Thank you Tim Wakefield!!

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

    Re: Thank you Tim Wakefield!!

    In response to Hingham Hammer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Alibiike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seabeachfred's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hingham Hammer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Alibiike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only 111 pitchers in history have won 200 or more games. Wake is one of them!

    Trotter's hatred for Wakefield speaks volumes to his character.

    [/QUOTE]How many pitchers in history have lost as many games as Wakefield?


                  Wakefield was your average 500 pitcher with an era around 4.50

                  His rookie baseball card is worth 10 cents.

    [/QUOTE]


    I never could figure out why all this genuflecting at Wakefield's spikes.  The guy was an average pitcher who was always a advertisement for a track meet whenever a runner got on base on him.  I know in 1995 he had a banner first year for the Red Sox but over the years the league caught up to him and by his last three or four he was a human pinata with only occasionally givng the team a solid performance.  He was always susceptible to the "nuclear inning" when major damage was done.  Never a run or two but five or six when he had them, and he had them far too many times his last few with the Red Sox.  In the 2004 WS he was a total washout in game one and on the sidelines in 2007---and we never missed him a twit.  He was a poster child for staying around too long

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You guys are clueless. Let's compare him to a HOF pitcher;

                 Wins  Losses  WPCT  ERA    WHIP  H/9  K/9

    Wake     200    180     .526   4.41   1.35    8.8   6.00

    HOFer    197    171     .535   3.50   1.16    8.4   6.60 

    Also the difference between runs and earned runs for Wake was 209, compared to 104 for the HOF guy. And that was in 50 IPs less for Wake. I submit that Wake would have had many more wins had it not been for poor defense and PBs.

    Not a whole lot of difference between the two pitchers.

     

    [/QUOTE]

             Lets talk about clueless. For starters the nearly 1 run difference in era is hugh.

             Since when does any pitcher with a 500 record belong in the HOF?

             Don't ever remember any other team looking to sign him which allowed the Sox to retain his services year in and year out for pocket change.

             Lets blame the defense behind Tim for all those balls that weren't caught and totally ignore the fact that he was pitching for one of the most talented run producing teams in all of baseball.

             It's clear your knowledge of baseball is "pink hat" variety.

             

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, nearly a full run in ERA is large, had it been closer to Eckersly's, would you say his stats were HOF quality? 

    I never said Wake was a HOF pitcher, but I wanted to show stone of the stats, in particular, WPCT

    Wakefield wasn't great, but he was certainly good, good enough to win 200 games. And that, is no easy task!

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Thank you Tim Wakefield!!

    wake and eck are not similar in any way...this is why relying heavily on stats is folly....Wake lasted a long time because he didnt have to throw hard....thats not a secret and knuckleballers before him did the same....

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

    Re: Thank you Tim Wakefield!!

    Wakefield was a good pitcher for the Red Sox.   Like all knucklers he had some bad days and i would put the blame on the managers for not pulling him when they saw that.  He was either on or he wasn't.  He won a lot of big games for the Sox and bailed out the bullpen when needed.  I am glad we had him.  People  complain about him all they want but it doesn't change my opionion.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     

Share