Wake ERA now at 4.92

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    tomnev, it's certainly worth exploring. There does seem to be a double standard to awarding a victory in games in which a SP doesn't go 5. The problem is that if you look at the idea that scoring or scoring decisions are based on "common sense." Then it's reasonable to expect that a game that is tied, no matter how that game was tied, is the responsibility of the pitcher who has ended the inning in which the game is tied. In other words, even though Aceves surrendered the tying run, he could have also given up the go-ahead run. If he gives up the go-ahead run, he would have been rightfully awarded the loss if the team went on to lose. So he gets the spoils of victory due to the circumstances. If they change the rules a bit, it would be interesting what would be the fairest way to allow for a "pitching victory" for a SP? Don't know if there is any other way than the way it is being done.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    I don't know exactly where Wakefield ranks as a number 5 starter in MLB but I can guarantee it is probably in the top 5.  Meaning 25 other teams would love to have him, 11-5 in his starts?  That has NO meaning?  Sorry it certainly does. the 4.92 ERA par for the course for a number 5.  Wins are much more important particularly the team record.
    Posted by william93063


    I did a team by team AL comparison. Even if you just go by ERA. Wake is right up there with almost every team's #5, some team's #4s and a few team's #3s. Wake is our #6. Why so much hatred has been spewed towards our effective #6 starter is beyond reason.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from william93063. Show william93063's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : I did a team by team AL comparison. Even if you just go by ERA. Wake is right up there with almost every team's #5, some team's #4s and a few team's #3s. Wake is our #6. Why so much hatred has been spewed towards our effective #6 starter is beyond reason.
    Posted by moonslav59



    This notion that every pitcher in a 5 man rotation is going to dominate the opposition is childish and completely unrealistic.  No one appreciates the stud pitching performance more than me but I have enough sense to recognize we are incredibly fortunate to have both Lester and Beckett on this staff.  Wake is not a problem and quite the opposite gives this rotation stability.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from william93063. Show william93063's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : If Bedard pitches well would you rather see Wake or him as our number 5?  I take Bedard, so it all depends on the team and their needs.  When Jason became a FA, no other team thought he was worth Boras's asking price, as a result Jason ended up with half of what we originally offered him. Wake is our number 6, but others still deserve the chance to replace him "like Lavarnway" and Tek.  On other teams I agree wake could be considered the 3 or 4 starter but not necessarily in Boston where Theo continues to develop young talent.  Ever notice?  Some fans here love to see kids like Reddick given chance as long as he doesn't eventually take the place of their favorite player.
    Posted by craze4sox


    I like Bedard's "stuff" but I have a lot of concern about his ability to stay healthy over the long term.  His track record suggests that he will not.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    If Bedard is healthy, he is above Wake in the rotation, even if you adjust his numbers for new park venue.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : I did a team by team AL comparison. Even if you just go by ERA. Wake is right up there with almost every team's #5, some team's #4s and a few team's #3s. Wake is our #6. Why so much hatred has been spewed towards our effective #6 starter is beyond reason.
    Posted by moonslav59


    moon, you're choosing to refer to hatred rather than reality and you know this. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Bedard and Lackey might be above Wake in rotation plans, but I sure have a lot more confidence in Wake than the other 2, and from a health/consistency standpoint, Wake certainly has appeared a better choice....just my opinion.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    moon, did you look at the other wake thread, i actually posed a question to you, just for my personal curiousity. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yukon-Cornelius. Show Yukon-Cornelius's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    Much like the legendary Kent Dorfman, Wakefield is a legacy. He probably even has a pledge pin in his locker somewhere. He is going no where, unless he pukes on Dean Wormer of course.
    Posted by Celtics1986


    "Dorfman, I've given this a lot of thought. From now on, your name is Flounder."
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Let me just say that it would have been fitting if Tim Wakefield had won #200 6-5.

    That is who Wake is many nights throughout his career. Could the RS aspire to have a deeper rotation than one that includes Tim Wakefield?

    Sure. They have at times. If everyone was healthy and near their ceilings, Lester, Beckett, Buch, Lackey and Dice K left Wake as the 6th guy. That was an aggressive and expensive move done with that specific goal in mind.

    But as of today the rotation is Beckett, Lester, Lackey (starting to get back on track but nowhere near his ceiling), Bedard coming off of an injury and Wake. Doubront isn't an option, Miller's historical control issues are still there and Weiland's starts showed he isn't much of an alternative.

    Tim is a pitcher that most nights you are going to have to get 9-12 outs from BP and 5 or more runs to win. It is what it is...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Lately, five, he's only allowed the BP to have to get 6 outs. In fact, in a row, 7, 6, 6, 6....not ripping you fiver, just saying that again this is an example of how Wakefield is oddly perceived. I think he's a lot better than that. All SP need 5 runs a game to win, ask Josh Beckett, who gets 3.44.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    His ERA could be much lower had our pen not allowed some of his inherited runners to score and some of the cheap hits that led to runs been turned into outs. The team is 11-5 in his starts. He has let up 3 or less ERs in 10 of his 16 starts. In 2 of his other starts, he pitched better than his line indicated.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Not to mention Official Scorers ruling hits instead of errors!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    And it's not what it is. It is what you are thinking it is, and that may not be how it is. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Wakes is a 21-out pitcher, that's what he is. The times he got pulled after 6 or during the 6th, Tito did it before Tim was taxed. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Not to mention Official Scorers ruling hits instead of errors!
    Posted by Alibiike


    Jacoby's bad route to a "double" that scored 2 runs. Countless scratch singles, runners advances on a ground ball and sac fly.


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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Drew dropping a fly ball, misjudging it badly and it was called a double...ton of odd scoring decisions that have gone against Wakefield.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from softybabe. Show softybabe's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Wow the old man wakefield went 7 innings and gave up 5 runs 3 earned....thats like him throwing a no-hitter.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    I thought the 3 hits he allowed in Chicago was more him like throwing a no hitter, or the 5 hits he allowed in the other start...is that a problem?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    FWIW as a starter this year Wake's is averaging 6.25 IP. The third time he sees a batter their OPS jumps to .914 and if he sees them a 4th time 1.333.

    The averages suggest that he leaves 11 outs for the BP and is being pulled at the edge of his failure point.

    None of that is awful, or a reason to tar and feather the guy. But it does suggest that he will leave you with 9-12 outs to finish the game and most nights whether it is him or the bullpen, you need 5 runs to win (which most pitchers need).

    The comparison to Beckett's lack of run support this year was a bad parallel Danny and only hurts making a balanced case for Wake.

    Only one team in the AL fails to average 3.44 runs per game (Mariners at 3.29). But only 3 teams in the AL average over 5 runs per game (TX, NYY, RS).
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Facts are facts. Last 4 starts, average outs left for the bullpen--a little more than 6. Not bad for a guy who would be in the bullpen if they had 5 healthy starters (cough).
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Shouldn't he be breaking down right now, instead of throwing 7 inning starts?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    Shouldn't he be breaking down right now, instead of throwing 7 inning starts?
    Posted by dannycater
    Rather than the IP with any pitcher it is pitch count and how many times the hitters have seen you IMHO. I am not particularly on the track that Wake will or does breakdown BTW.

    My statements were framing an overall picture of what you get with a pitcher of Tim's capabilities on average. I am not all that big on the idea of Ellsbury did not get a great read on a ball crushed right at him or whether it was a WP or PB that put RISP. Any more than I would speculate how bad an inning would have been if not for a great play somewhere in the field or a HR that just goes foul.

    It is great any time win or lose that a pitcher keeps you in the game and shortens the BP. The big money goes to the front of the rotation guys to get you 6 BP out games. There's no problem when a pitcher in Wake's slot gets you within 9-12 outs, the rest is house money and offsets the occasional early blow outs to that happen in the game of baseball.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    right, big money, like Lackey...and yet Wakes averages more outs per start. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    I will agree to disagree with you gentlemen on the 5-inning premise with Tim.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Well disagreeing is in the face of the data which suggest Tim gets hit hard the third time through the order and the 4th time he gets crushed. I don't know it so much IP as it is times through the batting order.

    Whether it is guys getting a better feel for the float and lack of rotation or Tim's pitch loses movement as he tires, the stats suggest he gets clubbed really hard . Most pitchers lose something as the game goes on. Pedro Martinez by 2003 was toast after 100 pitches (somebody should have reminded Grady Little about that).

    It isn't a badge of dishonor to the pitcher to acknowledge that, it is a disservice to the player and the team to ignore it completely.

    Which BTW is why while Danny has seen some of Tito's hooks as too quick, they may in fact be an acknowledgement that the stats suggest the odds are pretty poor  for Wake to work his way out of later inning jams.

    Now you can always make the argument that the hooks have denied Wake the ability to get those outs and soften the .914 OPS the third time through the order and the insanely high 1.333 OPS the 4th time through the order.

    And that is stuff that keeps forums like this alive.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share