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

    I'd like to use your line if you give me permission: "Hardly an Optimal Choice In the Rotation." I was thinking of getting a t-shirt with Tim's face on the front and this statement on the back. Hell, you can take some of the share of profits. 

    M---O---R---O---N is a t-shirt I can also make and we can put a number of the Sox poster monikers on it with a Wakefield box score inscripted. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw'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

    Wakefield couldn't get anymore from another team. If he could, he'd be gone.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    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.


    5K, is shallow patronizing comments filled with hyperbole part of your character?

    Owner and management "Intention" has nothing to do with whether a player gets traded. You are the same poster who opined that Agon, coming off surgery, wasn't a winter trade becuause the Padres owner "Moorad" made a statement that the Padres "had no intention of trading AGon last winter".

    The fact is that the Dodgers will trade Kemp for a reasonable trade offer that provides an immediate everyday MLB young talent plus additional higher level prospects. Alright, pal. Get it.

    Of course, you youself have gone to great lengths to opine on Ellsbury post FA. And it's a legitimate topic, short term (phillies)and long term to see the gaping hole in the OF with all left footed shoes.

    As for Wakefield, your hyperbole "studs" exposes your disengenuine motives. You know the landscape of marignal young pitchers can match, let me use your style, "an old stud" like "the great" Wakefield. But, by giving the innings to young talent, it is an investment with an eye towards the future.

    If you want to debate merits, 5K, let's do that. If you want to patronize, put me back on ignore like you claim you have done. I'm a big boy. I don't put anyone on ignore.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from fizsh. Show fizsh'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


    Hey harness, I will be at all 3, which will include a Sounders/Mariners double-header on Saturday.
     
  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:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Appears your an proponent of Defensive Zone Rating?
    Posted by beavis

    I like using many tools to rate a fielder.

    UZR/150 is a better tool than just using Fldg%, but is flawed.
    RF/9 is flawed.
    The Fielding Bible is flawed.
    The GG voting system is a joke.

    I use my own personal observations, and I have watched every Sox game this year and about 99% of all Sox games since 1981. I watch several other teams play, but not enough to make comparative judgements without the aid of stats, metrics, and expert opinions.

    I assume you are relating this to my discussion of some cheap runs allowed by Wake and releivers who allowed several of his runners to score.

    1) It's not like Wake left the games with bases loaded and no outs and releivers let a run or two score; we are talking 2 outs-man on first. 

    2) I'm not just talking about Youk's booted non-error play, drew's "non-error" dropped fly ball, or Jacoby's wrong route taken on a catchable ball that all led to runs, but also the many many bunt hits, seeing eye singles, runners then advancing on ground balls, and later scoring on a sac fly. Yes, these are legitimate "earned runs", but some are more earned than others, and I feel Wake has more borderline "earned runs" than other starters on this staff. Yes, he also lets up more HRs/9 than any other starter, so one could argue it all evens out. I realize this is just my opinion, but I do not think I am showing favoritism towards Wake or being a "homer" here. I just have not seen the same extent of cheap runs and inherited runs allowed to score with other Sox starters.

    3) I have never been a big fan of ERA as "the stat of choice". This is not a cherry-picking adventure like softy does. I do not change criteria to fit my position. I'm not even a fan of Wake. Long before this Wake discussion ever started, I was advocating WHIP, Quality start %, near Quality start %, Opponents OPS against, and ERA+ all ahead of just plain old unadjusted ERA. To me Wake's ERA should really be about 4.20 to 4.40 this year, not even counting park adjustments. It could easily be under 4.00 with a little better "luck". 

    4) Even if you keep his ERA at 4.92 (4.95 as a starter), he still is a top 5 healthy starter on this team. His 1.288 WHIP is very respectable and 3rd best among healthy Sox starters. His WHIP has gone down 2 straight years. His IP per start (6.25) is 3rd on the team. His BB/9 (2.5) is the best on the staff from 2010-2011 (after his back sugery).

    To think this guy is on the top of many poster's list of Sox players in need of replacement or improving upon is totally ridiculous. Wake is our 6th starter who has just started 15 straight games because 2 of our guys are hurt. The club has gone 11-5 in his starts, and he has pitched well enough for any team to win (even low scoring teams) in 9-11 of those starts. He is not this team's "problem". He is not holding back any young stud pitching prospects. He is not deserving of this disrespect. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Wakefield is the worst fielding pitcher in baseball. He doesn't run, he waddles.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Still no names...

    just regurgitated drivel.
     
  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 : Hey harness, I will be at all 3, which will include a Sounders/Mariners double-header on Saturday.
    Posted by fizsh


    You're a great baseball fan, Fizsh.
    If ya get a chance, leave me a message on my home page and let me know where about's you'll be sitting. I enjoy meeting true RedSox fans.
     
  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:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : 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. 
    Posted by dannycater


    Sarcasm aside, you are only making 791's point by drawing analogies to Miller or Weiland or Millwood. Better to ask him how the other 20 starters on his "FIP list"  would fare pitching in the A.L. East...in a notorious hitter's park.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    You dimwit! Take a look at Weiland's 2nd start! I'd take Weiland over Wakefield and a lifetime supply of Duke's Potato Salad!

    I undestand those 2 starts were terrible, 6 IP and 3 ER in start #2. Wakefield is like clockwork, a launching pad that never stops launcing homers.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    For pitchers with more than 10 starts, Wakefield gives up HR's at an elite level. Every 6 innings, at least one ball is launched and "no doubt long gone".

    More importantly, his ERA is near 5 and ovre 5 for over 2 years.

    I know, Board members, Wakefield is simply the best option in all of world baseball! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Blyleven gave up a ton of dingers. 50 one year...in a pitching era. He's in the HOF.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Did Blyleven have a 5 plus ERA for over 2 years and an ERA as high as the legendary Wakefield? No, he did not.

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    kids had chances and failed... too bad.

    I don't think a 2nd career start of 3 ER 6 IP is failure.

    Now, your clueless comments about Manny going to NY and Tex going to Boston and AGon coming in 2010 are a failure!

    Knock off the little rant, you stalking lunatic.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    33 pitcher in MLB have a 5.00 ERA from 2009-2011 (15+ starts).
    That's an average of a little more than 1 per team. If there were so many "elite young" or "elite FA" pitchers out there, don't you think teams would be picthing them instead of these guys? The fact is, a 5.00+ ERA is not, in and of itself, grounds for demotion. I'm waiting for you next spin and goalpost move.

    On average there has been one 5.00+ ERA on every team that has made the ALCS since 2004. This proves that most winning teams, win with a 5.00+ guy in their top 5 starters. Wake is our 6th starter. Cue: spin and further goalpost moving. (Hint: next goalpost move or spin: try to do the research yourself before you spew utter nonsense.)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    How's this: 

    There are 14 teams in the AL. 
    If you average 6 starters per team. (6 x 14 = 84)
    Top 84 starters in the AL by most IP(40+ IP and 6+ GS ):
    By average:
    #1 starter 1-14
    #2: 15-28
    #3: 29-42
    #4: 43-56
    #5: 57-70
    #6: 71-84

    ERA Rankings:
    2) Beckett
    19) Lester
    24) Buch
    65) Wake (Wake is an AL average ERA 5th starter by ERA)
    74) Miller
    81) Lackey 

    WHIP
    2) Beckett
    29) Lester
    30) Wake (Wake is an AL top #3 starter by WHIP)
    31) Buch
    75) Lackey
    84) Miller

    If you combine the two, Wake looks to be about an AL average #47 out of 84 top IP and GS starters. That ranks as a pretty good #4 starter in the AL. Not bad for a #6 guy.

     
  17. 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:
    Did Blyleven have a 5 plus ERA for over 2 years and an ERA as high as the legendary Wakefield? No, he did not.
    Posted by softylaw


    Blyleven had a 5.43 ERA in 1988.
    It was 5.24 in 1990. 4.74 in 1992.
    Noteworthy is that it sandwiched a good year in '89, when he was traded to CA and had the advantage of pitching in more of a pitcher's venue.

    Wake pitches in one of the most notorious hitting venues in the game. You need to adjust the ERA stat accordingly.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    harness continues to try and take points away from our pitchers, and our offense. With CERA and now the park thing... he just can't give credit to where credit is do: our own players.
     
  19. 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:
    harness continues to try and take points away from our pitchers, and our offense. With CERA and now the park thing... he just can't give credit to where credit is do: our own players.
    Posted by BurritoT


    You continue to show UR utter baseball ignorance.
    It's not a matter of credit, oh dear homer...who lives among the snakes and bashes players.

    The park masks the the hitting perception. It's a fact, not an opinion.
    The park also hides the fact that Boston's pitching is much better than perceived.

    Try to keep up. Or is Pike giving you lessons in lynch mob idiocy.

    Dumb.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    whats a baseball?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    why a duck?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    What is what?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from canetime. Show canetime's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to 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 Wakefield couldn't get anymore from another team. If he could, he'd be gone.
    Posted by softylaw


    and how do you know that,you are only some putz with a keyboard!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from -theyazzer-. Show -theyazzer-'s posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92



                    sell!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    @moon -

    791, I thought you disliked ERA as much as I do.

    The point that I was making was the team was 11-5 in spite of Wakefield, not because of it.  The only reason they're doing so well in his starts is because of the number of runs he's receiving in run support.  In this case, his ERA is relevant as a result in that he's allowing 4.92 runs per nine innings.

    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.

    The problem with your argument (at least on the fielding side) is that he's allowing hits on only 26.2% of the balls put into play.  His career rate is 27.4%.  Based on the so-called cheap hits being allowed, he's actually faring better than he has in the past.  As for errors, well those are entirely subjective.  I think errors should include poor routes and other fielding mistakes that don't include a bobbled ball and errant throw. 

    As for the inherited runners scored issue, I'm not sure where I'd find that data without mining it manually.  (FWIW, I've asked my contacts, and will try to get back to you.)  His 60.5% strand rate is low, but that number includes all runners, not just the ones on base after he gets pulled from the game.  Unfortunately, that's one of the crappy things about ERA. Wake is partially, but not wholly responsible for those runners.  The reliever should get partially charged for allowing the runners to score. 

    As for the homers allowed affecting his FIP, I'm not sure I see your point.  Home runs, strikeouts and walks are the only factors considered.  If he gives up a lot of home runs, his FIP will be higher than if he doesn't.  xFIP attempts to normalize that number using the league average HR/FB rate (which I'm not sure I like), but even that only brings his estimated ERA to 4.69.  It's better, but not markedly so.

    Either way, even with all of things we discussed, his true talent level is somewhere in the 4.75 range.  Still far below average.
     
Sections
Shortcuts