics.

[imb]

obviously not, but what if he doesnt know how to do it? Obviously they need fixed, but I dont know how, and I bet neither does bc2k, and maybe Kerry doesnt either. He's been throwing the same way for a decade and a half.

[scs_paradise]

First, to say wins is the best way to evaluate a pitcher is foolish and has been covered well above.

 

Second, the standards of 20 wins and 250 career wins was set when a pitcher pitched 15 complete games per year and his success was more closely tied to the success of the team. In modern baseball where the starting pitcher is only expected to make it to the 7th inning and then turn it over to the pen unless he is having a historical night, creates a much looser correlation between a pitcher's and a team's success.

 

Third, what is wrong with looking at the whole picture to determine the worth of a pitcher? This argument of whether I'd take a pitcher with a 20/5 season and a 4.5 era or a 10/14 pitcher with a 2.9 era is often used incorrectly. The answer to that question is I would take the TEAM that was able to produce a 20/5 season for a starter with a 4.5 era, but I would take the 2.9 era pitcher.

 

Fourth, if Wood, who has the most interest in his own health, is not responsible for his mechanics, how can you hold anyone else responsible? I'm not blaming Wood, but some of the above posts who insinuate that Wood should not be held responsible for his mechanics at all are just plain wrong. True it got Wood to the majors but an intelligent pitcher asks himself how do I not only get to the majors but make consistent contributions to the team that is paying me to help them win. A responsible pitcher seeks out the help he needs, an irresponsible/selfish pitcher waits for someone to force change upon him. I don't know which pitcher Wood is, I don't know him.

[CubbieRich]

can I get a job at the Score to like our good friend CR? I need one bad anyway.

 

Wal-Mart loss is Burger King's gain.

[CubbieRich]

I just heard a replay of an interview with Chris Carpenter on the "The Show" with Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy. Dibble asked Carpenter if he changed his mechanics any since his time in Toronto. Carpenter answered, "No." So, according to Carpenter, he did not change his mechanics.

 

I didn't hear that one, but I'm sure you could post a link that I could do so. I did find proof to the contrary from TSN:

 

Chris Carpenter, RHP, Cardinals

Sporting News, The, June 14, 2004

His changeup is decent but not the promising pitch it appeared destined to be in Toronto. He shows command of a low-90s four-seamer and two-seamer, but the pitches lack their former life. At one point in his Toronto career, Carpenter had enough command, speed change and two-plane bore on his sinker that he might have become a premier sinkerball pitcher. Occasionally, the hitter will still see glimpses of that.

 

Both his pitch efficiency, and his downhill fastball angle were better in his early years. He pitches backward from his Toronto days: That is, formerly he used his four-seamer and two-seamer to set up his breaking balls; now, the reverse is true. Carpenter mixes his pitches well. He can set up his breaking balls with a plus cutter that he did not have in Toronto.

 

Not only did he change his mechanics, but his approach. I'll be looking for that ESPN proof.

[fromthestretch]

I just heard a replay of an interview with Chris Carpenter on the "The Show" with Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy. Dibble asked Carpenter if he changed his mechanics any since his time in Toronto. Carpenter answered, "No." So, according to Carpenter, he did not change his mechanics.

 

I didn't hear that one, but I'm sure you could post a link that I could do so. I did find proof to the contrary from TSN:

 

Chris Carpenter, RHP, Cardinals

Sporting News, The, June 14, 2004

His changeup is decent but not the promising pitch it appeared destined to be in Toronto. He shows command of a low-90s four-seamer and two-seamer, but the pitches lack their former life. At one point in his Toronto career, Carpenter had enough command, speed change and two-plane bore on his sinker that he might have become a premier sinkerball pitcher. Occasionally, the hitter will still see glimpses of that.

 

Both his pitch efficiency, and his downhill fastball angle were better in his early years. He pitches backward from his Toronto days: That is, formerly he used his four-seamer and two-seamer to set up his breaking balls; now, the reverse is true. Carpenter mixes his pitches well. He can set up his breaking balls with a plus cutter that he did not have in Toronto.

 

Not only did he change his mechanics, but his approach. I'll be looking for that ESPN proof.

 

It's going to be tough for Vance to post a link to an XM broadcast. However, I will vouch for Vance on this one, since I heard the same interview. I'd be more willing to believe Carpenter when he says that he didn't change his mechanics than I would an TSN scouting report. Also, I'm not exactly seeing anything in what you posted that suggests he has changed his mechanics. Just his approach. Two completely different things.

[USSoccer]

can I get a job at the Score to like our good friend CR? I need one bad anyway.

 

Wal-Mart loss is Burger King's gain.

 

What good does it do you to insult people? Do you think it furthers your argument?

 

Like I said earlier, we're not going to change your mind and you are certainly not going to convince anyone here with rhetoric and conventional wisdom. So let's just drop it.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I just heard a replay of an interview with Chris Carpenter on the "The Show" with Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy. Dibble asked Carpenter if he changed his mechanics any since his time in Toronto. Carpenter answered, "No." So, according to Carpenter, he did not change his mechanics.

 

I didn't hear that one, but I'm sure you could post a link that I could do so. I did find proof to the contrary from TSN:

 

Chris Carpenter, RHP, Cardinals

Sporting News, The, June 14, 2004

His changeup is decent but not the promising pitch it appeared destined to be in Toronto. He shows command of a low-90s four-seamer and two-seamer, but the pitches lack their former life. At one point in his Toronto career, Carpenter had enough command, speed change and two-plane bore on his sinker that he might have become a premier sinkerball pitcher. Occasionally, the hitter will still see glimpses of that.

 

Both his pitch efficiency, and his downhill fastball angle were better in his early years. He pitches backward from his Toronto days: That is, formerly he used his four-seamer and two-seamer to set up his breaking balls; now, the reverse is true. Carpenter mixes his pitches well. He can set up his breaking balls with a plus cutter that he did not have in Toronto.

 

Not only did he change his mechanics, but his approach. I'll be looking for that ESPN proof.

 

where does it mention changing mechanics? 98% of what is there is about the changes in the pitches themselves and his approach, not mechanics. the only thing is see as being possibly interpreted as "changing mechanics" was the first line of the last paragraph with the phrase 'downhill fastball angle.'

 

adding a new pitch or changing up pitch selection doesn't have much to do with changing mechanics. pitchers are constantly adjusting their mechanics anyways, including slighty tweaks in arm angles. that is not the massive change of mechanics you implied earlier.

 

wood has changed his delivery just like every other major league pitcher has, with slight alterations. the changes are so slight you're never going to notice them. i bet rothschild has to sit down and go frame by frame with video to tell the difference.

[fromthestretch]

You guys have a valid point about wins not being the end all be all of a starting pitcher, but you lose ground when comparing Wood to pitchers like Clemens and Nolan Ryan. Those pitchers have won 20 games and are great pitchers. Sure they have had years when their win totals were low, but comparing them to KW doesn't work. KW hasn't won more than 14 games in a season... ever. Ryan and Clemens have. So before you spout that KW's win total is an aberration of his poor offense or bullpen, look at his career as a whole.

 

Besides, blaming poor bullpens for KW not having won more than 14 wins in a single year is pathetic. If he had better control, he wouldn't walk so many guys and run up his pitch count, leaving him too tired to throw deep into games he was leading when he left.

 

No one is comparing him to Clemens or Ryan, just using them as examples to show that the number in the win column isn't exactly the best way to judge how well a guy pitched.

 

But if you're so hellbent on individual wins, why aren't you looking at losses as well? He's only lost 54 games...for a .565 winning percentage. While that's not an eye-popping winning percentage, it's not that bad when you look at some of the Cubs teams he pitched for. Plus, I'm willing to overlook his 2000 season, since that was his first year back from Tommy John surgery.

 

Let's break down how you actually get a win. AS A TEAM, you need to outscore your opponent. This means that:

 

a) Your offense needs to score.

b) Your pitcher(s), with some help from the defense, needs to give up less than your offense scores.

 

Anyone with half a brain can see that the pitcher doesn't have much control over the first thing. So let's focus on the second: preventing runs. Wood ranks 17th among active pitchers in career ERA (min. 1000 IP) at 3.67. That tells me he's better than average at preventing runs. But let's look at some other numbers, too:

 

He's second among active pitchers with 10.4 strikeouts/9 IP.

 

He's 17th among active pitchers in WHIP at 1.257. While he may tend to walk batters, he doesn't give up a lot of hits. Fewer baserunners = fewer runs. That said, I would like to see his control improve.

 

Bottom line, Wood has pitched better than his win total indicates. With better offense and a better bullpen, he would have easily won more games from 2001-2003.

[CubbieRich]

WHIP is fatally flawed, because it excludes:

1) HBP-Which is the responsibility of the pitcher.

2) No distinction between a walk and a HR.

 

Two pitchers could have similar 1.0 WHIP. One gives up a single per inning with no runs scoring for 7 innings, while another has a HBP and a HR per inning. Both would have the same WHIP-but one has a shutout, while the other has given up 14 runs. By the way, in oft-injured Kerry Wood's best year(2003) he had 21 HBP.

 

I checked on the correlation between 'great pitchers' with 'Wins' and 'WHIP'. My source is Baseball-Reference.Com.

 

The 10 All-Time WHIP leaders are: Addie Jones, Ed Walsh, Pedro Martinez, John Ward, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Moredcai Brown, Charlie Sweeney, Reb Russell and Joe Wood.

 

The 10 All-Time WIN leaders(with their WHIP #) are: Cy Young(35), Walter Johnson(6), Pete Alexander(31), Christy Mathewson(52), Pud Galvin(NA), Warren Spahn(NA), Kid Nichols(NA), Tim Keefe(NA), Roger Clemens(85) and Steve Carlton(NA).

 

In fact, of the Top 100 winningest pitchers all-time(about 200+ victories), less than 15 are ranked in the Top 100 WHIP category. That means pitchers with higher WHIP(#-101+ all time) include: Warren Spahn(363 wins), Steve Carlton(329 wins), Nolan Ryan(324 wins), Phil Niekro(318 wins), Lefty Grove(300 wins), Early Wynn(330 wins), Tommy John, Bert Blyleven, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Kaat, Tom Glavine, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson.

 

We needn't worry about Kerry Wood ever reaching 250 wins or HOF status.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

WHIP is fatally flawed, because it excludes:

1) HBP-Which is the responsibility of the pitcher.

2) No distinction between a walk and a HR.

 

Two pitchers could have similar 1.0 WHIP. One gives up a single per inning with no runs scoring for 7 innings, while another has a HBP and a HR per inning. Both would have the same WHIP-but one has a shutout, while the other has given up 14 runs. By the way, in oft-injured Kerry Wood's best year(2003) he had 21 HBP.

 

I checked on the correlation between 'great pitchers' with 'Wins' and 'WHIP'. My source is Baseball-Reference.Com.

 

The 10 All-Time WHIP leaders are: Addie Jones, Ed Walsh, Pedro Martinez, John Ward, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Moredcai Brown, Charlie Sweeney, Reb Russell and Joe Wood.

 

The 10 All-Time WIN leaders(with their WHIP #) are: Cy Young(35), Walter Johnson(6), Pete Alexander(31), Christy Mathewson(52), Pud Galvin(NA), Warren Spahn(NA), Kid Nichols(NA), Tim Keefe(NA), Roger Clemens(85) and Steve Carlton(NA).

 

In fact, of the Top 100 winningest pitchers all-time(about 200+ victories), less than 15 are ranked in the Top 100 WHIP category. That means pitchers with higher WHIP(#-101+ all time) include: Warren Spahn(363 wins), Steve Carlton(329 wins), Nolan Ryan(324 wins), Phil Niekro(318 wins), Lefty Grove(300 wins), Early Wynn(330 wins), Tommy John, Bert Blyleven, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Kaat, Tom Glavine, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson.

 

We needn't worry about Kerry Wood ever reaching 250 wins or HOF status.

 

go ahead and add in HBP as a single. considering the numbers involved, it has minimal effect on WHIP.

 

you don't use WHIP in evaluating single games. that's stupid. you use it to evaluate a large number of innings (large sample size).

 

WHIP isn't supposed to distinguish between a single and a HR. That's not its purpose. There isn't one all encompassing stat like you try to make wins/WHIP.

 

did you even bother to look up the pitchers on the WHIP list. those guys dominated. b/c you've never heard of them means something?

Edited November 12, 2005 by Meat&PotatoesMan

[Jehrico]

WHIP is fatally flawed, because it excludes:

1) HBP-Which is the responsibility of the pitcher.

2) No distinction between a walk and a HR.

 

WHIP is NOT fatally flawed. Like virtually every other statistic we have, it is supposed to be used in context, and not used as a sole indicator to predict future performance. Each stat is like a tool, and statisticians use their whole tool box when evaulating guys. It is a better indicator of a pitchers performance than wins alone, but should be looked at along with K/BB ratio, ERA, BAA, etc...Your main problem is you are trying to look at individual stats alone, you should weigh several of them together to get a better picture of a pitchers performance.

[fallingpieces]

So what did Wood have to say when he was on the show? I didn't get to hear it.

Also just a quick question. When I was in high school one of our pitchers threw a no hitter, but lost the game due to errors. Now would that have been a horrible game for the pitcher because he lost 3 to nothing?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I just heard a replay of an interview with Chris Carpenter on the "The Show" with Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy. Dibble asked Carpenter if he changed his mechanics any since his time in Toronto. Carpenter answered, "No." So, according to Carpenter, he did not change his mechanics.

 

I didn't hear that one, but I'm sure you could post a link that I could do so. I did find proof to the contrary from TSN:

 

Chris Carpenter, RHP, Cardinals

Sporting News, The, June 14, 2004

His changeup is decent but not the promising pitch it appeared destined to be in Toronto. He shows command of a low-90s four-seamer and two-seamer, but the pitches lack their former life. At one point in his Toronto career, Carpenter had enough command, speed change and two-plane bore on his sinker that he might have become a premier sinkerball pitcher. Occasionally, the hitter will still see glimpses of that.

 

Both his pitch efficiency, and his downhill fastball angle were better in his early years. He pitches backward from his Toronto days: That is, formerly he used his four-seamer and two-seamer to set up his breaking balls; now, the reverse is true. Carpenter mixes his pitches well. He can set up his breaking balls with a plus cutter that he did not have in Toronto.

 

Not only did he change his mechanics, but his approach. I'll be looking for that ESPN proof.

 

I can't post a link since it was on my XM. I'm sure you guys at the score can call over there and get a transcript. It wasn't a "net" broadcast, so there's no link. I was driving in my car when I heard it.

 

He did go on to say that he has changed his approach, but he was very clear that his mechanics were the same.

[Jehrico]

I would trust Carpenters statement that he didn't change his mechanics over any garbage that ESPN (Eastcoast Sports Prime Network) puts out anyday.

[badger1679666666]

can I get a job at the Score to like our good friend CR? I need one bad anyway.

 

Wal-Mart loss is Burger King's gain.

 

speaking from experience?

 

go blow yourself it's better use of your mouth.

[BigbadB]

You guys have a valid point about wins not being the end all be all of a starting pitcher, but you lose ground when comparing Wood to pitchers like Clemens and Nolan Ryan. Those pitchers have won 20 games and are great pitchers. Sure they have had years when their win totals were low, but comparing them to KW doesn't work. KW hasn't won more than 14 games in a season... ever. Ryan and Clemens have. So before you spout that KW's win total is an aberration of his poor offense or bullpen, look at his career as a whole.

 

Besides, blaming poor bullpens for KW not having won more than 14 wins in a single year is pathetic. If he had better control, he wouldn't walk so many guys and run up his pitch count, leaving him too tired to throw deep into games he was leading when he left.

 

Poor bullpens is a better excuse than expecting Kerry Wood to go the distance in every game he pitches. There hasn't been a starter in either league go more than 9 complete games this century. With 33-35 starts the average, that's not a very high percentage for the HIGHEST complete gamers. Basically, they all turn it over to the bullpen.

 

Wood should have won 20 in 2003, just like Roger Clemens should have won 20 this past year.

 

The reason you can't compare Wood to Clemens or Ryan, is because Wood hasn't stayed healthy long enough to be able to compare them.

[BigbadB]

can I get a job at the Score to like our good friend CR? I need one bad anyway.

 

Wal-Mart loss is Burger King's gain.

 

speaking from experience?

 

go blow yourself it's better use of your mouth.

 

I believe the entire board can do without this kind of commentary. Don't ya think?

[nolanwood]

I just heard a replay of an interview with Chris Carpenter on the "The Show" with Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy. Dibble asked Carpenter if he changed his mechanics any since his time in Toronto. Carpenter answered, "No." So, according to Carpenter, he did not change his mechanics.

 

I didn't hear that one, but I'm sure you could post a link that I could do so. I did find proof to the contrary from TSN:

 

Chris Carpenter, RHP, Cardinals

Sporting News, The, June 14, 2004

His changeup is decent but not the promising pitch it appeared destined to be in Toronto. He shows command of a low-90s four-seamer and two-seamer, but the pitches lack their former life. At one point in his Toronto career, Carpenter had enough command, speed change and two-plane bore on his sinker that he might have become a premier sinkerball pitcher. Occasionally, the hitter will still see glimpses of that.

 

Both his pitch efficiency, and his downhill fastball angle were better in his early years. He pitches backward from his Toronto days: That is, formerly he used his four-seamer and two-seamer to set up his breaking balls; now, the reverse is true. Carpenter mixes his pitches well. He can set up his breaking balls with a plus cutter that he did not have in Toronto.

 

Not only did he change his mechanics, but his approach. I'll be looking for that ESPN proof.

 

I can't post a link since it was on my XM. I'm sure you guys at the score can call over there and get a transcript. It wasn't a "net" broadcast, so there's no link. I was driving in my car when I heard it.

 

He did go on to say that he has changed his approach, but he was very clear that his mechanics were the same.

 

I heard it as well -I listen to 175 on my XM all day long - K.K. and Dibb's show is my favorite....at any rate, what Vance claims is exactly what Carpenter stated - no change in his mechanics.

[abuck1220]

So what did Wood have to say when he was on the show?

 

he said he's been studying physics, medicine, and general anatomy all fall so he can figure out how to 'fix' his mechanics. he's enrolled in med school at rush.

[JC]

I just saw a highlight of his appearance, but it looked like Woody was on the David Wells offseason diet.