Next up - # 200

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

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : That's exactly the point. He misses starts so he doesn't average 14 wins a season. And I included his rookie year. No matter how you slice it, 116 wins over 9 seasons is 12.88.
    Posted by -The--Babe----------[/QUOTE]

    Babe, this is why few here want to debate you. Of course it's how you slice it.
    Go back and re-read my post. I said he averages 14-15 wins over a full 162 game season. I said that for a reason. Because nobody is expected to stay healthy.
    That's why I acknowledge his time missed in '08-'09.

    His 2002 rookie season was a half season. Not a full season. Why count a full season for half a season? He pitched in Salt Lake (AAA) first half of that year and went 8-2.
    Is it fair to include those 8 wins? No. Because they were in AAA. It's just as unfair to count half a season as a full one. Lackey, incl this year, averages 14 wins over a "full season" over his career - in the context of staying relatively healthy, (and allotting for injury in '08/'09).

    In 2002, his half season, he won 17 games total.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from -The--Babe----------. Show -The--Babe----------'s posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : Babe, this is why few here want to debate you. Of course it's how you slice it. Go back and re-read my post. I said he averages 14-15 wins over a full 162 game season . I said that for a reason. Because nobody is expected to stay healthy. That's why I acknowledge his time missed in '08-'09. His 2002 rookie season was a half season. Not a full season. Why count a full season for half a season? He pitched in Salt Lake (AAA) first half of that year and went 8-2. Is it fair to include those 8 wins? No. Because they were in AAA. It's just as unfair to count half a season as a full one. Lackey, incl this year, averages 14 wins over a "full season" over his career - in the context of staying relatively healthy, (and allotting for injury in '08/'09). In 2002, his half season, he won 17 games total.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    That's exactly the point. He doesn't stay healthy so he doesn't average 14 wins, pretty simple.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NUSoxFan. Show NUSoxFan's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    To all the dummies looking at Wakes line and seeing the 7 earned runs.

    In a close game Wake doesn't go out in the seventh inning, hell even in this 5 run difference wake doesn't go out there. Why did he go out to try to pitch the seventh inning tonight?

    Curt Young was quoted saying Lester is expected to make 80-85 pitches tomorrow max.

    Again this was an example of seasonal managing, we're gonna need the pen tomorrow, Wake had to be called upon to pitch after he was really already done. The result wasn't favorable, it was 4 earned runs in that inning, but in a game like today we were able to afford it to try and rest the 'pen.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    No. Not so simple. He averages 14 wins in spite of not staying 100% healthy.
    That's the whole point. He made all his starts from 2003 to 2007. He made all his starts in 2002, but half were in AAA. That's why 2002 is half a ML season.
    He was hurt this year. His down time in 2008/9/11 is included. In 8 and 1/2 M.L. seasons, plus this year so far, incl his 2011 May down-time, he has averaged 14 wins.

    Not 15 as Baseball Ref.com indicates. 14 wins. Now, can we move on?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]To all the dummies looking at Wakes line and seeing the 7 earned runs. In a close game Wake doesn't go out in the seventh inning, hell even in this 5 run difference wake doesn't go out there. Why did he go out to try to pitch the seventh inning tonight? Curt Young was quoted saying Lester is expected to make 80-85 pitches tomorrow max. Again this was an example of seasonal managing, we're gonna need the pen tomorrow, Wake had to be called upon to pitch after he was really already done. The result wasn't favorable.
    Posted by NUSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    Good point.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    Where's that JC guy that bashed Wake all winter based solely on the fact that the team lost whenever Wake pitched (mostly they were behind when he came in). Now we are 9-4 in his starts and he's gone...poof!

    Babe, come on, be realistic. You know that Wake has been one of the most healthy pitchers of our time. The reason he did not get many starts some years was because he was used in relief in 11 out of 19 seasons, including about 6 where he relieved over 40% of the time. His rookie season, he started only 13 games, not because of injury (he won 8 and lost 1). He was hurt in 2009 and 2006, but still pitched over half a season. I can't recall any other injuries before that, ecept maybe 1 or 2 minor ones. If you count the 6 years he split starting and relief, this season, and his half rookie year as 8 "half years" not caused by injury, but by manager's choices, one could say he was a starter for 15 seasons not 19. He has 453 career GS and is 189-161 as a starter (4.47 ERA). Divide 189 wins into 16 actual seasons as a starter (including down time for injury), it gives him about 12.6 wins per year as a starter. With the Sox, he has been 176-149 in about 12 actual (adjusted) seasons of being a starter. 176/12 is about 14.7 wins per season when he was a starter.

    If you broke it down to 34 starts per year: Wake has 420 GS with Boston and 176 wins in those starts. 420/34 starts is about 12.3 full seasons.

    176/12.3 = about 14 wins and 12 losses.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : Babe, this is why few here want to debate you. Of course it's how you slice it. Go back and re-read my post. I said he averages 14-15 wins over a full 162 game season . I said that for a reason. Because nobody is expected to stay healthy. That's why I acknowledge his time missed in '08-'09. His 2002 rookie season was a half season. Not a full season. Why count a full season for half a season? He pitched in Salt Lake (AAA) first half of that year and went 8-2. Is it fair to include those 8 wins? No. Because they were in AAA. It's just as unfair to count half a season as a full one. Lackey, incl this year, averages 14 wins over a "full season" over his career - in the context of staying relatively healthy, (and allotting for injury in '08/'09). In 2002, his half season, he won 17 games total.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    How about we just stop looking at pitching wins when evaluating John Lackey?  How about we look at ERA and WHIP to determine just how awful he's been as a member of the Sox?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    Moon, Babe was talking about Lackey.

    I do wonder what happened to JCJCJC. Last I saw of him, we had a debate over Rice's HOF induction - as a Fenway product. It was JC's best work. I think the logic lead to a sad posting death.

    Then again, he could be one of Softlaw's backers.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : How about we just stop looking at pitching wins when evaluating John Lackey?  How about we look at ERA and WHIP to determine just how awful he's been as a member of the Sox?
    Posted by SoxPatsCelts1988[/QUOTE]

    How about backing up UR Lackey/bust statement? Name the FA pitchers in his salary bracket that have out-produced him?

    You want to use ERA/WHIP? Fine.
    Lackey was signed based on 102-71 3.88 ERA 1.331 WHIP
    That was pitching in CA.

    Now he pitches half his games in a hitter's venue, againstmuch better, so simply adjust the numbers. Better yet, look at the game logs. He kept his team in over 70% over his starts.
    He won 14 and could have easily been 17-18 last year with a deeper pen and more consistent run support, which fluctuated.

    That's why I am going by wins. Because Fenway is a trade off: better RS but more RA. He's still winning the same pct. of games.

    I'll ask you again: What did you expect from a guy who has averaged 14 wins a season for 10+ seasons? Please don't go back to the money. All the money in the world won't make him pitch any better. If your expectations are based on salary, you know little about Free Agency.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    I caught the last 2 innings .... so drama was over.  Too bad Wake gave up that one shot too many, but that was water under the bridge.

    Congrats to the old boy.  He keeps getting it done, esp. whn we need it.

    I'll be posting far less than for  while.  My power cord went out on my laptop .... NOW THAT IS A REAL REASON TO WHINE.....
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]I caught the last 2 innings .... so drama was over.  Too bad Wake gave up that one shot too many, but that was water under the bridge. Congrats to the old boy.  He keeps getting it done, esp. whn we need it. I'll be posting far less than for  while.  My power cord went out on my laptop .... NOW THAT IS A REAL REASON TO WHINE.....
    Posted by SinceYaz[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps this will help:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuyNUnTIso&feature=related
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from promise4you. Show promise4you's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]I caught the last 2 innings .... so drama was over.  Too bad Wake gave up that one shot too many, but that was water under the bridge. Congrats to the old boy.  He keeps getting it done, esp. whn we need it. I'll be posting far less than for  while.  My power cord went out on my laptop .... NOW THAT IS A REAL REASON TO WHINE.....
    Posted by SinceYaz[/QUOTE]

    My power cord does not always work as well at my age either!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : Perhaps this will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuyNUnTIso&feature=related
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Classic
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : How about backing up UR Lackey/bust statement? Name the FA pitchers in his salary bracket that have out-produced him? You want to use ERA/WHIP? Fine. Lackey was signed based on 102-71 3.88 ERA 1.331 WHIP That was pitching in CA. Now he pitches half his games in a hitter's venue, againstmuch better, so simply adjust the numbers. Better yet, look at the game logs. He kept his team in over 70% over his starts. He won 14 and could have easily been 17-18 last year with a deeper pen and more consistent run support, which fluctuated. That's why I am going by wins. Because Fenway is a trade off: better RS but more RA. He's still winning the same pct. of games. I'll ask you again: What did you expect from a guy who has averaged 14 wins a season for 10+ seasons? Please don't go back to the money. All the money in the world won't make him pitch any better. If your expectations are based on salary, you know little about Free Agency.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I expected a guy that could keep his ERA and in the 3's and a guy that would not challenge for dead last in the league in WHIP.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Syd. Show Syd's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    Congrats to Wake on getting his 2000 strikeout. We the wake homers, in his backyard in central Florida are proud of him and looks forward to win #200. Any player that tells a manager to leave him in a playoff game, to save the rest of the bullpen, has a place on my homer list. Red Sox nation, Palm Bay & Melboure, Florida, will always be there for Tim Wakefield.

    Go Sox!!
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : My power cord does not always work as well at my age either!
    Posted by promise4you[/QUOTE]

    LOL
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]But the landmark 200th win in a Boston uniform will be made possible by a guy who didn't prioritize money in the age of the mercenary. Wakefield tries to get every penny a foolish GM will give him. He said he woud consider Tampa if the didn't get in the rotation role. I hope he does. The only reason Wastefield has made only 50 plus million in his ugly career is because no one would pay more than that.
    Posted by billbyboy[/QUOTE]

    This is a brick.    He has an excuse for having no brain.

    This is bbb.  The excuse is he has no brain.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : I expected a guy that could keep his ERA and in the 3's and a guy that would not challenge for dead last in the league in WHIP.
    Posted by SoxPatsCelts1988[/QUOTE]

    Wake has never been close to last in WHIP; in fact, his WHIP is usually in the upper half of league starters and Sox starters as well.

    This year Wake is 4th on the Sox in starter WHIP at 1.399. He's ahead of Lackey (1.538), Aceves (1.571), and way ahead of Miller (1.742) and Weiland (1.900).
    Wake has not had a WHIP over 1.45o since 1999.
    Wake has not been over 1.360 since 2003 when it was 1.381.
    Wake was 6th in the AL in WHIP in 2008.
    Wake was 3rd in the AL in WHIP in 2002.
    Wake was 5th in the AL in WHIP in 1993.
    Wake is 44th in alltime active WHIP at 1.350.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    If Babe invented the ERA statistic, would it be earned runs per nine innings or would it be earned runs per start? It is often difficult to have him understand simple concepts.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : Wake has never been close to last in WHIP; in fact, his WHIP is usually in the upper half of league starters and Sox starters as well. This year Wake is 4th on the Sox in starter WHIP at 1.399. He's ahead of Lackey (1.538), Aceves (1.571), and way ahead of Miller (1.742) and Weiland (1.900). Wake has not had a WHIP over 1.45o since 1999. Wake has not been over 1.360 since 2003 when it was 1.381. Wake was 6th in the AL in WHIP in 2008. Wake was 3rd in the AL in WHIP in 2002. Wake was 5th in the AL in WHIP in 1993. Wake is 44th in alltime active WHIP at 1.350.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I was referring to Lackey.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Next up - # 200

    In Response to Re: Next up - # 200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Next up - # 200 : I expected a guy that could keep his ERA and in the 3's and a guy that would not challenge for dead last in the league in WHIP.
    Posted by SoxPatsCelts1988[/QUOTE]

    Why would you expect him to keep in ERA in the "3's"?
    It was 3.88 after almost decade in the A.L. West.
    He now faces tougher line-ups in a hitter's venue.
    He is what he is. You are the one who needs to adjust your expectations.
    He is what he's always been.
     

Share