Poor Tim Wakefield

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

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    And nobody has been able to replace Wakefield. 200 wins will be sweet...end of story.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    Management could replace Wastefield, but for the PR 200 wins nonsense. Wastefield has been a loser like clockwork.

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

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    MGMT will be busy replacing Dice's mess.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    harness, you seem to go out of your way to defend CC, Lackey, and others, but clearly it is always open season on Dice-K and Young. 

    What gives? 

    (I'll be back in the morn to respond.)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield : You forgot to think before you post: 1) Wake has a lot of HBP?   Lackey  18 (1 every 8 IP)   Lester    16 (1 every 11 IP)   Bedard   2  (1 every 16 IP)   Miller      3  (1 every 19 IP   Beckett 8  (1 every 22 IP)    Wake     6  (1 every 23 IP)   Buch      2  (1 every 41 IP) 2) "Automatic SBs" vs Wake?   Aceves  100% (7 SB 0 CS)   Dice-K   100%  (6/0)   Lackey     90% (27/3)   Miller         86% (6/1)   Beckett    85% (22/4)     League avg 72%   Buch         67% (6/3)    Lester       56% (14/11)   Wake         50% (8/8)   3)  Throws in the OF?   Wake has no errors this season. Lackey has 3, Beckett and Miller 2, and 4 other guys 1. 4) Guys get on because of PBs on Ks?     Salty has 19 PBs, VMart had 4 , and somehow this is Wake's fault. His ball has so much break on it, that the hitter swings and misses, but it's Wake fault the catcher drops it? 5) Wake is falling off the mound?   Try watching the games. Wake is fielding much better this year than last, and is still considered a good fielding pitcher. Defensive Runs Saved Above Average:   1) Wake 4   2) Buch  2   3) Lest   1   4) Bed    0   5) Mill    -1   7) Beck -3   8) Lack -6 RF/9   1) Buch 3.16   2) Lack  1.78   3) Wake 1.55   4) Beck  1.45   5) Mill     1.44   6) Lest  1.26   7) Bed  0.84    You guys need to come up with something else. You are like softy, who was systematically schooled to the point where he had to go out and buy a balsa wood goalpost to save his back bone. Why not try these?  WHIP:   1) Beck  0.985   2) Lest  1.186   3) Buch 1.294   4) Wake 1.325   5) Bed    1.375   6) Lack  1.571   7) Mill    1.811 How about IP/GS?   1) Beckett  6.4   2) Lester    6.4   3) Wake     6.1   4) Buch      5.9   5) Leckey  5.9   6) Bed        5.3   7) Miller     4.8 How about QS%   1) Beck  70%   2) Lest   67%   3) Buch  43%   4) Wake 40%   5) Lack   33%   6) Bed    33%   7) Mill     27% How about WPA+   1) Beckett  12.9   2) Lester     12.7   3) Lack        10.5   4) Wake        8.4 Wake is not having a great year, but the areas you are citing are not his weaknesses.   
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    You accuse others of not thinking before they post. Did someone annoint you Grand Pooh Bah of this site? My remarks had nothing to do with how Wakefield pitched last year or in the past for that matter. Wakefield's last outing on tuesday night was full of the issues that I raised. Bottom of the 1st Escobar leads off and walks. He's forced at 2nd by Thames. Thames goes to 2nd on a wild pitch. Bautista walks on 4 pitches. Both advance on a passed ball. Thames scores on a sac fly. Bottom of 3rd Thames hit by pitch. He moves to 2nd on Wake's 2nd wild pitch. Bautista doubles and Thames scores. Later on a double steal Salty throws the ball into center field and a run scores. You can insult other posters, who disagree with you, and bury folks with a blizzard of facts, but when you do that maybe the validity of your arguments is dimished a bit and some folks might sadly think of you as an obnoxious blowhard. Just a thought.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    yes, but he's an affable blowhard, and he's only obnoxious to idiots who don't comprehend his posts. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    Moonslow is one of two board bullies.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    moon, how funny, on the harness attacks on Curt and Dice. I know he accuses me of not cutting Lackey and CC slack, then turns right around and throws Curt Young and Dice-K under a tour bus. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    soft, moon calls out harness a lot. the only bully around here is...well, who cares.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    Moonslow attempts to curry favor, but bullies disagreement.

    Ditto for harnut.

    They post more thany anyone else, and are obviously NYT shill plants.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    you think they are NY Times shills, really? I must be a LA Times shill.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    You accuse others of not thinking before they post. Did someone annoint you Grand Pooh Bah of this site? 

    Not that I know of.

    My remarks had nothing to do with how Wakefield pitched last year or in the past for that matter. 

    Well, you certainly were not talking about this year. Your case makes even less sense now.

    Wakefield's last outing on tuesday night was full of the issues that I raised. Bottom of the 1st Escobar leads off and walks. He's forced at 2nd by Thames. Thames goes to 2nd on a wild pitch. Bautista walks on 4 pitches. Both advance on a passed ball. Thames scores on a sac fly. Bottom of 3rd Thames hit by pitch. He moves to 2nd on Wake's 2nd wild pitch. Bautista doubles and Thames scores. Later on a double steal Salty throws the ball into center field and a run scores. 

    Ohhhh, another one game wonder junky. Yeah, Wake has done better than almost every other starter in the areas you mentioned, except PB/WP all season long, but because of his last game, you play Grand pooh Bah and anoint him a bum based on tiny samples. Yeah for you! 

    You can insult other posters, who disagree with you, and bury folks with a blizzard of facts, but when you do that maybe the validity of your arguments is dimished a bit and some folks might sadly think of you as an obnoxious blowhard. 

    Sorry if I offended you, but seriously, nearly every point you made was baseless. I'll try and be more gentle with you next time.

    Just a thought.

    And actually a good one at that.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    I get a little out of hand at times. I admit it. The whole Wake narrative keeps going and going as people stretch the truth. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]harness, you seem to go out of your way to defend CC, Lackey, and others, but clearly it is always open season on Dice-K and Young.  What gives?  (I'll be back in the morn to respond.)
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Dice has divided loyalties. He never got on board with proven training/pitching approach. Poor example set/Press poison that affects the team/FO.

    Young has been inept as a coach IMO. And he affects the entire staff.

    What's up with UR Lackey/CC disdain? If the FO over-paid for skills they may have over-estimated, it's on them, not the players in an age of the mercenary.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

     To Moonslav: Since you accuse me of being "another one game wonder junky",  let's go back to the previous Aug 26th start against Oakland where Wakefield lasted 4 innings and gave up 8 runs on 8 hits. During the 4th inning alone he gave up 6runs on 3 hits (2 of them HRs), walked 2, and had a batter reach on a passed ball after a strike out. Your comment that you'll "try to be more gentle with me next time" reeks of a supercilious arrogance that most often is associated with pompous know-it-alls! Have a nice day!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield : Dice has divided loyalties. He never got on board with proven training/pitching approach. Poor example set/Press poison that affects the team/FO. Young has been inept as a coach IMO. And he affects the entire staff. What's up with UR Lackey/CC disdain? If the FO over-paid for skills they may have over-estimated, it's on them, not the players in an age of the mercenary.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Dice-K is not an American citizen. His loyalties should be to his family, his country, and his God. The Sox should be no higher than 4th on that list. He had some disagreements over the work-out routine. I'm not sure if I would call that loyalty anymore than Jacoby seeking another opinion.

    I have explained my "disdain" for Lackey and CC. You may not agree with me, but you should understand my points by now. It's not just about the money and what else we could have done with it, it's about our need for a RH'd OF'er not another lefty with issues vs LHPs. It's about 7 years. With Lackey, nobody expected this drop off. I know you don't see it as a drop off, but to me it is clear.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]Tim Wakefield was sitting in the tugout last night thinking I wish they would score 14 runs for me.So I could win my 200th game and retire.Problem is he would give up 15 runs.Just joking.Good luck Wake tonight,we need the win.
    Posted by xmen[/QUOTE]

    On Wakes worst day he is still better than Lackey.  Give Wake some credit, the guy has played this game a long time and been nothing but a class act to anyone who has ever met him.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE] To Moonslav: Since you accuse me of being "another one game wonder junky",  let's go back to the previous Aug 26th start against Oakland where Wakefield lasted 4 innings and gave up 8 runs on 8 hits. During the 4th inning alone he gave up 6runs on 3 hits (2 of them HRs), walked 2, and had a batter reach on a passed ball after a strike out. Your comment that you'll "try to be more gentle with me next time" reeks of a supercilious arrogance that most often is associated with pompous know-it-alls! Have a nice day!
    Posted by trouts[/QUOTE]

    Giving another example of a single game performance does not convince me of anything. I know many of Wake's runs score as a result of PBs and WPs and HRs. I have posted his game by game logs and despriptions of how his runs have scored. Wake has been shelled in several games. I do not deny this. He's no ace...not even close. He did give us a nice run of solid starts from May 22 to early July. He went deep and rested our pen. The team is like 14-5 after his starts. He's been a good 6/7th starter this year as compared to others in MLB and as compared to other options on this team..as a whole...not by 1 or two chosen games.

    I was sincere about trying to be more gentle. I can see, it only made it worse. Sorry.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield : Giving another example of a single game performance does not convince me of anything. I know many of Wake's runs score as a result of PBs and WPs and HRs. I have posted his game by game logs and despriptions of how his runs have scored. Wake has been shelled in several games. I do not deny this. He's no ace...not even close. He did give us a nice run of solid starts from May 22 to early July. He went deep and rested our pen. The team is like 14-5 after his starts. He's been a good 6/7th starter this year as compared to others in MLB and as compared to other options on this team..as a whole...not by 1 or two chosen games. I was sincere about trying to be more gentle. I can see, it only made it worse. Sorry.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    The bottom line is Wake creates these issues with his knuckle ball.  Whether you blame the catcher or Wake, either way PB's, WP's and and the number of runs he has given up hasn't helped our cause.  Wake's starts would be a bit more acceptable if Lackey had anything to offer but it's like having two or three number 6's in our starting rotation behind Josh, Jon and Clay.

    We need to replace at least two of our starters next season.  Wake should probably be one of them.  At this point in his career a guy like Miller could probably be as affective. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcjcjcjc. Show jcjcjcjc's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    " wake " failed " gateIIIIIIIIII!
    Boston Red Sox team record last 68 wakefailed games... 46 losses.. 22 wins... ERA 5.69... includes 47 starts.. wakefailed has 10 winning decisions in last 47 starts! Why? its a distraction for a team to put a players' personal stats ahead of team goals! its finally catching up to them.. Third Place!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    A lot of college pitchers would be more affective than Wastefield.  

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

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield : Dice-K is not an American citizen. His loyalties should be to his family, his country, and his God. The Sox should be no higher than 4th on that list. He had some disagreements over the work-out routine. I'm not sure if I would call that loyalty anymore than Jacoby seeking another opinion. I have explained my "disdain" for Lackey and CC. You may not agree with me, but you should understand my points by now. It's not just about the money and what else we could have done with it, it's about our need for a RH'd OF'er not another lefty with issues vs LHPs. It's about 7 years. With Lackey, nobody expected this drop off. I know you don't see it as a drop off, but to me it is clear.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Divided loyalties refers to his baseball loyalties since committing to his 6-year contract - as opposed to his Japanese baseball loyalties regarding transitioning himself away from that kind of training/pitching regiment.

    I don't give a damn if he's a citizen of another country. Many are. Oki was committed to Boston approach, and he made an immediate change after he threw pitch one to Buck. He acknowledged the increase level of competition. That's when he deployed the "Oki-Doki". He stayed physically strong (shoulder) well into his 30's.

    As for family, a commitment to one's job involves family commitment. Loyalty to God doesn't change, regardless of venue.

    He never let go of what worked for him in Japan. He fought the team at every turn and turned a blind eye to the increased rigors of pitching in the majors. Oh, he took the money easily enough - far more than he ever made or would have made in Japan.
    But he took it unwilling to change what was necessary. And he even lied about doing the shoulder exercises predicated by the team the winter leading up to the WBC. Then he amped it up from ST mode to country honor without proper preparation. What would you call that?

    As for the amount of years on Lackey/CC: You aren't alone in wanting less tenure. But it was the years or nothing. And without the benifit of hindsight, one can see why the FO bit the bullet given the circumstances.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Poor Tim Wakefield : Divided loyalties refers to his baseball loyalties since committing to his 6-year contract - as opposed to his Japanese baseball loyalties regarding transitioning himself away from that kind of training/pitching regiment. 

    Fair enough. I guess I have heard various accounts of what happened with the training regimes, but there certainly were differences in opinion on what happened and what should have happened.

    I don't give a damn if he's a citizen of another country. Many are. Oki was committed to Boston approach, and he made an immediate change after he threw pitch one to Buck. He acknowledged the increase level of competition. That's when he deployed the "Oki-Doki". He stayed physically strong (shoulder) well into his 30's. As for family, a commitment to one's job involves family commitment. Loyalty to God doesn't change, regardless of venue. He never let go of what worked for him in Japan. 

    I think that is understandable, especially since he had some early success with the Sox. Not saying he was right, but I can see how he felt he was doing what he needed to do to be a success.

    He fought the team at every turn and turned a blind eye to the increased rigors of pitching in the majors. Oh, he took the money easily enough - far more than he ever made or would have made in Japan. But he took it unwilling to change what was necessary. And he even lied about doing the shoulder exercises predicated by the team the winter leading up to the WBC. Then he amped it up from ST mode to country honor without proper preparation. What would you call that? 

    I don't call it lack of "loyalty". I'd call it "stupidity" if everything you say here is true. I know a lot of fans held it against him for playing in the WBC, but I think his loyalties to his country are admirable.

    As for the amount of years on Lackey/CC: You aren't alone in wanting less tenure. But it was the years or nothing. And without the benifit of hindsight, one can see why the FO bit the bullet given the circumstances.

    I understand why they did it. I thought the Lackey deal was a necessary deal when it was made. I have admitted I was wrong. Others are cnanging their tunes. With CC, it's not "hindsight". I was against the signing long before we even signed him. I still think CC will return to his career norm for 2-3 years, but still think the deal was too much and for way too  long. I said it then: I'd rather have not signed CC. I wouldn't have wanted him for $80/4 either, but it would have been much more acceptable.

    I don't bash CC for his poor start. I know he will help this team. I'm not so sure about Lackey going forward.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: Poor Tim Wakefield

    I supported signing CC for 3-4 years at 15-16 mil. I liked the tandem with Jake.
    The 7-year push made me look at what I'd read 4 times. I couldn't believe the terms.

    I didn't like Lackey for 5 years. Three and an option for a 4th, only because he represented pitching depth and at the time we needed to equalize the NY advantage.

    The market dictated the terms. So, the idea now is to cash in on another Aceves.
    Or maybe stay with Miller in the hopes he can "find it".

    It's possible if Dice and Buch had stayed healthy, they may have shut Lackey down after his elbow issue. He reacted to it well in June. But now I have to wonder if this guy isn't in the same situation Scut was in last year.

    This isn't meant to be an excuse, but we just don't know. Nor do we know of the toll of what he's enduring off the field.
     

Share