Wake ERA now at 4.92

  1. 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:
    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

    FYP ... I'm going to do nothing but fix posts today.
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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. 

     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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:
    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
    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.


     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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?
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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. 
     
  10. 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:
    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

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

     
  11. 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
     
  12. 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?
     
  13. 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. 
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. 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:
    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


    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. 

     
  16. 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. 
     
  17. 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:
    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
    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.

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    No one in the dugout can advise Tito he's done. Really? As for trying to stretch him to save the pen, then shame on Tito there. When a pitcher is done, you can pretty much know he's done, and it's usually when you are giving up several hits in succession, and it's late in a performance. That's why pitch counts are important. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater'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 : 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.
    Posted by fivekatz

    I think you just made harness' day before he has even arrived..:-)

     
  20. 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:
    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. 
    Posted by dannycater

    danny, I totally respect your views on Wake. You have been neck and neck with me in trying to show some of these bozos the truth about Tim. I am not certain Wake can not be effective after 160-170 IP/season. It's more of a gut thing. I have searched long and hard for an article I read after the 2008 season about hos Sox management had wanted to limit his IP that summer, but could not afford to due to the close playoff race and the fact that Wake was in a super groove.

    You know I hate to use small sample sizes to make definitive judgements, but these numbers worry me:

    In 2007, after about 160 IP, Wake had these numbers:
    Sept/Oct: 24.2 IP  1.865 WHIP/ 8.76 ERA (1.030 OPS)
    Playoffs: 4.2 IP 1.500 WHIP/ 9.64 ERA

    In 2008, after about 160 IP, Wake had these numbers:
    Sept/Oct: 23.0 IP  1.130 WHIP/ 6.65 ERA (.708 OPS)
    Playoffs: 2.2 IP  3.000 WHIP/ 16.88 ERA

    In 2009, after about 100 IP, Wake got hurt.

    In 2010, Wake pitched about 140 IP.

    These numbers do not mean Wake can not pitch well after 160 IP, but they are wrorrisome.

     
  21. 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:
    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. 
    Posted by dannycater
    When you get done between Ellsbury getting a bad read, Salty's PB, Crawford's error, Tito pulling him too soon, too late, too much humidity, not enough wind, you can have his ERA down below Beckett's. The laugher here would be that if Aceves came in and surrendered those three runs it would have been the bullpen let Wake down.

    Listen, sending Lackey back out after a one hour rain delay was criminal by this measure and certainly hurt his ERA plenty too. And there have been plenty of other things too, John sometimes makes faces when they happen, which brings him even more "love" from RS Nation. Oh but I forgot, Lackey is paid more so it doesn't count.

    I am sorry but after awhile in an effort to level set the conversation about Wakefield it becomes two extremes, not unlike what Tek arguments have been for years.

    Tim Wakefield is at or above what most MLB teams can expect from the bottom of their rotation, some years better than that, but never worse. Some people don't really pay attention to just how poorly guys like Miller do in that same role. For the money Wakefield has been awesome for the RS. I am glad they have him.

    But in an effort to make that case we have ended up beating Lackey to death for one thing. Lackey is having a really bad year for John Lackey making him low hanging fruit. But it isn't very instructional in making a case for Wake BTW.

    And the last thought is we also got caught in this trap with Mike Cameron and could with JD Drew. When a guy is 30 -32 his career stats are much more predictive of near term performance than they are when a guy is 38-45.

    Just my takes and sorry if I seem pizzy...

      
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness'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 : 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.
    Posted by fivekatz




    Bingo
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater'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 : danny, I totally respect your views on Wake. You have been neck and neck with me in trying to show some of these bozos the truth about Tim. I am not certain Wake can not be effective after 160-170 IP/season. It's more of a gut thing. I have searched long and hard for an article I read after the 2008 season about hos Sox management had wanted to limit his IP that summer, but could not afford to due to the close playoff race and the fact that Wake was in a super groove. You know I hate to use small sample sizes to make definitive judgements, but these numbers worry me: In 2007, after about 160 IP, Wake had these numbers: Sept/Oct: 24.2 IP  1.865 WHIP/ 8.76 ERA (1.030 OPS) Playoffs: 4.2 IP 1.500 WHIP/ 9.64 ERA In 2008, after about 160 IP, Wake had these numbers: Sept/Oct: 23.0 IP  1.130 WHIP/ 6.65 ERA (.708 OPS) Playoffs: 2.2 IP  3.000 WHIP/ 16.88 ERA In 2009, after about 100 IP, Wake got hurt. In 2010, Wake pitched about 140 IP. These numbers do not mean Wake can not pitch well after 160 IP, but they are wrorrisome.
    Posted by moonslav59

    moon, the things you have posted here is likely what some of the Sabremetric employees of the Sox have probably done in his case. I think they felt he is effective for only so many innings. You know I read the Wakefield book and it was kind of illuminating because Tim should hire me to be his press agent..:-)
    No, what I mean is, what he and the ghostwriter (masseroti? not sure) wrote seems to validate how Tim appears to be fighting the system not only just for the knuckleball, but how effective he is from a durability standpoint. He prides himself on durability. Believe me, I take that into account. Now, some of the stats have shown that he has been less effective after so many innings, and maybe it has applied to the playoffs. Everything is educated guessing. But you used the word "gut" approach and nothing wrong with gut approach, but isn't that exactly what everyone who criticizes Wakefield does when it comes to trying to use a negative against him? It seems more gut, than statistics. He throws a novel pitch, it's slow, he's 45, he's been around since Lincoln was assassinated, there's tons of things that make him look like he has no business pitching on a MLB roster. But he is, and he does, and he sure as hell is pitching terrific in a pennant race. Lackey? He may have also turned a corner, we'll see.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater'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 : Bingo
    Posted by harness

    see, 5, I was right...:-)...hey, harn, it's a love affair here right now. We love the Sox. All the Sox...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater'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 : When you get done between Ellsbury getting a bad read, Salty's PB, Crawford's error, Tito pulling him too soon, too late, too much humidity, not enough wind, you can have his ERA down below Beckett's. The laugher here would be that if Aceves came in and surrendered those three runs it would have been the bullpen let Wake down. Listen, sending Lackey back out after a one hour rain delay was criminal by this measure and certainly hurt his ERA plenty too. And there have been plenty of other things too, John sometimes makes faces when they happen, which brings him even more "love" from RS Nation. Oh but I forgot, Lackey is paid more so it doesn't count. I am sorry but after awhile in an effort to level set the conversation about Wakefield it becomes two extremes, not unlike what Tek arguments have been for years. Tim Wakefield is at or above what most MLB teams can expect from the bottom of their rotation, some years better than that, but never worse. Some people don't really pay attention to just how poorly guys like Miller do in that same role. For the money Wakefield has been awesome for the RS. I am glad they have him. But in an effort to make that case we have ended up beating Lackey to death for one thing. Lackey is having a really bad year for John Lackey making him low hanging fruit. But it isn't very instructional in making a case for Wake BTW. And the last thought is we also got caught in this trap with Mike Cameron and could with JD Drew. When a guy is 30 -32 his career stats are much more predictive of near term performance than they are when a guy is 38-45. Just my takes and sorry if I seem pizzy...   
    Posted by fivekatz

    i knew you were human, five...really, it's just a chatboard, it's ok. no need to be sorry, you make a very good point on the bashing.

     
Sections
Shortcuts