Wakefield's unearned runs

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Wakefield's unearned runs

    Moonlav and others keep remind us that Wake's ERA aint' that bad, that he's had some decent outings, etc.

    But one thing that bugs me is that after last night Wakefield as over 1/3 of all Sox unearned runs this season.  He has 16, and the team has 44.  The next most unearned runs by another Sox pitcher is 4. 

    I don't think those unearned runs are bad luck.  I think they are the result of how tricky that knuckler can be and of Wake's inability to recover when there is a passed ball or an error.  There has been at least one occasion when an error has led to like 4 or 5 unearned runs, scored primarily because the other team knocked his pitches all over the ballpark after the error.  Baloney, give the guy one unearned run and then charge to others, based on doubles, dingers, etc to the pitcher.  Plus those passed balls by Salty are mostly Wake's fault.  

    I think Wakefield's real ERA is around 5.67, not the official 5.03.    I arrived at that by dividing his innings to date, 139.6666666 (it's mathematically not 139.2), by 9 and then dividing his real earned runs (I arbitrarily converted 10 of his 16 unearned runs to earned runs), 88, but the numbers of full games, 15.52 (result of dividing 139.6666 by 9). 

    Where I agree with moonslav is that, even if Wake's real ERA is 5.67, he still could be a better bet than Miller, Weiland, and even Lackey. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    I'll cross-post this response ... if you go by total runs/ 9 IP (including all unearned) here's what you get: 

    Beckett 2.59
    Lester 3.09
    Buchholz 3.70
    Bedard 4.22
    Miller 5.75
    Wake 6.05
    Lackey 6.37
    Weiland 6.75

    Obviously, Buch is out for a while, so by this metric Wake is #5 on the depth chart.  One could argue that his consistent mediocrity puts him ahead of Miller in light of Miller's astronmical WHIP & BAA.  Then again, you could cite Miller's upside potential on the other side of the Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde coin flip. Any way you look at it, though, it's a scary rotation right now.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    Wow, 5.67, which is still not the highest ERA in the rotation.

    Wake isn't even supposed to be in the rotation on a regular basis.  He's supposed to be a spot starter/long reliever.  He was thrust into being in the rotation because of injuries.

    So what does this mean?  It means that Wakefiled should not be in the rotation.  Everyone accepts that.  No one in Wakefield's role should be expected to have a low era or a great win/loss record.

    Given that Wake has a role that he was not intended to fill, I think he's done a very good job.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    I'll cross-post this response ... if you go by total runs/ 9 IP (including all unearned) here's what you get:  B eckett 2.59 L ester 3.09 B uchholz 3.70 Bedard 4.22 Miller 5.75 Wake 6.05 Lackey 6.37 W eiland 6.75 Obviously, Buch is out for a while, so by this metric Wake is #5 on the depth chart.  One could argue that his consistent mediocrity puts him ahead of Miller in light of Miller's astronmical WHIP & BAA.  Then again, you could cite Miller's upside potential on the other side of the Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde coin flip. Any way you look at it, though, it's a scary rotation right now.
    Posted by 111SoxFan111


    Well done.  Thanks. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    Wastefield has the following standard line which include scoring that allow loons like Moonslow to blame bad luck and fielding for runs on Wastefield:

    1-2 Hr
    1-2 WP
    1-2 PB
    1-2 hB

    The man is a 45 year old blind gopher looking for a nut. He is a joke!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    Wow, 5.67, which is still not the highest ERA in the rotation. Wake isn't even supposed to be in the rotation on a regular basis.  He's supposed to be a spot starter/long reliever.  He was thrust into being in the rotation because of injuries. So what does this mean?  It means that Wakefiled should not be in the rotation.  Everyone accepts that.  No one in Wakefield's role should be expected to have a low era or a great win/loss record. Given that Wake has a role that he was not intended to fill, I think he's done a very good job.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover


    Also well stated. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    win-loss record is a by product of a great SP and a great closer to back him up....hence Verlander has 22 wins....Pretty much every other SP in baseball has little control over wins and losses. It's an over-rated statistic and the very fact that people are still complaining about Wakefield in a game that should have easily resulted in his 200th win is well a waste of time. The bullpen choked and Lackey's 6 wins in 7 starts occurred because he had a lot more luck than Wake, got great offense and the relievers didn't implode behind him. Wakefield has had 3 times now where the pen choked after he left with a lead, which would have been 9 wins, which last time i checked would be pretty good for a "fill-in" SP.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    Wakefield has had 3 times now where the pen choked after he left with a lead, which would have been 9 wins

    Nice math.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    Wakefield has had 3 times now where the pen choked after he left with a lead, which would have been 9 wins Nice math.
    Posted by S0ftl@w

    It's not your strong suit -- and I'm not sure what is -- but 6 + 3 = 9.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Wakefield's unearned runs:
    Moonlav and others keep remind us that Wake's ERA aint' that bad, that he's had some decent outings, etc. But one thing that bugs me is that after last night Wakefield as over 1/3 of all Sox unearned runs this season.  He has 16, and the team has 44.  The next most unearned runs by another Sox pitcher is 4.  I don't think those unearned runs are bad luck.  I think they are the result of how tricky that knuckler can be and of Wake's inability to recover when there is a passed ball or an error.  There has been at least one occasion when an error has led to like 4 or 5 unearned runs, scored primarily because the other team knocked his pitches all over the ballpark after the error.  Baloney, give the guy one unearned run and then charge to others, based on doubles, dingers, etc to the pitcher.  Plus those passed balls by Salty are mostly Wake's fault.   I think Wakefield's real ERA is around 5.67, not the official 5.03.    I arrived at that by dividing his innings to date, 139.6666666 (it's mathematically not 139.2), by 9 and then dividing his real earned runs (I arbitrarily converted 10 of his 16 unearned runs to earned runs), 88, but the numbers of full games, 15.52 (result of dividing 139.6666 by 9).  Where I agree with moonslav is that, even if Wake's real ERA is 5.67, he still could be a better bet than Miller, Weiland, and even Lackey. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    Yes, this was pointed out earlier. The other factor with Wakefield is the number of home runs he gives up. Even after the inning should be over, with subsequent runs unearned, he gives up a lot of home runs. Even though they are unearned, he's still giving up bombs.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    Lloyd, I don't know if soft has a strong suit, he's a man of many talents (said quite loosely), master of none.

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

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    In Response to Wakefield's unearned runs : Yes, this was pointed out earlier. The other factor with Wakefield is the number of home runs he gives up. Even after the inning should be over, with subsequent runs unearned, he gives up a lot of home runs. Even though they are unearned, he's still giving up bombs.
    Posted by ADG

    How about the factor of the pen allowing more of Wake's inherited runners to score than any other starter on the team?

    How about the factor that Tito saves his pen when Wake pitches due to his 3rd highest IP/GS total coupled with the fact that Bard and paps rarely pitch in Wake starts even if the game gets close?

    How about the factor that the saved pen (and possibly the fact that Wake messes with hitter's heads) has helped the Sox go 14-5 in games after a Wake start?

    How about the factor that Wake has the lowest BB/9 rate of any Sox starter from 2010-2011?

    How about the factor that Wake's WHIP is better than most Sox starters and has been lower than his career average up to 2010 for 2 straight years?

    (BTW, Wake's career HR/9 is 1.2. This year it is 1.4: not good, but not terribly far off his career norm.)
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    Moonlav and others keep remind us that Wake's ERA aint' that bad...

    No, I have never said that. Wake's ERA is bad and has been bad for 2 years. What I have said was that ERA is...

    1) flawed (as are all stats) and that we should look beyond just ERA.
    2) his ERA is better than other Sox options' ERAs.
    3) other MLB 6th starters are generally worse than Wake in ERA and other data.
    4) that people are choosing to bash our 6th starter and back-up catcher, who both happen to be 2 of the best at their positions in MLB.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    LLoyd, 6 isnt in the idiot's equation. 3 does not equal 6, you moron!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from paesan59. Show paesan59's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    Great points by the OP. When Wake pitches walks, singles, hit batters all turn into triples via a passed ball, wild pitch, steal. How many times have we seen runners on 1st and 2nd no outs and with a blink if an eye it is now 2nd and 3rd no outs. When Wake pitches it is almost comical on how many free bases he allows.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    8 SBs and 8 CS. Best rate out of all our starters.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from paesan59. Show paesan59's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    8 SBs and 8 CS. Best rate out of all our starters.
    Posted by moonslav59


    That stat is misleading because many teams get over agressive in stealing when Wake pitches. Slow base runners that would not try stealing on other pitchers try on Wake. Your response still does not address the other issues I brought up about Wake. When I watch Wake pitch games I see base runners taking free bases like they are giving them away.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    I'd still rather see Wake on the mound than Lackey.

    Walks, hit batsmen, steals, and he still has a better record than Lackey.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    LLoyd, 6 isnt in the idiot's equation. 3 does not equal 6, you moron!
    Posted by S0ftl@w

    No, simpleton, Danny's point is the bullpen cost Wakefield three wins. And since Wake has six wins now, that would make nine.

    Again ... 6 + 3 = ... come on, you can do it!!! You have that many fingers!! (Presumably).
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs : That stat is misleading because many teams get over agressive in stealing when Wake pitches. Slow base runners that would not try stealing on other pitchers try on Wake. Your response still does not address the other issues I brought up about Wake. When I watch Wake pitch games I see base runners taking free bases like they are giving them away.
    Posted by paesan59


    Yes, there are many WPs and PBs when Wake pitches, if that's what you mean by "free bases".  The fact is the opps have onlt attempted 16 SBs vs Wake. That is not as much as others, and they have a 50% success rate when they do try. That is the best CS rate of any Sox starter. You guys are reaching for anything and everything just to convince yourselves Wake is horrible in every area of the game. He used to be bad in allowing SBs. This year he has not.

    There wasn't last year with VMart catching, but if you want to blame Wake for it, I won't stop you.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    The Wake loyalists are always quick to blame his teammates for his failures. The defense , bullpen , etc.   The unearned runs he gives up are mostly the result of the perils of the knuckeball.  The so called passed balls are , in fact , wild pitches , and are part and parcel of depending on the knuckler.  After an error in the field , the pitcher's job is to pick up his teammates and limit the damage , not implode and give up four " unearned runs."  Blowing an early lead and giving up five runs in five innings, then hoping the pen can hold it for four is not going to cut it. I will say this much for Wake ; at least he accepts resonsibility for his failures instead of blaming his teammates. Why can't his loyal fans do the same ?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    ^^^ Nice post.  Very articulate argument for ... for ... um, what are you advocating exactly?

    Here is the current depth chart based on Total Runs / 9IP.  I think we can agree this metric fully accounts for "the perils of the knuckleball" including all WP, PB, SBs, HRs ... everything.  In the current situation, who should be pitching instead of Wake in your opinion?

    Beckett 2.59
    Lester 3.09
    Bedard 4.22
    Miller 5.75
    Wake 6.05
    Lackey 6.37
    Weiland 6.75
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    The Wake loyalists are always quick to blame his teammates for his failures. The defense , bullpen , etc.   The unearned runs he gives up are mostly the result of the perils of the knuckeball.  The so called passed balls are , in fact , wild pitches , and are part and parcel of depending on the knuckler.  After an error in the field , the pitcher's job is to pick up his teammates and limit the damage , not implode and give up four " unearned runs."  Blowing an early lead and giving up five runs in five innings, then hoping the pen can hold it for four is not going to cut it. I will say this much for Wake ; at least he accepts resonsibility for his failures instead of blaming his teammates. Why can't his loyal fans do the same ?
    Posted by dgalehouse


    You are blaming Wake for not "picking up his teammates", but then let slide the fact that his teammates have let more of his inherited runners score than any other starter.

    I have never said the knuckler does not lend itself to more PBs and WPs. It does. However, to blame them totally on Wake is not fair as well, if you are trying to go "team" here. Last year VMart did a great job blocking the plate for Wake. Salty has not dones as well. Is that all Wake's fault? No. Is it all salty's fault? No.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    In Response to Re: Wakefield's unearned runs:
    ^^^ Nice post.  Very articulate argument for ... for ... um, what are you advocating exactly? Here is the current depth chart based on Total Runs / 9IP.  I think we can agree this metric fully accounts for "the perils of the knuckleball" including all WP, PB, SBs, HRs ... everything.  In the current situation, who should be pitching instead of Wake in your opinion? B eckett 2.59 L ester 3.09 Bedard 4.22 Miller 5.75 Wake 6.05 Lackey 6.37 W eiland 6.75
    Posted by 111SoxFan111

    Aceves. Also, Weiland. His stats are from a very small sample. Give him more of a chance to prove himself.  What you are seeing from Wake is what you are going to get. That is not going to change.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: Wakefield's unearned runs

    I agree Weiland should get another start but I think that "what you see is what you get" from Wake is actually a plus in the view of the FO.  With an offense like the RS, Wake giving up a TOTAL of 6 runs / 9IP should allow the team to win at least half the games he starts.  If you can count on that from someone that deep on your SP depth chart you are doing well as a team IMO.  Weiland hopefully has a higher ceiling but he is unproven and his two starts so far were 1.5 WHIP and 2.0 WHIP ... a small sample to be sure, but not good enough to put him ahead of Wake in the depth chart in my view.  

    Re: Aceves, I am on the fence about this.  I said in another thread that I think for Theo/Tito it isn't a question of who is better (Aceves).  Instead, I think it is an issue of where will Aceves provide the most value to the team. Advocating him to start is a reasonable position in my view ... I just think there's an argument to be made that his current role is more valuable at least for the rest of the regular season.  I have warmed up to the idea of a starter by committee for game 4 in the post season FWIW.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share