Wake ERA now at 4.92

  1. 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 : 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


    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.
     
  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:
    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

    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. 

     
  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:
    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

    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.
     
  4. 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 : 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


    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.
     
  5. 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.

     
  6. 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 : 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

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

     
  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:
    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

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

     
  8. 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 : I have never seen a Sox game on the left coast. I hope you have better luck than I.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Hell, it couldn't be much worse!
    BTW: If you are ever out this way, let me know.
     
  9. 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 : Hell, it couldn't be much worse! BTW: If you are ever out this way, let me know.
    Posted by harness

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

     
  10. 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.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    You were a catcher?

    LOL
     
  12. 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...:-)
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Good one!
     
  14. 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!
     
  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:
    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


    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. 
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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:
    You'd think the posters here who hate "union slugs" would love this guy.
    Posted by moonslav59
    LOL!

    Seems to me no matter which side of this discussion you are on, it isn't terribly reality based. Whether you think Wake is inadequate, adequate or above average, he's in the rotation and will be out of necessity. The same with John Lackey. Andrew Miller and Weiland were poor enough of alternatives that Epstein went to market to get Bedard.

    The argument of Wake holding somebody back is IMO a way to stimulate an argument in the absence of reality. It is like comparing Ellsbury to a player that his team had no intention of trading (Kemp) and inventing a trade to stimulate debates about the merits of Ellsbury.

    Just like a trade for Kemp never existed, neither do these "young studs" being held back. Nor are they readily available. Because if they were, just like Epstein had no issues with signing Lackey knowing it made Wakefield a secondary roster piece, he would have done the same here.

    When you have two starting pitchers go down in an industry short of starting pitching, IMHO you are lucky when you can have somebody like Wakefield already on your roster.  
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    team is 11-5 in his starts Wake has an ERA around 4.5 in his starts this season He has given up 3 earned runs or less in 7 of his last 10 starts and he costs a couple million a year as the NUMBER 6 starter what a bargain and what a great addition to this club, he is really helping keep us in first place right now. (Andrew Miller BTW.... a 6.28 ERA in his 6 July starts... Wake's ERA was almost 2 less runs per start)
    Posted by rameakap


    FWIW, Wake's ERA is 21% worse (per Fangraphs) than the league average.  As much as I love Wake, the team's 11-5 record in his starts is largely a function of the 6.46 runs of support he's received.  He's still providing decent value considering his salary, but he's hardly an optimal choice in the rotation.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791'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


    I'm not sure moon.  According to the four major ERA estimators, here's how he's fared:

    FIP - 4.93
    xFIP - 4.68
    SIERA - 4.58
    tRA - 5.12

    He might be getting a little unlucky, but for the most part he's pitching right around his true talent level. 
     
  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:
    In Response to Wake ERA now at 4.92 : FWIW, Wake's ERA is 21% worse (per Fangraphs) than the league average.  As much as I love Wake, the team's 11-5 record in his starts is largely a function of the 6.46 runs of support he's received.  He's still providing decent value considering his salary, but he's hardly an optimal choice in the rotation.
    Posted by redsoxfan791


    791, I thought you disliked ERA as much as I do.
     
  22. 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 : I'm not sure moon.  According to the four major ERA estimators, here's how he's fared: FIP - 4.93 xFIP - 4.68 SIERA - 4.58 tRA - 5.12 He might be getting a little unlucky, but for the most part he's pitching right around his true talent level. 
    Posted by redsoxfan791


    Look at percentage of inherited runners allowed compared to others.
    Look at all the cheap hits and misplayed balls that were labelled hits compared to others.
    Wake lets up a lot of HRs. That is going to hurt his FIP numbers.

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Wake should win a Gold Glove. He has 1000.00 fielding percentage. Granted only 15 attemps.

    WHIP is nice...

    Never give up on Wake...
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis'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 : Look at percentage of inherited runners allowed compared to others. Look at all the cheap hits and misplayed balls that were labelled hits compared to others. Wake lets up a lot of HRs. That is going to hurt his FIP numbers.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Appears your an proponent of Defensive Zone Rating?
     
  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 Wake ERA now at 4.92 : FWIW, Wake's ERA is 21% worse (per Fangraphs) than the league average.  As much as I love Wake, the team's 11-5 record in his starts is largely a function of the 6.46 runs of support he's received.  He's still providing decent value considering his salary, but he's hardly an optimal choice in the rotation.
    Posted by redsoxfan791

    good point, 791. I have no idea why a guy who has thrown 3 straight 7 IP performances, allowing 16 hits, 4 walks in 21 IP is in the rotation. He's optimally not up to snuff. Hardly a good choice. I can think of any number of pitchers who can throw a 1.00 WHIP and step right into that Sox rotation. Yes siree, bob. I mean there's Andrew Miller, and Weiland, and the recently released Millwood. Doubrount could be in there doing exactly what this 45-year-old fossil is doing. Nope, not a guy you want in the rotation, this veteran with the whiffle ball pitch. I was thinking maybe we can get a guy who can put up a 0.50 WHIP pretty easily, right? Shoot, I think I can go on the Sox mound right now and replace him, I can throw harder than 60 MPH. Maybe you can step into the rotation and replace him too. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts