Sox Rotation and Wakefield

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

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    Wholly molly harnazz your "pitching venue" bologna rivals your CERA bologna. What does it take for you to just assess a MLB player based on results of their performance?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    To moon: you realize that if Wake goes 7 next game and allows only 1 run you will be telling us "I told u so."  

    It is way past that,

    In Cleveland Jiminez got blasted his 1st start and fans were all over him, then he pitched 1 good game and the news was all about "hey this is why we got this guy, this is is how awesome he is,".... then he has gotten his azz handed to him ever since....

    Its over for Wake. Even if he has a 0.00 era over his next 3 games he WILL BE LEFT OFF THE PLAY-OFF ROSTER.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield : You mean the same fans, you included, that called for his release before one of his best seasons ever (2008)? The same ones who called for his release before his allstar season of 2009? The same ones who called for his release before this season? The same ones who look at his overall season numbers and think he's the worst starter on the team. The same clowns who judge by one game. The one clown that repeats over and over that player will revert to their career norms, then neglects to face the facts of Miller's career numbers (certainly a large enough sample now at 64 career starts). The one clown who talks strength of opponenent then neglects to see that until 2 days ago, Miller had never faced a top 12 MLB offense, and still had worse numbers than Wake in every category, excpet a very very slight lead in ERA (4.99 to 4.97). You pouncing clowns are the real joke.
    Posted by moonslav59



    moon - You can defend him all you can by statistically, etc, but the bottom line is he's not helping the team. And as I pointed out to you yesterday, look at the HR/IP. Tim Wakefield is at 1.5 HR/9 IP. Miller is at a lot less.  It's hard to work out of a jam when you give up a HR.

    The bottom line is that his quest for 200 needs to be put on the back burner. Miller should be in the rotation.

    And lastly, your comment about Miller not facing a Top 12 offense until 2 days ago...well, how did he do against that offense and how did Wakefield do against the A's one of the worst in the league?


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

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    To moon: you realize that if Wake goes 7 next game and allows only 1 run you will be telling us "I told u so."  

    Wrong! I never use 1 game sample sizes to bash or defend anyone. NEVER!

    It is way past that,

    You guys were the ones who thought we should limit our starter depth strength after 2008, 2009, and 2010. You guys have been wrong all along, and after one bad start, you pounce and act like you were right all along.

    Its over for Wake. Even if he has a 0.00 era over his next 3 games he WILL BE LEFT OFF THE PLAY-OFF ROSTER

    It's not about the playoff roster. It's about a long 162 game season filled with injuries and up and down performances and the need for depth and understanding context.

    It's about posters quoting stats to say Wake should be gone, but not realizing he still has better overall 2011 numbers than Lackey and Miller. Even after last night, counting Aceves as an option, Wake has the...
    5th best healthy starter ERA (5.00 ahead of Aceves 5.14 and Lackey 5.98)
    4th best healthy starter WHIP (1.332 and way ahead of Lackey (1.546, Aceves 1.571, and Miller at 1.654)
    5th best K/BB (2.00 and almost double Miller's number)
    5th best OPS against (.780 and ahead of Miller .793 and Lackey .843) 

    I'm not saying these numbers prove he is now a better option than Miller, but I'm tired of people saying his "numbers" show he should be gone. If that is true, then we should cut Lackey and Miller as well, and then where would we be? What if Bedard or someone else gets hurt? Do you guys really think Weiland has a better chance at pitching well than Wake?

    Besides the fact that Wake has started more games and pitched more innings than any other Sox starter since joining the rotation on May 22nd:

    11-8 in his starts (6-4 in his last 10).
    has let up 4 or less ERs in 14 of 19 starts.

    Lackey:
    Team is 12-10 in his starts (7-5 in his last 12)
    has let up 4 or less ERs in 15 of 22 starts.

    Miller:
    Team is 9-1 in his starts.
    has let up 4 or less ERS in 8 of 10 starts, but has faced only 1 top 12 offensive team out of 10 starts.

    Your best buddy, silly clown softy, likes o use 2010-2011 stats to emphasize how bad Wake is, well look and compare yourself:

    ERA:
    Lackey 4.99
    Wake    5.42
    Miller    5.87

    WHIP:
    Wake    1.39
    Lackey 1.47
    Miller    1.92

    Guess what? Miller's 1.92 WHIP from 2010 to 2011 is the very worst of any MLB with over 70 IP! (that includes all 207 starters with over 70 IP).

    Now, softy wants to use "last start" or last 2 starts to measure who is doing better, but he wasn't using that criteria 3 games ago. This short sample judging is getting tiresome.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mdlet. Show mdlet's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    wakefield is killing us , putting us behind the 8 ball early. the race is to tight to let this continue just to get him to 200. it is demoralizing to see his games slip away so early. swap wakefield for acieves or give weiland or doubront a chance
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    It sounds as though Wakefield won't be in the rotation much longer, if at all.
    Francona said so indirectly himself.

    Let him come into a 10-0 game with the team ahead and let one of the starters let him come in after throwing 4 2/3. That seems to be the only way to get him #200.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    moon - You can defend him all you can by statistically, etc, but the bottom line is he's not helping the team. And as I pointed out to you yesterday, look at the HR/IP. Tim Wakefield is at 1.5 HR/9 IP. Miller is at a lot less.  It's hard to work out of a jam when you give up a HR.

    Are you seriously saying that HR/9 is the most important stat in making decisions?

    I'm tired of people not liking a player, looking at his stats, and choosing the worst stat and then pretending it is the most important one.

    I'm not saying Wake deserves to start over Wake now, but only that his 2011 numbers are better than Lackey, and all but HR/9 and ERA are better than Miller.


    The bottom line is that his quest for 200 needs to be put on the back burner. Miller should be in the rotation.

    The "quest" should never have been a priority. Wahe had deserved to start until recently. Guys like softy have been calling for Wake to be taken out of the roation everyday. After 16 starts, the team was 11-5 in his starts. He was wrong for 16 games, and now after a few bad starts, suddenly he was right all along?

    And lastly, your comment about Miller not facing a Top 12 offense until 2 days ago...well, how did he do against that offense and how did Wakefield do against the A's one of the worst in the league?

    Again, you are judging on one start? Do you really think every pitcher should be yanked from the rotation after a bad start vs a poor offensive team?

    I love the way Miller looked vs Texas. He pitched a great game. My point about bringing up his strength of opponents was to emphasize that when you compare Miller's 2011 numbers to Wake's 2011 numbers a context is needed. Wake faced much harder offensive opponents over this season than Miller. To me, that matters. To you, all that matters is the last start.

    Don't become like softy and follow his bashging trail.

    First (2008), he said Wake's WHIP was too high. He actually used to value WHIP more than ERA, until he realized it severely hurt his "Wake stinks" argument. Now, he never uses WHIP to bash or judge.

    Later, he said Wake walks way too many batters. When confronted with the fact that he has walked less batters per 9 IP (2.3) than any other Sox starter from 2010-2011. (Softy's Wake bashing timeframe of choice) Now, he never uses BB/9 to bash or judge. 

    Then, he went after the fact that Wake allowed runners to steal bases too easily (this fater saying SBs are over-rated in the Jake debate). Fact is, Wake has the lowest SB% against than any other Sox starter this year. Now, he never uses SB% to bash or judge.

    Afterwards, he said Wake has gotten worse as he aged. When confronted with the fact that Wake's worst years were from ages 29-33 (the normal prime years). Crickets. He got better afterwards, not worse. When confronted with the fact that his best 50 start stretch of his career came after age 41, YES, AFTER AGE 41, softy clings to one stat: ERA since Wake's back surgery. (Remember, softy wanted Wake to retire or be DFA'd before that 50 start strecth of very good pitching (2008 to mid 2009. 

    Following this botched approach, softy challeneged me to find other MLB starters with 5.00+ ERA that are still around. His argument being that teams cut all starters with ERAs over 5 for 2 years combined. I found and posted the list of 33 such starters. (about one per team) He never even responded to my response to his challenge. I then went further, and showed how almost every team that has gone to the World Series since 2004, has had one or more of their top 5 starters (by games started) on their roster. Again, crickets...

    One argument he has stuck with right from day one (the day after the 2007 season that Wake went 17-12), is that Wake has prevented great young prospects from getting a chance to prove themselves. Well, like I said, from 2008-mid 2009, Wake (as our 5th starter) pitched like a 2/3 starter and held nobody back. If anybody did, it was Penny, Smoltz, Colon, Byrd, Dice-K among others. After mid -2009, I asked "who did he hold back?" Crickets. This spring, softy answered: "Doubront" when he was on the DL. He also said, "Miller" at the time he had almost as many BBs as IP in AAA. After Theo called up Weiland, he said "Weiland". Weiland only started 2 games: one good: one very bad. Again, Wake has not been the 5th or worse than 5th starter this year, Lackey, Miller, Aceves, and Weiland have been. He really thinks the Sox have this magical great prospect being held back. If that's true, why did we go get Bedard?

    It's come down to this for data:

    Potato Salad.
    Flopping Old Man.
    Good Ole Boy.
    ERA over 5.00 since mid 2009.

    Bashing, hating, lying, distorting, gloating his revisionist positions, and utter idiocy.

    Silly clown.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    moon - You can defend him all you can by statistically, etc, but the bottom line is he's not helping the team. And as I pointed out to you yesterday, look at the HR/IP. Tim Wakefield is at 1.5 HR/9 IP. Miller is at a lot less.  It's hard to work out of a jam when you give up a HR. Are you seriously saying that HR/9 is the most important stat in making decisions? I'm tired of people not liking a player, looking at his stats, and choosing the worst stat and then pretending it is the most important one. I'm not saying Wake deserves to start over Wake now, but only that his 2011 numbers are better than Lackey, and all but HR/9 and ERA are better than Miller. The bottom line is that his quest for 200 needs to be put on the back burner. Miller should be in the rotation. The "quest" should never have been a priority. Wahe had deserved to start until recently. Guys like softy have been calling for Wake to be taken out of the roation everyday. After 16 starts, the team was 11-5 in his starts. He was wrong for 16 games, and now after a few bad starts, suddenly he was right all along? And lastly, your comment about Miller not facing a Top 12 offense until 2 days ago...well, how did he do against that offense and how did Wakefield do against the A's one of the worst in the league? Again, you are judging on one start? Do you really think every pitcher should be yanked from the rotation after a bad start vs a poor offensive team? I love the way Miller looked vs Texas. He pitched a great game. My point about bringing up his strength of opponents was to emphasize that when you compare Miller's 2011 numbers to Wake's 2011 numbers a context is needed. Wake faced much harder offensive opponents over this season than Miller. To me, that matters. To you, all that matters is the last start.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Moon please stop - forget your calvacade of stats for just once - answer this question honestly

    Which starter should replace Clay for the remainder of the season given this tight race with the Yanks...Is it Wake or Miller???? Who should be pitching every fifth day? I could care less about WHIP/Era, W-L, or any other stat that can/will be manipulated...who is your guy?

    Mine is Miller....
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    Wholly molly harnazz your "pitching venue" bologna rivals your CERA bologna. What does it take for you to just assess a MLB player based on results of their performance?
    Posted by BurritoT



    What was Jim Rice's performance away from Fenway park?
    How about Rico's, oh great imbecile historian.

    "A poor catcher can hurt a (pitching) staff".

    Your own words. That's what CERA is all about, dumbazz.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    To moon: you realize that if Wake goes 7 next game and allows only 1 run you will be telling us "I told u so."   Wrong! I never use 1 game sample sizes to bash or defend anyone. NEVER! It is way past that, You guys were the ones who thought we should limit our starter depth strength after 2008, 2009, and 2010. You guys have been wrong all along, and after one bad start, you pounce and act like you were right all along. Its over for Wake. Even if he has a 0.00 era over his next 3 games he WILL BE LEFT OFF THE PLAY-OFF ROSTER It's not about the playoff roster. It's about a long 162 game season filled with injuries and up and down performances and the need for depth and understanding context. It's about posters quoting stats to say Wake should be gone, but not realizing he still has better overall 2011 numbers than Lackey and Miller. Even after last night, counting Aceves as an option, Wake has the... 5th best healthy starter ERA (5.00 ahead of Aceves 5.14 and Lackey 5.98) 4th best healthy starter WHIP (1.332 and way ahead of Lackey (1.546, Aceves 1.571, and Miller at 1.654) 5th best K/BB (2.00 and almost double Miller's number) 5th best OPS against (.780 and ahead of Miller .793 and Lackey .843)  I'm not saying these numbers prove he is now a better option than Miller, but I'm tired of people saying his "numbers" show he should be gone. If that is true, then we should cut Lackey and Miller as well, and then where would we be? What if Bedard or someone else gets hurt? Do you guys really think Weiland has a better chance at pitching well than Wake? Besides the fact that Wake has started more games and pitched more innings than any other Sox starter since joining the rotation on May 22nd: 11-8 in his starts (6-4 in his last 10). has let up 4 or less ERs in 14 of 19 starts. Lackey: Team is 12-10 in his starts (7-5 in his last 12)has let up 4 or less ERs in 15 of 22 starts. Miller: Team is 9-1 in his starts. has let up 4 or less ERS in 8 of 10 starts, but has faced only 1 top 12 offensive team out of 10 starts. Your best buddy, silly clown softy, likes o use 2010-2011 stats to emphasize how bad Wake is, well look and compare yourself: ERA: Lackey 4.99 Wake    5.42 Miller    5.87 WHIP: Wake    1.39 Lackey 1.47 Miller    1.92 Guess what? Miller's 1.92 WHIP from 2010 to 2011 is the very worst of any MLB with over 70 IP! (that includes all 207 starters with over 70 IP). Now, softy wants to use "last start" or last 2 starts to measure who is doing better, but he wasn't using that criteria 3 games ago. This short sample judging is getting tiresome.
    Posted by moonslav59


    That's an example of Cherry-picking. Why go back 12 starts with Lackey?
    Did you go back 12 starts with Wake?
    Why not when Lackey  came off the DL? Team is 10-5 in his starts since then. Isn't that more pertinent?
    Why not say his last 9 starts? Team is 7-2.

    Truth can't be revealed when taking a position and using selective data to fit it.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WilcyMoore. Show WilcyMoore's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    The Tim Wakefield conundrum continues ad nauseum and while I normally hold players accountable for what they do between the lines, I cannot bring myself to be overly critical of the veteran knuckleballer.   I do not blame the manager for playing him since he is on the roster at the whim of the GM and owners.  They could release him (DFA) whenever they wish.  His presence, however, this year and over the past 2 or 3 years speaks volumes about the ineptitude of the current Sox GM with respect to identifying and developing starting major league pitching during the 8 years he has had to do so. 

    The "fact" that only Clay Buchholz who is obviously on the team and Justin Masterson who is not have been the "only" successful starting pitchers to come out the Sox farm system since the 2003 draft speaks volumes about the GM's failures in that critical area as well as the obvious very important catcher and shortstop positions.  He inherited Jon Lester from his predecessor, Mike Port.  Papelbon and Bard were both drafted to be starting pitchers.  The "fact" that they have ended up as strong relievers does not go unnoticed, but that was not the plan.  Craig Hansen was drafted to be a reliever, not those guys.  Matsusaka was a seasoned professional and while he's dabbled in the foreign market for young pitching, there has been no one (Tazawa) who has done much of anything.   Tim Wakefield continues to be a so-called inexpensive insurance policy against his GM's mistakes and unforeseen injuries, but reality is that if Epstein had done a better job with respect to pitching that this unique pitcher would have retired several years ago and not be subject to the avalanche of criticism which he is enduring today.   It's simply not his fault that he is in the position he is and it's a shame that his often productive and occasionally memorable career is likely to end badly.  Guys like Mike Mussina and Andy Pettite left with fans wanting to see them come back.  Tim Wakefield will leave with acrimony, rancor and a "good riddance" attitude from a number of fans.  It's really not the way it should have and could have been, but at the end of the day it is what it is. 

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

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield : What was Jim Rice's performance away from Fenway park? How about Rico's, oh great imbecile historian . " A poor catcher can hurt a ( pitching ) staff ". Your own words. That's what CERA is all about, dumbazz.
    Posted by harness



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

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    No HOF for Rice without Fenway. No way.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WilcyMoore. Show WilcyMoore's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    Jim Ed Rice is a poster child for "marginal Hall of Famer."  Were it not for all of the publicity concerning baseball's "dirty little secret," he would never have been enshrined in Cooperstown.  He was a very good baseball player during the era in which he played, but compared to his HOF peers in the outfield he simply does not come close to greatness which more often than not has been the criteria.  Guys like Frankie Frisch who got a group of teammates in who do not belong and Ted Williams lobbied long and hard for Phil Rizzuto who also does not belong.  When guys like Rice are inducted, it opens the door for objective arguments for other very good players who have not been strong considerations.  Fenway Park has produced more "average" to "above average" batting champions than any in the history of the game and when one looks at their home and away splits, it's obvious that the ballpark was instumental in their achieving the award.  Wade Boggs was a phenomenal career .369 hitter at Fenway.  Look at his numbers in Oakland and Chicago (Comiskey Park) among others to see what a massive difference the ballpark made.  He was an excellent hitter, but he would not have had 3,000 hits had he played anywhere other than Fenway Park. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    The same clowns who judge by one game.

    2 plus years of an ERA over 5 is not a one game sample!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Do you guys really think Weiland has a better chance at pitching well than Wake?

    According to you and fellow board bully Harnut, Miller was not good and should still be mopping up and lefty one batter in the pen.

    Weiland has a better chance of pitching better than Wakefield over a bigger sample, no doubt about it. His last start was quite decent, and he only had 2 starts with one being part of the O's bean ball feud. The point is that invest innings in Miller, Weiland and other farm youth and dividends will come from one or more of them. Wakefield has had his day and should have retired at the end of 2009. You are lying in claiming I wanted him gone before then. But I want him gone now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Bring him in in his booster seat in the first early blowout game and let him pitch the 5th inning. Then let him tip his cap off his bald head and waddle off into retirement. Tell him the team will hold a retirement day for him in September, and they can get his XXXXL pant uniform laundered and memorialize his 200 wins. Do not allow him to booster seat to Cy Young, as that would be a travesty! If Wakefield refuses to retire after booster seated 200th win, release him!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    WilcyMoore all the more reason to build a new stadium then. The wall is cool to look at but I could care less if they were able to demolish it and push the fences back into Mamakin's.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    The same clowns who judge by one game.

    2 plus years of an ERA over 5 is not a one game sample!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Then use Miller's 2 plus year ERA clown !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Do you guys really think Weiland has a better chance at pitching well than Wake?

    According to you and fellow board bully Harnut, Miller was not good and should still be mopping up and lefty one batter in the pen.

    According to you, Wake should have retired before 2008's masterful season, again before his allstar 2009 season, and before 2010 and 2011. I was not against Miller starting in Texas. 

    I was against Miller starting in April when you wanted him here. The same April where Miller was being killed in AAA.

    I was against Miller taking Wake's slot, but not that of our injured starters or of Weiland or even Lackey. As of now, it is still a close call to me. I have said Wake needs a break, and now is OK with me.

    Weiland has a better chance of pitching better than Wakefield over a bigger sample, no doubt about it. His last start was quite decent, and he only had 2 starts with one being part of the O's bean ball feud.

    One game sample sizes equals "no doubt about it"? Silly clown!

    The point is that invest innings in Miller, Weiland and other farm youth and dividends will come from one or more of them. Wakefield has had his day and should have retired at the end of 2009. You are lying in claiming I wanted him gone before then. But I want him gone now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You said it after 2007. Stop your blatant lies. You said it again after 2008. You keep saying "other farm youth". My God! If we had anybody capable of helping, they;d have got a shot this year. There's nobody ready. Even Weiland was rushed. Miller may not have even gotten a chance if his contract diodn't have the out clause. Miller has been handed a golden path. He has faced a top 12 offense only once. A point you loved to make about Wake, but in Wake's case, he actually faced better opps than you gave him credit for (another of your misinformation campaigns).

    Stop comparing Wake to an ace. He's a 6th starter who did a very good job in the role until his last 2 starts.

    Please look at Wake's 17 starts since becoming a regular on May 22nd. He has the most GS and IP of any Sox starter since then. (BTW, our pen owes a lot to Wake.)

    Red: OK to very good
    Black: Not bad
    Blue: Bad to horrible

    IP  ER  H+BB
    6.2  1   4
    7.0  2   7
    6.0  4   8
    5.1  5   8
    7.0  1   9
    8.0  3   4
    6.0  5 
    11
    5.1  5  11
    7.0  3  10
    4.2  3  11
    6.1  7  11
    7.0  3    5
    6.2  3    7
    7.0  3    8
    8.0  4
      11
    5.1  4   
    9
    4.0  4  10



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

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    I am willing to beleive that if there was no Wild Card or if there was a couple of other teams playing .600 ball that Wakefield would lose his spot in the rotation. The Red Sox already know they will amke the play-offs and they can continue to roll Wake out there and only let the rest of the starters pitch 5 or 6 innings. There is no urgency.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    WilcyMoore all the more reason to build a new stadium then. The wall is cool to look at but I could care less if they were able to demolish it and push the fences back into Mamakin's.
    Posted by BurritoT


    Ball clubs do tend to build their teams around home venue. Why the hell do you think Boston had all those power, station-to-station RH hitters? Instead of a bunch of rabbits like the ST. Louis Cards had in the mid-80's.

    Think!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    Jim Ed Rice is a poster child for "marginal Hall of Famer."  Were it not for all of the publicity concerning baseball's "dirty little secret," he would never have been enshrined in Cooperstown.  He was a very good baseball player during the era in which he played, but compared to his HOF peers in the outfield he simply does not come close to greatness which more often than not has been the criteria.  Guys like Frankie Frisch who got a group of teammates in who do not belong and Ted Williams lobbied long and hard for Phil Rizzuto who also does not belong.  When guys like Rice are inducted, it opens the door for objective arguments for other very good players who have not been strong considerations.  Fenway Park has produced more "average" to "above average" batting champions than any in the history of the game and when one looks at their home and away splits, it's obvious that the ballpark was instumental in their achieving the award.  Wade Boggs was a phenomenal career .369 hitter at Fenway.  Look at his numbers in Oakland and Chicago (Comiskey Park) among others to see what a massive difference the ballpark made.  He was an excellent hitter, but he would not have had 3,000 hits had he played anywhere other than Fenway Park. 
    Posted by WilcyMoore


    Nice post. Homers tend to wear blinders.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    harness I know that, who does not know that? I made threads in the past stating that the Wall itself, and the teams built to win here were one of the biggest reasons they were not winners. Slow feet, and station to station - easily beat by more rounded teams.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield:
    Wholly molly harnazz your "pitching venue"

    bologna
    rivals your CERA bologna. What does it take for you to just assess a MLB player based on results of their performance?
    Posted by BurritoT


    Then why on earth did you state this? If the park affects hitters, then it has to affect pitchers. Right?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

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

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    No way!  You guys agree on something?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Sox Rotation and Wakefield

    There's one huge difference between Burrito and Softone...Burrito just showed something Softone isn't capable of. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share