Wake ERA now at 4.92

  1. 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.

     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : 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.
    Posted by harness


    hahahhaha

    what a great post

    even when he tries to compare our #5/6 starter to a hall of fame #1/2 starter Softy gets humiliated by facts

    he's was crushed in this thread, a jabbering idiot with no proof, no evidence not a shred of anything intelligent, just ranting hate on a topic he has been proved WRONG on
     
  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:
    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.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    whats a baseball?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    whats a crop?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    What is what?
     
  10. 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!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from -theyazzer-. Show -theyazzer-'s posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92



                    sell!
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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:
    Blyleven gave up a ton of dingers. 50 one year...in a pitching era. He's in the HOF.
    Posted by harness


    And he gave up 46 the year after, but 1987 was definitely a hitters year.  Giving up home runs isn't necessarily a bad thing provided your other peripherals are good.  Flyball pitchers like Blyleven or Johan Santana will typically give up more home runs than those who don't.  Plus, the Metrodome was nicknamed the Homer Dome at the time for obvious reasons.
     
  14. 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:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : 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.
    Posted by harness


    Harness...even with adjusting ERA, he's still a below average pitcher.  His ERA + is in the 80s.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

      Runs per game are trending down, yet Wakes' era continues to rise.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Let's see, 791 says Wakefield is "not an optimal starter" and is "below average."
    Well, once again, I state what the hell more do you want out of a starter, any starter, than 20 baserunners (16 hits, 4 BB) in 21 IP or less than 1 batter reaching base per 3 outs recorded. If you think you can find better starting pitching than that, I'll eat a Tim Wakefield rookie card. Should we get alarmed that Lester allowed 13 baserunners in just his last start? I love how these "bloggers" clog the Internet with ridiculous statements that indicate their ignorance about baseball in general. 
     
  17. 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:
    Let's see, 791 says Wakefield is "not an optimal starter" and is "below average." Well, once again, I state what the hell more do you want out of a starter, any starter, than 20 baserunners (16 hits, 4 BB) in 21 IP or less than 1 batter reaching base per 3 outs recorded. If you think you can find better starting pitching than that, I'll eat a Tim Wakefield rookie card. Should we get alarmed that Lester allowed 13 baserunners in just his last start? I love how these "bloggers" clog the Internet with ridiculous statements that indicate their ignorance about baseball in general. 
    Posted by dannycater

    Why so angry DC?  Also, why do you prefer to trust 21 innings of stats versus the last two plus seasons of data?  I'm sorry, but he's not an optimal starter.  On the Red Sox, he's a number six guy ideally.  On other teams?  Maybe a three or four.  Those other teams are significantly weaker.

     
  18. 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:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Why so angry DC?  Also, why do you prefer to trust 21 innings of stats versus the last two plus seasons of data?  I'm sorry, but he's not an optimal starter.  On the Red Sox, he's a number six guy ideally.  On other teams?  Maybe a three or four.  Those other teams are significantly weaker.
    Posted by redsoxfan791


    Hey 791, how's it going?

    If I could quibble a bit with your statement, I find the word 'optimal' a little problematic.  Optimal means best, right?  I don't think anybody would argue that about Wakefield.  Personally I think he fills the number six role very well at a minimal cost and that's why he continues to have a spot on the team.   
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    Why so angry DC?  Also, why do you prefer to trust 21 innings of stats versus the last two plus seasons of data?  I'm sorry, but he's not an optimal starter.  On the Red Sox, he's a number six guy ideally.  On other teams?  Maybe a three or four.  Those other teams are significantly weaker.

    791, have you looked at most team's #3's, 4's and 5's? 

     (especially AL teams who have the DH to pitch against)
    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 very good #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.


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

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    He may not be the "best" but he is certainly a good starting pitcher, and I'm sick of the way people bash him. Sorry about the hostility, but 791, the way you "dismiss" him is rather weak. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    moon, let's face it. Wakefield could throw a perfect game tomorrow and someone would say "release" him the next day. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59'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

    1) Talking in absolutes is one reason danny is jumping on your case
    2) I have shown how Wake has had more of his inherited runners allowed to score than other Sox starters. I have also documented what I percieve to be an inordinate amount of "cheap runs" allowed this year (bunt hits, dropped flyballs for hits, wrong angles taken by OF'era, and many sac fly runs after seeing eys singles, advanced runner by groundouts, etc..
    3) Most importantly, yes he has gotten run support, but don't you think 11 wins is not a fluke for a pitcher who has allowed 3 or less ERs in 9 of 16 starts, and 4 ER in 2 other starts? True, if he pitched for Seattle, he might be 3-13 with that record, but then again his ERA might be 3.55. 
    .., 

    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

    I agree. I know you have issues with personal observations as "evidence". I totally understand why. I really do not have any reason to inflate Wake's skillset. I'm not really even a big fan of his, but the guy has had a ton of weak hits and bunt hits this year. I have shown game by game (earlier) how many of his runs have scored. I know every pitcher has cheap runs allowed: it is part of the game, but in my opinion, Wake has had more....much more. (I have watched every inning of every Sox game this year).  .  

    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

    I manually did his, but not the other starters on the Sox. There have been 2 runs allowed when Wake left with a man of 1st and 2 outs. I think there were 3 other allowed. (It's on a previous page)..  

    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

    But not below average for an AL 4th or 5th starter. That has been my point. Wake is a 6th starter doing a fine job as 5th starter as he is pitching like an avg AL 4th starter. It surprises me tha some here choose to criticize our 6th starter who is doing the job of an average 4th starter.

    I understand your position on xFIP. I think it is a valuable tool. I know you have never advoacate it as the only stat, but I happen to not value it as highly. (I think I am somewhere inbetween you and harness on that issue) Take a look at AL xFIP numbers this year. Here are the top 84 starters (40+ IP and 6+ GS) in the AL. Basically, the list represents 6 starters x 14 AL teams. I have shown where he ranks in ERA and WHIP. How does Wake rank in x FIP?

    Miller: 82nd (Aceves would have been 79th had he had 6 GS)
    Wake: 74th  (Only 5 behind Jeremy Hellickson) Basically the 4th best sixth starter in the AL in this category.

    How about tERA?
    Miller  81st
    Lackey 75th
    Wake  65th (Basically a lower tier 5th starter).

    If you put all these three stats and metrics with his WHIP placement, I'd say he has shown he is at least a very good 5th starter on average in the AL, and maybe a low tier 4th starter..

    How about starting pitcher's WAR?
    Miller 79th
    Wake 70th (basically the best 6th starter in the AL)..

    =====================================

     

     

     

     
  23. 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:
    In Response to Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92 : Hey 791, how's it going? If I could quibble a bit with your statement, I find the word 'optimal' a little problematic.  Optimal means best, right?  I don't think anybody would argue that about Wakefield.  Personally I think he fills the number six role very well at a minimal cost and that's why he continues to have a spot on the team.   
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    I don't see optimal as number one, but as in top five.  Based on what you're saying about him being a sixth starter, we agree.
     
  24. 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, let's face it. Wakefield could throw a perfect game tomorrow and someone would say "release" him the next day. 
    Posted by dannycater


    He could throw 3 shutouts in a row, and not one Wake basher would change his views.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wake ERA now at 4.92

    moon, and poor Lackey, he's having problems in that SPACIOUS pitcher's park tonight....oh brother. *kill me..hiccup...kill me...hiccup*
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share