Yes, Wood did hit a batter. I would have to check the footage from the game to see where he hit Biggio, but Biggio never gets out of the way. Also there is no way anybody hits a ball over the fence (Wise's catch was over the fence) off Wood.

Kerry Wood was a rookie at the time and it was his fifth start in the majors. If you watch the tape on the game you'll see that Wood curve ball was breaking about 5 feet.

Let's not forget Milt Pappas who threw a perfect game, but couldn't get the last strike from the umpire.

Here's a video clip from Wood's 20 strikeout game: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/kerry ... 2568649507

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Thats fine. I am NOT arguing that. Just making some observations on criteria.


Woods was .143 Buehrle's was .000
most pitchers find their way back to the middle of Bapip


Well that goes back to the K arguement. I guess it depends on how you define Dominance.

Most of my argument is based in future evalutation...If I saw Buerhle's perfect game and Kerry Wood's 20 K's with all other things being equal...the 20 K guy would be more likely successful in the future, based on these 2 games.

But like I said...Buehrle's was more effective. Thats really all that matters.

Agreed.

We aren't judging careers here though. We are judging games.

Besides total strikeouts, is there even a statistic out there that values a strikeout more than a normal out and would statistically make Wood's game better? It seems to me that you brought statistics into a discussion that is purely emotional in the case of Kerry Wood. Besides total strikeouts, Buehrle's was statistically better in every category that I've ever seen in baseball. There is no "almost home runs" category.


You argument is off though. This is about single game accomplishment and which one was more dominant. There are plenty of average pitchers who have had great single game performances.

_________________
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!

If you watch the final scene in the abortion that was "The Scout" the douchebag from School Ties...combines wood and buehrle

perfect game. 27 strikeouts. 81 Pithces all strkes.

That would be the MOST Dominant.

Roll the credits........

_________________
There goes one over the fence..Tru Link Fence..Beauty, Privacy Security....Call Tru Link.
Murph's Union 76 Truck Stop....A great Thanksgiving Tradition!!!!

WOO LIFE!!!!

Rick - you can agree that a perfect game is a team accomplishment, and 20 Ks is a solo accomplishment, right?

I haven't read one word of anyone else's post, because I don't really care about other opinions in this instance, because there are enough facts to make an informed decision without the help of other people doing if for you.

Buehrle did what few others have done - a perfect game. Pretty important operative word - perfect.

Wood struck out 20 batters in a 9-inning game.

That said, a "perfect game" is a misnomer. Buehrle had to rely on his teammates for many of those outs (Wise being the first and most obvious example). Excepting for any strikeouts he had (and I don't know offhand nor do I believe it to be important in this case how many there were), Buehrle had to rely on his team for many of the outs.

Wood, on the other hand, of the 27 outs there were to get, got 20 of them on his own. His teammates were as functional and necessary in those 20 strikeouts as the drunk asswipe peeing on a building 3 blocks from the stadium. They could have been sitting in the dugout knitting for those 20 outs.

What Buehrle did has incredible and historical. What Wood did was also incredible and historical. The only real difference is that Wood did his feat on his own, Buehrle did not.

Does that make a difference? No, not much ... but just enough that, if for some reason some idiot decided that one had to decide which was more dominating / impressive / dick-hardening, then the nod barely goes to Wood.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Right thats why I conceded im not arguing what you guys were...just adding some thoughts to the analysis.



Again the strikeout discussion...A lot of baseball analysts value the strikeout over outs on balls put in play.



Right...its not an exact science...but when evaluating future sucess...a 20 k performance would be a better indicator.

The guys that have struck out 20 or near it have all been all stars multiple times

Not true for no hitter or perfect game guys. A mediocre pitcher can throw a no hitter (anibel sanchez)...a mediocre pitcher will never K 20 or close to it.

A strikeout is a solo accomplishment. Twenty strikeouts is a solo accomplishment. An easy popout is a solo accomplishment. Twenty easy popouts are a solo accomplishment.

Each one ends up with a pitcher throwing a ball, and someone catching it, and if he fails to do it the batter will reach first base. Emotionally, a strikeout looks more "dominant" but a good pitch that causes a routine catch is as good as a strikeout. Let's be honest here, the White Sox defense isn't very good. It is statistically near the bottom of the league. It's not as if the game was full of defensive highlights outside of the miraculous Wise catch. I can't even think of what the second best defensive play was in that game. It seems as if this game is being framed as some sort of defensive clinic by the White Sox fielders. It was far from that.

I have to judge the games on the whole body of work. 27 up, 27 down is better than 29 up, 27 down even if the pitcher was throwing underhanded the whole game.

_________________
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 Cubbie guys are overlooking the fact that the catcher still needs to catch all of those strike 3's. So no, 20Ks is not ONLY Kerry Wood...esepcially with the breakballs he threw back then. I'm sure that on at least a handfull of those K's, you would see Sandy Martinez tag the batters or throw down to first.

_________________

Hugh Daily 19
Charlie Sweeney 19
Don Wilson 18
Henry Porter 18
Dupree Shaw 18.

Clemens and Unilt also gave up runs in their 20 strikout games.

So what's your world ranking in the "grasping at straws" category? Top 10?

BTW, I didn't see Buehrle's game save the highlights - heard it on the flagship - but I'm pretty confident ol' Mark had a catcher as well ... so, not unlike algebra, those two catchers cancel each other out of the overall equation.

What the hell's next? Mark's internal body temperature made it harder for him to work because black jerseys absorb more sunlight thus increasing his risk to heat-related ill-effects?

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

So you pick a bunch of deadball era pitchers...ok thats fine ill play along...


Thanks for proving my point Keyser...none of those guys are mediocre.

I just picked guys I never heard of. I think you're stretching a bit by saying these guys aren't mediocre (Astros MVP??, star pitcher??) but I'm glad I kept you busy for half an hour.

BTW- Bill Gullickson (Joliet Catholic class of '77) also struck out 18 but I left him off the list because he was NOT mediocre.

Edit: I did a little research of my own. Here are the career record of these 'star' pitchers:

Don Wilson: 104-92
Henry Porter: 96-107
Dupee Shaw: 83-121
Charlie Sweeny: 64-52
Hugh Daily: 73-87

Couldn't find anything on Hugh Daily

A half hour? No like 3 mins on wikipedia...and it seems odd coming from the guy who dug up the predictions thread last week to call me out even though i was completely joking in that post.

the rest of those guys were all stars or stars as described in wikipedia...sorry im not sure what qualifies someone to be a star in the 1840's...you also went to the 1800's so who's streching?

So Keyser Ill amend my original statement to this century...


Just go back to loving all things Sox and arguing anything that isnt pro sox


Oh and dont be afraid of SABRmetrics. They are far more accurate than "the eye test"

This is true for almost anyone who has ever thrown a perfect game too. What is your point exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_game

The only two questionable players who did it were in 1922 and 1908. All the others had at least one accolade to call them a "star".

Don Larsen is a question mark, but if you can cite that someone was one of "the Grays' two main pitchers" then I can use the World Series MVP.

Mediocre pitchers can get a no hitter but it doesn't seem to fit with a perfect game.

_________________
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!

Troo dat

My arguement is no hitters. no hitters can be a fluke, like a.j. burnett walking 9 i think, in a no hitter.

Youre right it does not apply to perfect games.

As far as "Gray's star pitchers"...I understand its a stretch but Im not that well versed on pitchers from the 1800's
just went with the little info i could find.

The guys who have had 20 k's Clemens Johnson and Wood were all multiple all stars.

At least two of the perfect game guys were not.

Ok so perfect games and High K games are usually a good indicator of future success

no hitters can be flukes and thrown by nobodies.

Rick was asking why Strikeouts are better. I was trying to show why baseball analysts value them more.

It is logical that strikeouts are valued more. Less chance of an error and if they don't hit it they can't have a hit.

However, I don't understand why a strikeout that results in an out is better than a pop fly that results in an out in a batter by batter instance. The result is the same.

The Cubs got 20 outs from Wood's strikeouts. The Sox got 20 outs just the same, but he went further and got the other 7 outs required without surrendering a hit.

Judging future success is different than judging how one's performance affected the game.

There was no value added by 20 strikeouts in that game. They were just 20 outs. 20 pop flys would have given the same value. That is why Mark's game was more dominant, even without being as overpowering because he shut down a team for a whole game, whereas Wood only did it for 27/29 batters.

_________________
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!

this is all i was saying...and to me strikeouts are more dominant that pop ups.

Correct, obviously. Once an out is made, its an out. thats it.


Correct. Like I said 56 was more effective. But the word dominance throws things off. Effectiveness is all that matters when judging one game.

Buehrle's performance was better. Wood's was a better indicator of future success.

Houston Astros:
Craig Biggio 2B
Derek Bell RF
Jeff Bagwell 1B
Jack Howell 3B
Moises Alou CF
Dave Clark LF
Ricky Gutierrez SS
Brad Ausmus C

(season stats for above: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1998.shtml)

(box score for game: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN199805060.shtml)

Also, Wood only allowed two people to reach base the whole game - a HBP and an infield single (I believe that was Gutierrez).

Another note - it was Wood's 6th professional start ever.

And, because I can't stop:
# of perfect games: 16 (if you include pre-1900, then it's 18)
# of pitchers to throw 20 strikeouts: 2 - Wood and Clemens (twice)

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Mult detectives...go to work

Heath Ledger.

_________________

Bryan Adams

_________________

I have to admit to not being able to view Buehrle's recent perfecto in great detail, but I seem to recall that Wood's game, he was getting a lot of borderline calls by the umpire, on the outside slider in particular...


on a side note, it's a shame Wood never really learned how to pitch...

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

apologists post is like hawk and stone posting together.

Heh, never really thought of it that way. Just the foremost thoughts that popped in my head about these two masterpieces...

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

How about this-

When I played ball, our team never felt dominated by a junk pitcher. If we made contact but were still out, we thought we'd get him the next at bat. We'd just try a new approach each time. But when you got a guy no one is touching because his shit is nasty, then you got dominance.

If you watched both games only one conclusion can be made. Kerry was un hittable. sure someone got ONE hit. Buehrle was hittable but did not give one up.

You can also say Kerry Wood never even came close to giving up a run. Buerhle came within inches of giving up a run.

NUMBERS and STATS dont always tell the truth in baseball. Your eyes do. The only time I was wowed last week was by a defensive play and of course the last out. Kerry Wood wowed me a dozen or so times when the Killer B's would swing and miss over and over again.

YES.

Would you say that a pitcher that gives up a rope that happens to go right to the 3rd basemen for an out, did a better job than a pitcher who gives up a pop-up blooper just off the glove of an infielder?

A guy who clinches a no-hitter (or perfect game) on a smoked line drive got lucky. A guy who loses a no-hitter on a blooper got unlucky. That's just a reality of the game.

The pro-Buehrle camp is giving too much credence to the word "perfect". A true perfect game would be 27 K's.

They're also discounting Wood's game as just a 20 K game. If he had given up 2 runs and 6 hits along with the 20 K's, then yes the 20 Ks are a footnote. But it's the 20 K's PLUS the nature of the other 7 outs and the 1 scratch hit that compose that true nature of that game.

It's just a function of semantics to say Wood wasn't the better pitcher just because he wasn't "perfect". He was a whole lot closer to true perfection than Buerhle was.


* Although, one other factor is that Buehrle had to contend with the nerves of going out there for the 8th and 9th innings with a perfect game on the line. Wood didn't have that dynamic after giving up the HBP and scratch hit.