A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Yes, Wake's lows were lower than these guys, but I'm sorry folks, I just don't see that much more "inconsistency"

    Mr Moon  I am sure you won't mind some debate on this one. I don't think the numbers you posted back up your argument, if anything the opposite.  Of course we should not expect the 5th starter to perform like something better though. I know I am wading into an emotive debate but I just looked up the numbers and made an observation. 

    I looked at a few other 5th starter/swingmen monthly ERAs. Granted I had trouble thinking of long tenured 5th starters.

    Sonnastine has been very consistent for 3 years with one exception.

    Joe Blanton has been fairly consistent not up and down month to month too much.

    My point is Wake has created the perception with his performance. He has been asked to perform without ideal planning, and he is an asset no doubt, especially considering the cost.  I say ride him until he falters, if he continues one of his hot streaks the Sox could even pull away in the East. I'd love to see it and to pass Clemens.


    tom, I never mind a good debate, especially with you.

    Yes, there are a small few 5/6 pitchers in MLB who have equal or bettr numbers than Wake, and I'm sure there are a few that have better month to month consistency rates; however, I think if you compare the numbers of Wake to other pitchers with his ERA, they all will pretty much show about the same inconsistencies. Istill  do not think he any more inconsistent than the average starting pitcher in MLB. "Consistency" is a relative term, and when people keep saying he is inconsistent, I think that means as compared to other starters. I compared his monthly ERA inconsistency to other Sox pitchers, even the great ones. Of course, pitchers with way less total ERAs will have less of a range of ERAs between worst and best, that is expected, but I want to mention a few things:

    1) The monthly ERA comparison was not my choice of measurement. The sample sizes are very small, and vary from month to month. 

    2) If you combine SEPT/OCT, Wake's IP total is still only 15.1, second lowest of his 2010 sample sizes and his number is: 5.87. I made the change to your numbers in red: not scientific, but still... (I'm sure one could go back and adjust other starter's numbers due to very small sample sizes for some months. A better method might be to use 5 start stretches, but that is a lot of leg work.)

    3) His 2010 and 2011 numbers are relief and starting mixed together. He had no starts in April. I will leave the number there anyways, but one could put n/a.

    4) In 2009, his August ERA was based on just 1 start (7 IP) and his SEPT/OCT numbers on just 3 games and 14 IP. I will leave those numbers there, but put them in blue.

    5) in 2008, all months had similar IP (23-36 IP range), but I would like to make one point: I have never been able to find the quote from Tito, but I recall him saying that the Sox had planned on limiting Wake's IP during the season, so he wouldn't burn out at the end, but he had such an incredible streak mid-season, and we were in the thick of the race, that they kept him going. He burned out at the end, and this has not been uncommon for his recent career. I do not think Wake has been a 30 start pitcher since 2006. He should not have pitched over 170 IP or maybe even less. I'm not making excuses, but had he been used correctly, the late season numbers may have closed his monthly range gaps.

    6) 2007: very consistent IP numbers from month to month (24.2 to 36). His SEPT/OCT stats are based on 24.2 IP, and a couple bad starts out of 5 did him in, so we are talking about maybe taking away one bad start in the bad months for everyone and the numbers change drastically.

    Going with the idea that these numbers are a valid measurement of "consistency", let's look closer. I am not by any means, a mathematician, but I do believe that a pitcher with a much lower overall ERA, would be expected to have a lower range of variance from month to month, and I would postulate that guys like Beckett, Lester, and Buch have higher variances than other great/very good pitchers in their "class". Beckett and Lester are notorius slow starters. Buch's career is young and his small stretch of poor pitching should perhaps be thrown out, but his 2010 range was 1.0 to 4.9. For a pitcher with his awesome overall ERA that year, my guess is, a lower range should have been expected. Here are the range differential numbers by year;

               '10  '09  '08   '07
    Wake  6.7   7.1  2.9  6.3
    No red/blue:

    Wake  6.7  3.9  2.9  6.3  
    Lester 2.9  4.1  2.3  3.2
    Beck   4.4  5.7  2.0  1.9 (but all above 4.2)
    Buch   3.1  1.3  6.9  4.0
    Dice   3.0  10.6  6.0 (2008 left off by harness- I will edit later)
    Penny (? I could not access Baseball ref this morning)

    The range among seasonal monthly ranges:
    Wake: 3.8
    Lest:   1.8
    Beck:  4.8
    Buch:  5.6
    Dice:   7.6

    consolidated and adjusted totals:

    Wake (from tom)
    2011  5.6  3.5
    2010  5.4   5.9   4.5   7.2   2.5   5.9 
    2009  1.9   6.8   3.5   5.1   1.3   8.4
    2008  4.1   5.3   2.4   4.1   2.7   6.7 (16.9 PO)
    2007  2.6   4.1   6.0   5.5   2.5   8.8 (9.6  PO)

    Lester:
    2010: 4.7, 1.8, 2.6, 3.6, 3.5, 3.8
    2009: 5.4, 5.9, 1.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.5
    2008: 4.3, 3.0, 3.0, 2.0, 4.3, 2.1
    2007: 4.3, 6.5, 3.3

    Buchholtz:
    2010: 2.2, 3.1, 1.8, 4.9, 1.0, 3.0
    2009: 3.5, 4.8, 4.0
    2008: 4.1, 8.6, 6.8, 11.0
    2007: 4.5, 0.5

    Beckett:
    2010: 7.2, 7.4, 2.8, 6.0, 4.5
    2009: 7.2, 2.4, 1.5, 3.4, 5.0, 4.1
    2008: 4.1, 4.4, 2.4, 5.7, 5.8, 2.2
    2007: 2.5, 2.9, 4.5, 3.5, 2.9, 3.2
    2006: 4.5, 4.2, 5.1, 5.1, 6.4, 4.5

    Dice-K (from harness):
    2007:   4.36  5.22  1.59  3.62  4.45  7.62
    2009: 12.79  6.30  7.71  2.22
    2010:   5.77  2.81  3.64  4.13  6.31

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Those Fuld Superman capes are a pretty cool idea. There are probably kids all over Tampa that should want one. I know that few people show up for the games but the ones that do will take those capes home and next thing you know another family goes to a game.

    Fuld is as close to a human highlight reel as there is in the game this year.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    His BA has been in freefall.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    51 games played: about the 1/3rd mark of the season. Here is what our players will end up with for numbers if they repeat the first third 2 more times (my projections in red):

    Name  BA/OBP/SLG%/OPS  HR  RBI     BA/OPS  HR RBI
    AGon  .338/.385/.549/.924  27  132   .315/.950  35  140
    Ortiz  .303/.375/.541/.916  30    69    .285/.900  35  100
    Jed    .301/.347/.444/.791    9     63    .290/.800  12    70
    Ellsb  .299/.365/.463/.829    18   81    .300/.825   15    70
    Youk  .272/.400/.519/.919    24  102  .300/.925   25  120
    Pedey.247/.358/.330/.688     9     45   .285/.825   15    70
    Craw  .245/.282/.383/.665    12   63   .285/.825   15    70
    Scutt  .235/.316/.309/.625     3    24   .245/.650     4     30
    Drew  .232/.353/.352/.705    9    30   .245/.750     15   65
    Salty  .231/.286/.404/.690    12  45    .245/.750      15  60
    VTek  .203/.289/.284/.563      3  21    .200/.600        5   30
    Cam   .170/.233/.302/.535      6  18    .200/.650         8   25

    Name  W-L   ERA
    Beck   12-3  1.69   18-6  2.90
    Buch   12-9  3.30   15-8  3.30
    Lest    21-3  3.36   20-6  3.20
    Wake   6-3   4.14   10-4  4.50
    Aceves 6-0   2.22    7-4   3.50
    Dice     9-9   5.30    9-9   5.30
    Lack    6-15  8.01  10-10  5.30
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]His BA has been in freefall.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    There is no question about that but his defense has been remarkable in LF. He's diving everywhere, ergo the cape.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    since fivekatz refers to wakefield as a "mopup man" and Aceves is wakes daddy, then i shall now call fivekatz....mydaddymopup
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Tom, I saw your stats regarding Lackey's swings and misses and I can tell you with all due respect that that has nothing to do with whether or not a guy is a premier pitcher. We will just have to differ on this issue, it is a good topic.  IMO pitching to contact is a myth.  You have written that Lackey will be a premier starter again, I don't think that is likely.  All of his peripheral stats show he is in decline.  Roy Halladay is often sited for pitching to contact but he has had about 80% contact rate.  Halladay has amazing control Lackey is giving up more than double walks. Halladay leads the NL in BB rate and MLB in K/BB. Here is the list of 2011 Pitchers with the worst swinging strike %: Nova Penny Chatwood Vasquez Davis A sinkerballer like Wang had contact rates and swinging strikes% similar to what Lackey has done with Boston, but he had 20% higher GB rate. We looked at Palmer this winter he had an elite elite defense behind him and an amazing ability to strand runners in scoring position. As I have read and quoted, Lackey could alter his mechanics or develop a good cutter and be effective again, but the way the numbers are trending is ominous.  ( 2005, '06,...,'11 ) Swing and miss % 10.6, 9.7, 8.9, 8.6, 8.6, 7.0, 6.2 Contact %: 76.5, 79.4, 80.3, 81.5, 80.3, 83.7, 84.8
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    Pitching to contact is hardly a myth, Tom.
    It's the essence of what constitutes the art of pitching: Keeping the hitter off-balance. Your stats regarding swings and misses epitomize stuff. Not pitching.
    That's what 791never understood. It's an area where stats can be blinding.

    Pitching is about setting up hitters. Sometimes they can be set up on one pitch from a prior at-bat. Other times, they are set-up to whiff on high heat. It's a cat-and-mouse game.

    Pitching is not about strikeouts. They only constitute a fraction of total outs.
    A good example of this is Koufax - a "strikeout pitcher". Fact is, his SO/IP
    ratio was high and at times higher in his years of mediocrity as compared to his historic prime.

    I can sight many examples of this same phenomenon. SO's is about stuff. Pitching is about how a pitcher's stuff is harnessed.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Interesting projections, Moon.
    Many could hit the target.

    I don't see Wake getting the chance to win 10 games.
    I don't see Pedey hitting that high. He doesn't look right this year - at the plate anyway. I'm not sure Lester will be consistent enough to win 20, but I hope so.

    On Wake's volatility: I do buy into the fact he can loses it quicker than his conventional piers. But he can get it back just as quickly. The reason is that he has little back-up, beyond a 74 MPH FB, which he tends to spot well.

    But I also believe Tito is decent when it comes time to pulling the plug. Pitch count is an erratic indicator. But when hitters start squaring him up beyond the 6th frame, Tito generally gets him out of their fast. And with good reason.

    Of course, the same can be said for any pitcher  Wink
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]since fivekatz refers to wakefield as a "mopup man" and Aceves is wakes daddy, then i shall now call fivekatz....mydaddymopup
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]I think this was well spirted Danny C, but just to be clear I did not refer to Wake as a "mopup man". But his role coming out of the bullpen is that of a mopup man. It has to be the number one argument beyond sentimentality for Wake remaining a starter versus Aceves IMO. Wake is poorly suited to bring in late and close with RISP. There are bunch guys on the roster you'd go to before him.

    If you deal with shorter sample sets the advantage as of today for starting would go to Aceves. That doesn't make Aceves daddy, to the contrary based on their ages Wake is almost old enough to be Wake's son.

    My only point was that when Wake isn't starting he is a seldom used roster player. Softlaw wasn't wrong about that, just dead wrong that it wasn't worth living with the reduced interchangability in the bullpen to keep both Aceves and Wake in the 40 man roster.

    As maddening as it will be for "he who I ignore" that very point is why I think the RS will keep Wake in the rotation unless he pitches his way out of it.

    But seriously, look at Aceves stats and tell me that guy wasn't a steal... 


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    A "steal" has yet to be determined. Aceves has pitched a grand total of 28 frames this year. He had 5 career starts prior to this year. Only once has he gone 7 innings in his career.

    His last start was in a blowout.
    His other was against a NL team - and he didn't have a clean inning,  hitting two batters, one seriously.

    He spent 9 years in AAA! (4+ ERA). He was primarily a starter, yet NY rarely used him in that capacity once he made it to the Majors.

    Until his metal is tested, I don't think any valid determination can be made.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Katz : I don't know of any team that doesn't protect themselves with an innings eater. Constant usage of set-up arms is the fast-lane to late-season blow-up. You don't use those guys in one-sided games - or those where starters implode. Nor am I looking down the playoff road in May. The team used 3 starters in the '09 PO's. Granted, they didn't need more, but Lester was scheduled to go game 4, if... The team will go to Lackey once he's ready. This I'd bet on. And it's also a good bet the decision (as to who goes to the pen) will be made for them come the time. Lackey is dealing with a personal hardship. And I think he'll rise to the challenge. On Dice, I refuse to write him off until the final determination as been made. Too many conflicting reports. I take it one day at a time, and try not to get too far ahead of myself.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]Harness we routinely see teams that have their starter get blown out in the first two innings end up using 4 guys may be 5 to get through that game. The inning eaters in most BP are guys like Atchinson who can give you three frames 35-45 pitches, not spot starters Aside from Wakefield and the rubber armed Tavarez when have the RS had a guy who could eat innings and in Tavarez case the RS used him in short situations and brought him in with inherited runners. Aceves is much closer to the inning eater profile than Wake is, at least as the RS see fit to deploy him.

    As for Lackey, I don't fault any one who thinks he should stay in BP until the others falter, I am just saying I don't think the RS will agree and I don't think they are misdirected if they go in that direction.

    As for Dice-K, I have nothing to base my thoughts on except gut. The situation feels like and sounds like Schilling's. Back end of a contract, surgery would pretty much make the contract a wipe-out and the club is diagnosing rest. The twist here of course is Dice K isn't his own agent and Boras has already watched out for his client's interests by getting the RS to agree to the Yocum consultation.

    Trust me I hope I am wrong. I'd love to see the RS have a healthy strong rested Dice K for the stretch run, Lackey going all guns and Aceves and Wake as insurance.

    Moon, I am with you on the Schill contract if the RS thought Schill was hurt, if they could have identified it in the physically before resigning, they would have not done the deal. 

     
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Katz, great point about Aceves being a steal, just like Albers, Sutton, Salty and Hill. It's easy to criticize the higher priced moves Theo and Co. make, but it's the below the radar moves that arguably will make the biggest difference.

    Is it my imagination or do these two teams, Tigers and Sox, seem to genuinely like each other and enjoy competing against each other? I thought I saw Peralta actually give Ortiz a pat on the back as he rounded the bases with his game winner? It's easy for the Sox to like the Tigers because they can't beat us, but there just seems to be an unusual amount of joking back and forth. Am I crazy?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    hey, i love Aceves. He can relieve, he can start, and he can eat innings....Albers pitched 2 fine innings and fortunately recovered from the Tito Says You're On Your Own show v. Chicago...I just prefer Wakefield as a starter (not as a reliever, agreed there). I like when he is left alone to master the No. 5 spot in the rotation. If you feel that it's more important to satisfy salary over performance, then by all means release Wakes when Lackey gets back....I prefer him to pitch in the Sox rotation as long as the Sox are willing to let him. Wins will come.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]A "steal" has yet to be determined. Aceves has pitched a grand total of 28 frames this year. He had 5 career starts prior to this year. Only once has he gone 7 innings in his career. His last start was in a blowout. His other was against a NL team - and he didn't have a clean inning,  hitting two batters, one seriously. He spent 9 years in AAA! (4+ ERA). He was primarily a starter, yet NY rarely used him in that capacity once he made it to the Majors. Until his metal is tested, I don't think any valid determination can be made.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]The stats are quite good. I am not saying the RS stole a front line starter. Check the stats in NY, look at what he has done for us in ST and so far this year. Great under the radar pick-up. If you are quick to give the ball to Rich Hill in the 8th in a close game on the road, heck you have to feel OK about Aceves I would think.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm looking at performance, and Wakes performs. I really don't see this guy being a dropoff from anyone, or a liability to anyone. He's an asset, and that's just something that Epstein understands. Tito? Not so sure he thinks that, he is more like a lot of fans...not willing to accept the knuckleball guy as a go-to type pitcher. He lost confidence in him last year, especially when he was banished to the 21-day Tito's Version of DL list where he was healthy, but Tito refused to throw him...at all. Everyone loves Tim, but only if he pitches well. No other pitcher has been scrutinized for so long and beat down by locals more than Wakefield.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Victor 'Crazy Splits' Martinez is up to his old tricks again today.  After an 0 for 4 this afternoon he is 6 for 40 (.150) this year when he catches.  Tonight he's 3 for 3 to bring him up to .363 when he DH's.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    huffx, bottom line with the way both AGonz and Ortiz are hitting, Victor's worth as a Sox is negligible. VMART would make the Sox lineup a chinese water torture though if he stayed. As a catcher, the Sox have what they want, an up-and-coming, raw guy and a wily old vet to back him up.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not sure Lester will be consistent enough to win 20, but I hope so.

    He's been historically very good after May. He's bit lucky to be 7-1.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think victor's splits this year mean nothing. The guy has hit as a catcher before. It's not like he can't hit when he is catching. 

    Has Hfxsoxnut said, they are "crazy splits".

    I thought last year that they should not pick up Ortiz's option but offer him arbitration and potentially sign him multiyear if cheap enough. Sign Martinez instead. With the year Ortiz is having that may end up being a mistake but Martinez can still rake for sure.









     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think victor's splits this year mean nothing. The guy has hit as a catcher before. It's not like he can't hit when he is catching. 

    It's not VMart's hitting as a catcher; it's how other hitters hit when he catches.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Those splits may not be as crazy as you think. This is the first year in VMART's career that he's been a PT catcher. So, I'm sure his mindset is adjusted accordingly. He's had all winter to prepare for hitting and using his off-time as a DH wisely.

    His prior splits aren't indicative of this year as he's always been a FT catcher. Hence the thought process follows accordingly. He may be a better hitter (when he doesn't catch) now because he can focus more on it. But when he catches, it's the complete opposite.

    I doubt the varience will remain this stark, but this trend might continue year after year.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    "Wily old vet" - gotta luv it.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]I'm looking at performance, and Wakes performs. I really don't see this guy being a dropoff from anyone, or a liability to anyone. He's an asset, and that's just something that Epstein understands. Tito? Not so sure he thinks that, he is more like a lot of fans...not willing to accept the knuckleball guy as a go-to type pitcher. He lost confidence in him last year, especially when he was banished to the 21-day Tito's Version of DL list where he was healthy, but Tito refused to throw him...at all. Everyone loves Tim, but only if he pitches well. No other pitcher has been scrutinized for so long and beat down by locals more than Wakefield.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]You have me in tears for poor Tim. Tim pitched himself into the position he was in last year. He started 19 games last year. He went 4-9. His WHIP was 1.417. He gave up 15 HRs, 19 SB, his ERA was 5.71 and  opponents had an OPS of .792.

    In April when he could have established himself as one of the starters he had a 1.54 WHIP with a 5.40 ERA. Opponents stole 11 bases on him in his 4 starts. His three starts in May were equally underwhelming.

    Now none of this is a dishonor to Wake. He was a 43 recovering from back surgery. Francona was not picking on poor Timmy. He was pretty bad most of the time last year.

    As for no pitcher being scrutinized so long and beat down by locals there is a simple reason for that. No pitcher has played for the Boston Red Sox this long. Derek Lowe was scurtinized and ripped anytime he lost even in winning years for Lowe face during a bad inning. Beckett was called out all year last year. Folks talked trash about Matsuzaka in even in his first two years here while he was posting a 33-15 record. Lackey has been hammered since he got here. Papelbon has been catching it since 2009. David Wells in 38 starts went 17-10 in Boston and he was truly disliked.

    There are some twisted fans but most folks think Tim has conducted himself well, been a workhorse and a fixture with the RS going on the 17th season now. Personally I think he was an absolute warrior in the second half of 2009 pitching with his back injury and have taken offense at those who use those splits to beat on him. But heck Danny there are folks just waiting for Ortiz to slump again.

    Tim's use since the start of 2010 isn't Tito abusing Wake. It is Tito contrary to what people think not favoring his veterans. It has been Tito doing his job, it has been the residue of Tim's performance. Dice K's misfortune appears to be a chance that Wake is taking advantage of. Since I root for the RS I could not be happier and can say it couldn't happen to a nicer RS player.

    Just my takes
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Now I'm in tears.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    katz, you know I respect your opinion greatly and nothing you said here is untrue. I would just like to make this point:

    Wake was recovering from back surgery and you have to think there should be some leeway given him at the start of 2010. Yes, he did pitch poorly overall in 2010, but I do think going from starter to reliever and back 10 times did not make it any easier. Yes, some of that was due to his own ineffectiveness, but I do think some was misuse on Tito's part.

    Take a look at Wake after he got shelled in his firsst relief appearance after his intitial 4 starts in April:

    2 relief games vs the Yanks combined:
    4 IP  2 Hits  1 ER   0 BB

    Then a start vs Toronto
    7 IP  5 H  3 ER  0 BB

    Back to the pen @ NYY
    2 IP  1 H  0 ER  0 BB

    Then the awesone start vs Halladay in Philly:
    8 IP  5 H  0 ER  2 BB

    He then had 2 horrible starts vs KC & Oak
    (the 2 softy wouldn't let go of for months)
    9.2 IP  20 H  15 ER  3 BB

    He then had 5 good starts in a row:
    36 IP  34 H  13 ER  6 BB  (3.25 ERA)

    Then he had another 2 game "meltdown" at TB and vs TX.
    7.2 IP  12 H  12 ER   6 BB

    Followed by a good start at Oak:
    6 IP  3 H  3 ER  2BB

    That was an 11 start stretch.
    7 good starts:
    50 IP  42 H  16 ER  10 BB (2.88 ERA/ 1.04 WHIP)
    4 bad starts:
    17.1 IP  32 H  27 ER  9 BB
     
    It was at this point, I think, Tito lost total confidence and to me, it wasn't deserved. 7 out of 11 pretty good starts is not too bad, but he was rocked hard in those 4 losses.

    He went 10 days without any action and went of to 9 relief games and 3 spread out spot starts.

    Now, compare this record to Dice-K who was also returning from an in jury in 2010:
     IP  H ER BB

    4.2  7  6  3
    7.0  5  5  3
    5.1  3  1  0
    4.2  9  7  3 (7.89 ERA at this point)
    8.0  1  0  4
    4.2  2  3  8 (5.77 ERA)

    Total after 4
    21.2 IP   24 H  19 ER  9 BB  (1.52 WHIP)

    Total after 6
    34.1 IP  27 H  22 ER  21 BB (1.40 WHIP)

    Dice-K then had a great strecth, so he was given a chance to overcome his poor stretch and find a groove.
     

Share