patterson has a better career than wood....and wood was over paid while patterson was paid accordingly ...wood sucks ..deal with it

_________________

_________________

Uh



What?

Whistler?

Huh?

_________________

it is pretty simple...neither were very good..wood made over 70 million...patterson 14 million...wood pitched over 200 innings one time in his career...he stole money from the cubs while nursing a swollen labia on the d.l....fuck kerry wood

_________________

I'm pretty sure it was Prior who nursed the swollen labia. I think Wood had shoulder problems.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

Ive already said there is some control or effect on it.

But that much is addressed with the Well Hit Ball and Line Drive ratio stats.

both were juiced up phonies who stole money.... kerry wood is probably my second most hated cub all time next to alex gonzalez

_________________

Why you gotta be like that?

Are you guaranteeing that Rizzo will never be as good as Nick Johnson?

No, but I don't think he's a disappointment if he is that good.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

Who makes the call on what constitutes a "well-hit ball"?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

I dont know. Pretty sure its just an extension of line drive rates to try and include hard hit grounders. But we both know a lot of these advanced stats can be traced to one arbitrary number like VORP. That doesnt mean they are useless.

I would bet Buehrle gave up very few line drives or hard hit balls in either game.

Right. But you don't seem to want to give him the credit for that. I'm just wondering- since luck is the primary factor and Kerry Wood struck out so many more batters per nine- why Wood couldn't get as lucky in recording about 14 non-strikeout outs as Buehrle did twice in recording 19 and 21 of them respectively.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

One of the worst parts about advanced statistics is people use them to go back and diminish accomplishments because something that didn't happen could have happened.

There was a 55% chance Jordan misses that shot over Russell. I guess it wasn't as impressive as an easier shot that was a dunk to win a game because there was only a 1% chance that shot would miss.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I would "deal with it" if it were true, but it's just not. Kerry Wood has been an All-Star and an outstanding starting pitcher as well as a very good closer during his career. Wood has only fallen short of what he otherwise may have achieved in his career, due to injury. Patterson fell short due to his own refusal to listen to coaches and approach the game in an intelligent manner to best utilize his considerable skill set. Patterson has never been an All-Star despite the many opportunities he's been given by so many teams that all thought that they could take those tremendous ability and better mold him into the kind of player he should have been...but never was. Patterson is by FAR the bigger disappointment.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

wood was never "outstanding" his best season he was 14-11 in the national league...he actually sucked at closing..lotta blown saves and too many walks...patterson was a good 4th outfielder and paid accordingly ...wood was paid by that stupid prick hendry tens of millions to be an elite starting pitcher...he sucked in cleveland...small sample size in n.y. and sucked again with the cubs in the pen...don't ever mention all star as a measuring stick...8 year old boys vote in the players

_________________

Both had less than expected careers. But to say that patterson had a better career than Wood is just baseball stupid. Sorry. It's idiotic.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Im not following your math, JORR. Where is 14 coming from? Were talking ONE game.

Also, there is a diffrence between pop outs and weak grounders and line drive shots to the wall


No one hit the ball well of Wood that day. Some did with Buehrle


What do you think was the more dominant pitching performance, JORR?

Thats not at all what Im doing and as usual your example is ridiculous.


Buehrle gave up a rocket shot to the wall. I believe that matters, despite the fact that Wise caught it.

Its not saying, it could have been a homerun. Its saying it WAS a bad pitch and WAS a well hit ball.

No one hit the ball well of Wood that day.

So you are saying that Wood shut down the batters even when he didn't get a strikeout?

It really seems like you are picking and choosing what a pitcher can do. With Wood, he is getting a majority of the credit for the non-strikeout outs. With Buerhle and Humber, they aren't getting a majority of the credit.

Let's just get down to it. Please answer these three questions.
For these pitchers, what percentage of the non-strikeout outs do you think they were mostly responsible for.
Wood?
Humber?
Buerhle?

For me, the answer is 100% for all three. Note, I didn't say solely responsible. I said mostly responsible for.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Well, Bryan, I prefer not to mix the subjective and the objective. Calling a performance "dominant" is purely subjective.

I'm coming up with the number fourteen because I assume Wood stuck out at least 14 batters on more than a few occasions. We can lower the number if you like. I'm merely pointing out that since Buehrle stuck out six and eight respectively in his two no-hitters, Kerry Wood started many games having far more "control" (via his many strikeouts) and requiring far less luck than Buehrle was apparently able to discover, not once, but TWICE. And yet, Wood was unable to ever find such luck even once, not even when he only required said luck to record seven measly outs. I just don't believe Mark Buehrle is that lucky.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

There was a 55% chance that Jordans shot doesn't fall according to statistics. Why wouldn't that diminish the end result that he hit it if Buerhle's out doesn't really count because there was a good chance it was going to be a hit?
I don't know how fair that is. He put someone on base by something that was 100% his fault and he made at least one other pitch hit well enough to be a hit.

For a guy who claims that advanced statistics shouldn't be the only way you judge baseball you seem to be thinking that the probability of an out supercedes the actual result of the play.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You continue to miss the point, Rick.


The reason Kerry Wood's game was better is because he took the chance out of 20 batters by striking them out.

The other outs, the pitcher has WAAAAY less control. Thats what makes Wood better. He took control.

But if you ARE going to look at and try to analyze the non strikeout outs, I would look at the line drive rate/well hit ratio.


I don't know all three games box scores off hand. Without looking, Im fairly certain Wood's would be the best in this way too.



I don't know why you seemingly cant respect my opinion. I've told you why i think what I think and backed it up with stats and good sources.

I value pitcher strikeouts a lot more than you do, apparently. That wont change from my end.

You seem to be making a case against BAPIP meaning what people think it means. Lets not mix that in either.

We are talking about 2 games. Woods 20 K's and Buehrle's Perfect game.


But I would also point out that control works both ways. I'm sure Wood hampered many of his no hitter chances with Walks that he had control over.


Im not one that believes its ALL luck once the ball is in play. Thats why I keep bringing up the well hit ball stat. Buehrle dominated that day for the most part, but he gave up at least one really well hit ball. Wood did not. No luck there.

He hit a batter. The other one was not well hit. Neither were hit well.




You continue to misunderstand. I'm not speaking of probability. He actually DID give up a well hit ball. No probability needed.

I dont think I have to tell you that sometimes mistakes in sports end up not mattering to the outcome. Doesnt mean the mistakes didnt happen.

If a player is down 6 runs and gets picked off in the ninth, thats a dumb play. It doesnt matter that the next 7 guys hit homeruns and they won. It was still a stupid play. Just as Buehrle's was still a bad pitch.

If Purdue was down 1 with 6 seconds left and a player shot the ball from midcourt, that would be stupid. Even though a purdue player got a putback and they won.

The player is 100% in control of that bad shot though and what happens. A better analogy is if the player makes the bad shot. Is it lessened? Of course if Buerhle gives up a hit it's all on him. He didn't though. He got an out. Buerhle's "low percentage" play worked.

Anyways, it's pretty clear that you are just going to say I'm misunderstanding to avoid answering the very simple question I asked. What I misunderstand how pitchers can have very little control of what happens on balls hit in play, but Wood gets credit for every ball put in play, but Buerhle doesn't because he had at least one ball that looked worse than others.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

But that's exactly what this conversation is really about.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

But how far down do you want to break it? Wood may have hung a curve that a guy missed that day and gotten away with it for a harmless foul, strike 2. I don't know. But there are elements of luck in anything. I'm sure he may have made a bad pitch in that game somewhere. Had a guy crushed it into the seats we may not be having this conversation.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

No my analogy was perfect. Buehrle's terrible pitch was saved by Wise, just like the purdue player was saved by his teammates.. It was a bad pitch that got hit well, no matter how you slice it.




RIGHT


WRONG.

You are the one obssessed with the non strikeout outs. I give both of them credit for weakly hit balls. I penalize both of them for the hard hit ones. Thats it.

I know you get this.

I guess we could go pitch by pitch. Im sure Wood would come out ahead on that as well.


Let me ask you this JORR.

Which was the better pitch? The one Wise caught at the wall or the one that was weakly hit under Orie's glove?


I dont think this is as much about BAPIP as much as its about the importance of the strikeout.

You and I are discussing BAPIP, but Rick and Frank's argument seems to be "The end result is all that matters"

I disagree with that.

Strikeouts are important because lots of things can happen on batted balls. For example, they can sneak under Kevin Orie's glove.

But what is rarely discussed are the long-term effects of high strikeout pitchers, i.e. they generally throw a lot of pitches. The days of Tom Seaver and Juan Marichal throwing 150 pitches to complete a twelve or fourteen K game are pretty much over. There is a lot of discussion about the reasons behind this, but just from observation, my guess would be the changes in wind-ups. Pitchers really don't wind up these days. What we call a wind-up now for most guys was similar to pitching from the stretch for guys in the 50s and 60s.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don