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

    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).
     
  2. 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?
     
  3. 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:
    [QUOTE]Shouldn't he be breaking down right now, instead of throwing 7 inning starts?
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]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.
     
  4. 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. 
     
  5. 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]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).
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    This and Moon's stats simply show that he should be a 5-6 inning pitcher, even if he has only a pitch count in the 80's.

    If we have the lead by 1-4 runs and Wake is hitting the order for the 3rd time after he completes 5 innings he should be taken out quick, as soon as someone reaches if we are up 1-2 or as soon as 2 men reach if we are up 3-4.

    If we are up 5-6 Tito can leave rubber arm out into the 7th like he did vs. the Mariners to 'save the pen'. Wake has had this happen to him many times and while it kills his ERA (and ignorant fools harp on that # as the main reason to get rid of him) it can be more valuable to the team overall.

    If Wake were not a 45 yr old 5/6 starter knuckler but instead a 30ish 3/4 starter who throws in the 90's, the stats would be taken into consideration more, the pitch count watched, and the ERA kept to a more reasonable 4-4.5 range...

    Which we know is basically what his ERA as a starter is. a 6 inning 4.5 ERA guy, with a handful of bad circumstances that changes things and only dim-witted non-red Sox haters seem to take offense to that.

    Wake for 5 or 6 and Aceves for 1-2 right after should be the plan till the rosters expand.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111'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, especially if he pukes on Dean Wormer.
    Posted by Celtics1986[/QUOTE]
    FYP ... I'm going to do nothing but fix posts today.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    I think Wake getting hit hard the third time through would be a more enlightened stat if compared to the other starters on the team.  The presumption here is that the others do NOT see an increase in OPS the third (and 4th) time through the lineup.  However, and I am just guessing here, I doubt that the presumption is true.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    parhunter brings up an excellent point. I'm guessing most SP get knocked around harder the 4th time around, and five, you are applying it only to Wakefield. What about Lackey? Oh that's right, the 5 and 4 thing only applies to 45-year-old specialist pitch fossils. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    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

    Yes, glad you are the 2nd poster to admit it. Reddick and Kalish can take over for 2 years of and 12 to14M for a cult hero. Crawford is a jumbo mortgage prisoner of house, so it's time to get a young slugging Rh bat.
     
  12. 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:
    [QUOTE]parhunter brings up an excellent point. I'm guessing most SP get knocked around harder the 4th time around, and five, you are applying it only to Wakefield. What about Lackey? Oh that's right, the 5 and 4 thing only applies to 45-year-old specialist pitch fossils. 
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]Danny the "there other turds in the bowl" argument doesn't make a turd smell any sweeter.

    But since you asked, Lackey's opponents OPS is 200 points lower the 4th the time through the order this year than Wake's and for his career almost 600 points lower. Wake's career versus batters the 4th time through is much lower too.

    That in fact made me look at Wake's last fully healthy, clean season, 2008. His OPS the 4th time around was .712. In both cases the sample sets aren't huge but in 2011 he has seen batters a 4th time in 9 games and in all of 2008 he only saw them in 8 games.

    Another interesting side note, as a starter he is actual going a 1/3 of inning longer in his starts than he did in 2008, sort of squashing the age discrimination or disrespect argument that comes up every time Terry hooks him what is perceived by some as early.

    We were not discussing the merits of other pitchers or the limtations a manager should be aware of when starting them. We were talking about Tim Wakefield having an opponent's OPS of 1.333 when facing batters a 4th time.

    So while you disagree about having Wake on a short leash perhaps it would benefit him and the RS. I make that statement not at the exclusion of other pitchers BTW. While I think having a single designated pitcher to pitch behind Wake (Moon's platoon starters theory) leaves the manager less flexibility to deal with other pitcher's short outings, going into any game Tim is in watching not just IP but pitch count and time batters are faced would be beneficial.


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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    parhunter brings up an excellent point. I'm guessing most SP get knocked around harder the 4th time around, and five, you are applying it only to Wakefield. What about Lackey? Oh that's right, the 5 and 4 thing only applies to 45-year-old specialist pitch fossils.

    My point wasn't to put Wake down, but instead to praise him for how well he has done getting the team into the 4th, 5th or 6th inning with low run totals. What Tito does after that is his choice. Sometimes it seems he has sacrificed Wake's numbers for the good of the team by leaving him in longer than what was probably best for Wake. The second reason I brought it up was to support my position that Wake should be rested soon, so as to keep him fresh to the end of the season. Either start taking him out earlier in games, of let him skip 2-3 starts at some point. The problem with the second choice is that Wake is pitching better than any other option we have, and we need every win we can get.

    By the way...

    Wake:
    PA
    1st: .709   (.714 career)
    2nd: .679 (.755 career)
    3rd: .914  (.783 career)
    4th: 1.333 (.743 career)

    Pitch count:
    1-25:   .709  (.712 career)
    26-50: .761  (.745)
    51-75: .742  (.758)
    76-100: 1.094 (.800/ 101+  .672) 

    Lackey:
    1st PA: .749  (.681 career)
    2nd: .826      (.722 career)
    3rd: .916      (.786 career)
    4th+: 1.172  (.852)

    ERA by Inning:
    1) 6.16
    2) 1.89
    3) 8.35
    4) 11.65
    5) 3.60
    6) 4.85
    7) 9.00
    8) 0.00

    (Note: these are small sample sizes that can be greatly effected by one bad pitch)

    Beckett:
    PA
    1st: .530
    2nd: .591
    3rd: 5.37
    4th+ .258

    Career:
    1st: .681
    2nd: .664
    3rd: 737
    4th: .826

    Lester career:
    PA
    1st: .700
    2nd: .663
    3rd: .697
    4th: .729
    (Remarkably consistent)

    1-25   .707
    26-50 .690
    51-75 .662
    76-100 .709
    101+   .606

    I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it, but I am just saying In my opinion, Wake needs some rest, especially if we are looking for him to be a major contributor in late September and/or into the playoffs.

    Wake will be at about 190 IP this year if he goes about 6.25 IP in his next 12 starts.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    five, 21 outs is 7 inn, 6 less than 3 times around. If he allowed 20 baserunners via walk/hit in his last 21 IP, not accounting for reaching base on an error or HBP, then he faced the 4th time around the order I think only to a few batters...so what's the point of harping on the 1.333 OPS if he indeed is pitching so well that he doesn't face half of the lineup the 4th time around?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    That in fact made me look at Wake's last fully healthy, clean season, 2008. His OPS the 4th time around was .712. In both cases the sample sets aren't huge but in 2011 he has seen batters a 4th time in 9 games and in all of 2008 he only saw them in 8 games.

    No matter how you snipet and spin numbers, at least this poster is looking beyond Moonslow's propaganda, the simple sniff test is enough. Wakefield vs. young pitchers is pretty clear. Wakefield fails the sniff test. Over larger sample, no way can the entire pool of young pitchers who are not expensive and available are going to be worse than Wakefield. Invest the innings in young pitchers. Stop the "been around too long" record seeking human launching pad. By the time hitters see that goofball a few times, it's going out of the stadium.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    moon, i understand what you are talking about, I do. I just don't agree with the rest thing. He is in groove central right now, and he keeps himself in good enough shape, he can go the 7 IP route pretty much every 5 to 6 days. Remember, unless he is pulled from the rotation after his next bad start, he will likely have a blip where he can't get out of the 4th or 5th...It happens. Just as it happens to Nos. 2,3,4 starters. Maybe not to Josh Beckett, but it happens. I like your theory in application to John Lackey, though. 
     
  17. 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]five, 21 outs is 7 inn, 6 less than 3 times around. If he allowed 20 baserunners via walk/hit in his last 21 IP, not accounting for reaching base on an error or HBP, then he faced the 4th time around the order I think only to a few batters...so what's the point of harping on the 1.333 OPS if he indeed is pitching so well that he doesn't face half of the lineup the 4th time around?
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Correct danny:
    total PAs:
    PA
    1st: 144
    2nd: 143
    3rd: 127
    4th:   14

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Lackey 6, Aceves 3...works for me
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    I'm trying to get everyone to go outside the box on Wake, not limit him for fear factor. I mean let's face it. In the KC game, he faced 4 batters he should have never faced based on number of pitches (93) and the fact he had just set a big milestone and it was perfect timing to be pulled. What was the OPS that inning? 4.000 v. the 4th time around the order?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    moon, you want the limit based on fatigue, correct? I wasn't referring to you in the "fear factor" for the record. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    I keep thinking about that win, and I keep thinking how in the world do I know after he gave up 3 straight singles, me the Wakefield for President fan, how do I know that he is toast, but not Tito. Here's a free swinger, who had taken some giant swings in his previous at bats v. Wake coming up to the plate, and Tito didn't think "oh, this is not good." See, that's when you use common sense to pull a guy. That had nothing, nothing at all to do with the knuckleball. Everything to do with fatigue, heat, and Wakefield showing he was done that performance. Just like when you know it's time to pull Pedro in the ALCS...ouch.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    [QUOTE]That in fact made me look at Wake's last fully healthy, clean season, 2008. His OPS the 4th time around was .712. In both cases the sample sets aren't huge but in 2011 he has seen batters a 4th time in 9 games and in all of 2008 he only saw them in 8 games. No matter how you snipet and spin numbers, at least this poster is looking beyond Moonslow's propaganda, the simple sniff test is enough. Wakefield vs. young pitchers is pretty clear. Wakefield fails the sniff test. Over larger sample, no way can the entire pool of young pitchers who are not expensive and available are going to be worse than Wakefield. Invest the innings in young pitchers. Stop the "been around too long" record seeking human launching pad. By the time hitters see that goofball a few times, it's going out of the stadium.
    Posted by softylaw[/QUOTE]

    The Sox have not been averse to giving those young pitchers a try.  8 starts for Miller - 5.44 ERA, 2 for Weiland - 8.10 ERA. 

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    If you want predictions, I was at home watching the game and I immediately thought he's going to give up a grand slam. A pitch later, bye, bye. 4.92 ERA? That was 4 instant ER that did not have to happen. 
     
  24. 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:
    [QUOTE]I think Wake getting hit hard the third time through would be a more enlightened stat if compared to the other starters on the team.  The presumption here is that the others do NOT see an increase in OPS the third (and 4th) time through the lineup.  However, and I am just guessing here, I doubt that the presumption is true.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]FWIW, Lester's actually goes down the 4th time through because he isn't getting there unless he is lights out. Same with Beckett.

    Lester
    1st - .674
    2nd - .632
    3rd - .778
    4th - .667

    Beckett
    1st - .530
    2nd - .590
    3rd - 537
    4th - .258

    I find the Lackey 2011 comparison of little use for the two stinkers don't make perfume reasons I gave in an eralier post. But in his much maligned (by some) 2010 campaign here was Lackey's line:

    Lackey
    1st - .705
    2nd - .788
    3rd - .791
    4th - .829

    That sort of reflects what Lackey was in 2010 and has been through most of his career, a guy who doesn't over power but battles and can go deep.

    Tim in his last injury free season prior to 2011 (2008)

    Wake - 2008
    1st - .752
    2nd - 574
    3rd - .748
    4th - .712

    Now whether it is age or just bad season or bad luck Wake is getting hit way harder the 3rd and 4th times through than he historically did (including his 2010 starts which were a mixed bag).

    the presumption wasn't that starters don't get hit harder as they go into the game, just that most don't make oppositions stats look better than Barry Bonds best season.

     
  25. 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 : The Sox have not been averse to giving those young pitchers a try.  8 starts for Miller - 5.44 ERA, 2 for Weiland - 8.10 ERA. 
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    hahahahaha
     

Share