SpongeWorthy

6-3 or 4-3 for Theriot?

He wouldn't have reacted that way if he didn't think he could've caught it. He's just taking the high road by trying to take away whatever lingering resentment there is towards Bartman. And even though he'll never live it down, I think he's largely a sympathetic character at this point. (Not as much from me because from the day it happened I never agreed with the "everyone else would've done what Bartman did" apologists.) And yeah, Gonzalez should thank his lucky stars for that play. He did swing a decent stick in that series though didn't he?

Everyone says "relax, it is only one game...." and I agree, but yesterday's game is a prime example of why Kerry shouldn't be used as a closer. He takes a long time to warm up and needs to throw a few pitches and face a few batters to settle into a pitching groove. You Wood followers know that he has been like this his entire career. Kerry Wood has a career .707 OPS allowed in the first inning. He has a career .674 OPS allowed in the second inning. Generally the second inning has the bottom of the order, so a drop is expected. He has a career .705 OPS allowed in the third inning. Sure his OPS against is about 40 points higher for pitches 1-25. But that's true for every starter. Pitches 1-25 come against hitters 1-5. Pitches 25-40 probably go to hitters 6-9. Is it really all that much of a surprise that better hitters hit better against him? Johan Santana's the same (.692 to .644). Pedro Martinez's the same (.639 to .599). Fair point. I don't have any explicit numbers to back it up but Kerry's "feast or famine" tendencies seem much more apparent than other pitchers given the erratic control he's shown over the years. If he's hitting his spots, he's dominant--but has he ever done that consistently? He's never going to be the guy that is going to hit the black with regularity (ala a Pedro or Santana) but when his release point or arm angle is out of wack it's pretty obvious. Consequently, he falls behind more often and grooves more pitches in hitters counts. That worries me.

I don't know...there are lots of situations throughout the season where the closer doesn't always get a lot of time to warm up. You get KW throwing in the pen in the bottom of the 8th inning, your hitters go down 1-2-3 on 11 pitches and next thing you know it's Kerry time. Solo shot by Ramirez with 2 out in the bottom of the 8th inning, Cubs are up 1-0 and the next thing you know it is Kerry time. He can't pitch under these tight closer restraints where every pitch counts. Everyone says "relax, it is only one game...." and I agree, but yesterday's game is a prime example of why Kerry shouldn't be used as a closer. He takes a long time to warm up and needs to throw a few pitches and face a few batters to settle into a pitching groove. You Wood followers know that he has been like this his entire career. I really think this aspect is being overlooked by a lot of people. Granted, it's a trait that doesn't bode well for any reliever but it does spell out some of the concerns I have of using Wood in high-lev situations.

the same guy who had no walks in ST, and, iirc, 1 walk in the last month of last year? Wood always had a fairly high walk rate when he was a starter. He also gave up a fair amount of home runs when he got a lot of innings (unlike a Z for instance who also walks many batters). "Effectively wild" has summarized a lot of the healthy parts of Wood's career. He also has a tendency to start off cold. Look at his splits by pitch count for his career: 1-25 pitch count opponent OPS: .718 26-50: .646 50-75: .688 75-100: .687 100+: .591 I'm not saying he's not any good. But a high walk rate and high home run rate pitcher who has exhibited a need for an inning or two to "settle down" throughout his career isn't exactly the shutdown guy I want at the back end. Wood won't be horrible but he's going to make me reach for the antacids this year.

Why isn't there reason to worry about a pitcher who still hasn't learned to hit his spots by his early 30s? Wood at closer is a bad idea.

How long until Theriot starts getting the Jock treatment? At least Jones had some pop and a cool looking bat flip...

Find a hole, Riot.

I despise Bob Howry with an almost unspeakable hatred right now.

Howry playing the role of Mark Guthrie. :banghead:

If we lose this game it will be the biggest dramatic home run induced blue balls since game 1 of the 03 NLCS.

Oh. My.

Wood isn't going to be a very good closer.

Things don't always regress to the mean over 162 games. There's a reason the White Sox tanked hard at the end of the season, and that's because their pitching regressed to the mean. Fortunately for them, they had built up enough of a lead to make the playoffs, and once in the playoffs it's a crapshoot. I was mainly referring to the fact that they pitched well for most of the season and that throwing 4 outstanding performances in a row, while remarkable, isn't totally out of character. Obviously they weren't 1.52 ERA good all year, but everyone knew for the Sox to have a chance the pitching would probably have to be lights out. If the White Sox beat Boston/Anaheim by getting on base at an alarming clip, that would've been a fluke. This team simply played to their strengths.

I think it's hard to say this is a fluke if you're using fluke to refer to their performance in the playoffs. Did they catch a lot of breaks? Yeah, but what World Series caliber team doesn't? Did many players perform above what could have been reasonably expected? Absolutely, but what World Series caliber team doesn't have a few gems in the rough? They've had outstanding pitching all year and the way the starters have performed can't be considered flukeish--remarkable, yes but not a fluke. 162 games and things will tend to regress to the mean and anyone can get hot at the right time in the playoffs (except the Padres, maybe).

Lots of sour grapes in this thread. The White Sox have played phenomenal baseball for most of the season. When they were down, they responded as well as any team could have. I'm a huge Cubs fan and I've never lived in Chicago so my perspective on things is obviously a little different. I still don't think it's too much to tip your cap to them. I dislike Reinsdorf as much as any owner (backing Krause over MJ and Phil for so many years will do that) but I don't see what's so inherently unlikeable about their players and isn't that it ultimately comes down to? Sure, some of their fans will rub our faces in the dirt over it. But it's intellectually dishonest, in my estimation, to assume many Cubs fans wouldn't do the same if positions were reversed--not Cubs fans that would frequent this forum but they're out there. I'm rooting for the Sox in the Series.