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

    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. 
     
  2. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

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

     
  3. 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]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[/QUOTE]

    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.

     
  4. 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]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[/QUOTE]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...

      
     
  5. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]



    Bingo
     
  6. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    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.

     
  7. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Bingo
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
    see, 5, I was right...:-)...hey, harn, it's a love affair here right now. We love the Sox. All the Sox...
     
  8. 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:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    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.

     
  9. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : 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.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    UR point regarding Wake's durability is underrated by the board.
    Wake is more durable than Buch/Dice/Beckett.
    Softy uses the phrase "answering the call" only when it suits his position.
    Softy wants Wake gone, despite the fact he answers the call...and has the 3rd lowest starter ERA from any current starter beyond Bedard, who is totally unproven pitching in Boston.

    Lackey isn't turning the corner. He's simply healthy and not compromised as he was last year by an inept catcher, a shaky pen, and a decimated offense. He's the same pitcher he was in CA: One who has enough stuff to beat weak/mediocre teams but not enough to beat the good line-ups with any consistency.
     
  10. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : UR point regarding Wake's durability is underrated by the board. Wake is more durable than Buch/Dice/Beckett. Softy uses the phrase "answering the call" only when it suits his position. Softy wants Wake gone, despite the fact he answers the call ...and has the 3rd lowest starter ERA from any current starter beyond Bedard, who is totally unproven pitching in Boston. Lackey isn't turning the corner . He's simply healthy and not compromised as he was last year by an inept catcher, a shaky pen, and a decimated offense. He's the same pitcher he was in CA: One who has enough stuff to beat weak/mediocre teams but not enough to beat the good line-ups with any consistency.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    speaking of last season and the "inept catcher" (pretty strong on VMART), did you see the Penny-VMART argument? Talk about no communication. Penny showed up VMART, and VMART gave it right back at him. Lackey faces Seattle I think his next start, so we have to think he will be fine. 

     
  11. 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]moon, you want the limit based on fatigue, correct? I wasn't referring to you in the "fear factor" for the record. 
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Yes, I know. 

    Wake does seem much heaqlthier this year. He is running without a limp, fielding his position better, and going pretty deep into games. I might be fine pitching 200-210 IP this year (icluding the playoffs), I just think he'd be more likely to do better with about 160-170. 

    We need Wake right now, and we might need him all season. I hope you are right. I hope he stays strong.
     
  12. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : speaking of last season and the "inept catcher" (pretty strong on VMART), did you see the Penny-VMART argument? Talk about no communication. Penny showed up VMART, and VMART gave it right back at him. Lackey faces Seattle I think his next start, so we have to think he will be fine. 
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Good chance I'll be at that game. I plan on catching two of the three here in Seattle. My comment on VMART was in relation to his past performance with his pitching staffs. I totally respect him as a gamer and a hitter.
     
  13. 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 : 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.

    katz, I know it sounds like we are reaching for straws when we bring up Wake's unfortunate luck this year when it comes to ERs and ERA. I know every pitcher has a lot of "what ifs" every season. The fact is, if you take the time to read the highlighted passages, you will see that Wake has had more than the normal amount of cheap runs and inherited runs allowed. Yes, Beckett has had terrible run support, but I don't see posters bashing him for a low win total. They rightfully take his numbers in context. Wake's ERA should be viewed likewise.

    Wake's 16 starts:
                      IP  H  ER BB (comments)
    1) vs Sea  5.2  3  1  1  
    (left with 2 outs and man on 1st: Jenks allowed his runner to score plus 1 more and Wake gets no decision: Sox win anyways)

    2) vs Min  4.1  9  6  4 (started 5 days earlier/pitched relief 2 days before)
    (scored 2 runs on BB, IF hit, GB single and Balk, later 2 inherited Wake runs are allowed by Aceves.)

    3) vs Cubs  6  7  4  1
     (shut out through 6.2, then two dbls = 1 run)

    4) @ Det   7   5  2  2
     (1 run scores on seeing eye GB single, SB and another seeing eye GB single.)

    5) vs CWS  6  7  4  1
     (shut out through 4.2, then BB, bloop single, SB, Groundout to SS, Gb double down 3B line that could have been fielded by Youk-2 runs)

    6) @ NYY   5.1  5  5  3
     (Shutout through 4 IP, then 3 runs on BB, PB, 1B, 2B, GB -man to 3rd-Sac Fly, then in 6th 2 outs and BB, and Aceves comes in and allows his run to score.)

    7) @ TB     7   4  1  5
     (Shut out for 4.1 IP then HR, in 6th BB, PB, BB, GB runners advance and Passed Ball allows run to score.)

    8) vs Mil   8   3 2  1
     (2-runo HR in 2nd + solo HR in 7th: no bad luck)

    9) @ Pitt   6   7  5  4
     (shut out for 4.1 IP, and 1B, SB, BB, HR- 2 runs, 2B, GB single for 1 runs, 4th 1 run scores on cheap single to 3B -Youk muffs it, and a 2B to CF that Ellsbury misjudged-could have been caught, then a GB to 2B.)

    10) @ Hou  5.1  11  5  0
     (1st inning: 1B, SB, GB runner to 3B, Sac Fly,  2nd: 2 runs scored on 2B, 1B, bunt 1B to 3B, and 2B, in the 5th: GB single, WP, 2B)
     
    11) vs Tor    7    9  3  1
     (3rd inning: swinging bunt single, 1B, GB runners advance, Sac Fly, long 1B)

    12) @ Bal    4.2  9  3  2
     (1st: 2 outs then weak 1B to 3B, hard 1B, then 3B for 2 runs. 5th: 2 Ks, HR, HR, 1B, bloop 1B-could have been caught, BB, 2B clears bases)

    13) vs Sea  6.1  10  7  1
     (1st: HBP & HR, 5th: K, BB, seeing eye GB 1B, 2B scores 1, Wake enters the 7th ahead 11-3. ***He could have been relieved***, but he stays in and allows: 4 runs on 3 singles and HR)

    14) @ CWS  7.0  3  3  2
     (Shutout through 5.1 innings, then bunt single to 3B, Bunt runner to 2B, WP, Sac Fly. 7th inning: BB and HR for 2 runs).

    15) vs Cleve  6.2  5  3  2
     (Shutout through 3IP, then HR, ground ball single, Ground ball 2B, ...2 runs, then in the 7th: 2B, Ground out, WP, K, 2B for 1 run)

    16) @ MN  7 IP  8H  3 ER  0BB
     (2nd inning: 2B, single, 2 groundouts-runner to 3B, PB run scores- 2 ERs. HR in 4th, 6th inning: hard single and deep 2B for 1 run). Wake leaves with a run run lead-Aceves lets up a run and Wake does not get the win.

    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 agree, Lackey should not have come back out, and according to his body language the Sox fielders have allowed more runs than for Wake.

    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.

    Look, we are not saying we should erase all the cheap runs, but if you bring it to the "norm", he'd probably be at about 4.00 or 4.20. With better than normal luckm maybe 3.75. Not below Beckett. 

    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. 

    I agree. They are 2 seperate issues.

    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...

    One major thing about Wake is that he he has never followed the normal age curve. From 25-29, he was up and down. From 30-33 wasperhaps Wake's worst 4 year stretch of his career in all areas: WHIP, ERA and his 41-44 record. From age 32 to 35, he was more of a reliever than a starter. Here's some interesting numbers about Wake after age 33:
    His WHIP has been below his career 1.348 7 of 11 years. He has been at or below 1.358 9 out of 11 years. His WHIP has been at or below 1.350 in 6 of his last 7 years (all after age 39!)
    His SO/BB has been above his career 1.79 in 3 of the last 4 years.
    However, his ERA has been below his career 4.40 in only 5 out of 11 years, but his ERA+ was above 100 every year from age 34 to 43 after being below 100 in 3 of 5 years from ages 29-33.

    I'm not sure Wake fits neatly into any mold.

     
  14. 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 : UR point regarding Wake's durability is underrated by the board. Wake is more durable than Buch/Dice/Beckett. Softy uses the phrase "answering the call" only when it suits his position. Softy wants Wake gone, despite the fact he answers the call ...and has the 3rd lowest starter ERA from any current starter beyond Bedard, who is totally unproven pitching in Boston. Lackey isn't turning the corner . He's simply healthy and not compromised as he was last year by an inept catcher, a shaky pen, and a decimated offense. He's the same pitcher he was in CA: One who has enough stuff to beat weak/mediocre teams but not enough to beat the good line-ups with any consistency.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Well stated harness. I think Lackey will do fine from here on out.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Good chance I'll be at that game. I plan on catching two of the three here in Seattle. My comment on VMART was in relation to his past performance with his pitching staffs. I totally respect him as a gamer and a hitter.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I have never seen a Sox game on the left coast. I hope you have better luck than I.

     
  16. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : I have never seen a Sox game on the left coast. I hope you have better luck than I.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Hell, it couldn't be much worse!
    BTW: If you are ever out this way, let me know.
     
  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]In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Hell, it couldn't be much worse! BTW: If you are ever out this way, let me know.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Maybe spring break or next summer. I've never been to the Pacific, except in Mexico.

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    harn, I caught two games once in 97 at the King Dome...have fun.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    You were a catcher?

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    If I was a catcher, I'm pretty sure my CERA with Clemens was better than my CERA with Wasdin...:-)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Good one!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    8 starts for Miller - 5.44 ERA, 2 for Weiland - 8.10 ERA.

    Weiland wasn't given a sniff. And the Red Sox have in fact refused to bump Wakefield in favor of these young players seeking more experience. The only starts they received were when Moses, I mean Wakefield was still in the rotation.

    Wakefield isn't tito's crack, he's Boston fan and media crack!
     
  23. 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]8 starts for Miller - 5.44 ERA, 2 for Weiland - 8.10 ERA. Weiland wasn't given a sniff. And the Red Sox have in fact refused to bump Wakefield in favor of these young players seeking more experience. The only starts they received were when Moses, I mean Wakefield was still in the rotation. Wakefield isn't tito's crack, he's Boston fan and media crack!
    Posted by softylaw[/QUOTE]

    Well, a big part of Tim's appeal is that he's been so damn cheap.  The most he's ever earned in one season is 4.67 million.  In 2007 he wins 17 games for 4 million, and still doesn't get a raise.  This year he's making even less than that. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    17 years of service from Wake for about 56 million.  That's only 10 million more than the Yankees jettisoned for Igawa.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    You'd think the posters here who hate "union slugs" would love this guy.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share