Wake ERA now at 4.92

  1. 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:
    [QUOTE]What's the other side? Weiland? Miller? A hurt Doubront? You claimed his good starts were "far and few between". You have the wrong perception, as do several others. You imply he is worse now than when he was younger. That is false.He has been at his best after 2006 ended.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    The other side is exactly what I originally said moon.  You and harness seem quick to point out such things as Wakes ERA could be lower if not for the pens failure but fail to mention what may happen to their ERA's if not pulled in certain games.  When I discuss guys like Lackey or Wake I look at different aspects of their game including innings pitched to runs given up. 

    I like Wake, Jason and others as much as you, but also see the good and bad when debating their worth.  Yes, I do believe "if given the chance" guys like Miller, Doubront etc. could do just as well as our number 6 sorry.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from william93063. Show william93063's posts

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    [QUOTE]Aceves won his 17th straight relief decision...what does that tell you about wins in baseball when the guy who gets a blown hold, gets the win, and finishes the game with a 9.00 ERA. They are team victories, and I keep seeing just how much they are team victories more and more by games like this one. Who cares who got the "win." Well, the agents do, that's for sure. But enough people have figured out that a win is about as predictable for a SP as Josh Beckett having perhaps his best season and having only 9 wins to show for it, 1 less than the stellar John Lackey.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I think this is something Baseball should look at in the Rules Committee...maybe giving the official scorer the ability to assign who gets the win(within judicious rules)....The fact that a starter could pitch 8 innings of shut out ball, leave with a 3-0 lead, and a reliever comes in and gives up 3 runs in one inning of work , but then gets the win, when his team scores in the bottom of the ninth, he gets the win. They have given the officla scorer the discretion to give the win to a "succeeding relief pitcher", when a reliever pitches ineffectively and the starter doesnt qualify for a win, why not give him the discretion to give the win to a deserving starter. I dont think last night with Wake was Flagrant enough, but some cases definitely are
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    [QUOTE]What's the other side? Weiland? Miller? A hurt Doubront? You claimed his good starts were "far and few between". You have the wrong perception, as do several others. You imply he is worse now than when he was younger. That is false.He has been at his best after 2006 ended.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    The ignorance and vomit Softy spews here has been proven factually wrong and there is little more to say than that.

    The man can spin hatred in so many 'new' ways but the core argument... dump Wake, remains the same and there is simply no reason to do so b/c he has pitched fine.

    So Softy has his head in the sand, as always
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Miller's been great against teams in last place.  What are the chances of meeting any of those in the post season?
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    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.
     
  8. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]


    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.
     
  9. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    moon, you're choosing to refer to hatred rather than reality and you know this. 
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    Exactly

    As you pointed out in another thread the mans crimes this season are many and always irrational b/c stats and facts simply DO NOT BACK THEM UP

    Let's hate on the best leadoff hitter in the game, the best #5/6 starter in the game and the best backup/platoon catcher in the game who is the personal caddie of a top 4 pitcher in the AL

    yea, that makes sense

    It only proves that the man is too ignorant to digest facts, can't compehend that he has LOST all these arguments in knockout fashion and is NOT a fan of the Red Sox
     
  14. 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. 
     
  15. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    "Dorfman, I've given this a lot of thought. From now on, your name is Flounder."
     
  16. 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...
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    Not to mention Official Scorers ruling hits instead of errors!
     
  19. 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. 
     
  20. 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. 
     
  21. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Not to mention Official Scorers ruling hits instead of errors!
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

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


     
  22. 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.
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. 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?
     
  25. 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).
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share