Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?
posted at 3/30/2013 4:53 PM EDT
In response to moonslav59's comment:
In response to BurritoT-'s comment:
Exactly! As he got his rear handed to him start after start and saying "we deserved" to see him win #200 I gave up on him. I had always supported him until those slew of horrid starts in pursuit of #200 helped to bring about the ultimate demise to the team. It was during this "streak" the team started to slip.
His previous 8 games up to his 200th and after 199:
IP H ER BB
7.0 3 3 2 Team lost 3-1 *Totally "horrid", right burr?
6.2 5 3 2 Team won 4-3 *Horrid? He left after 7 IP and 3 ER.
7.0 8 3 0 Team won 8-6 * Horrid? (2 unearned runs- Wake leaves w gm tied)
8.0 9 4 2 Team lost 5-3 *Horrid? (3 runs scored in 3rd with 2 E's and 2 GB hits, another run scored because the hobbled Youk allows an IF hit.)
5.1 9 4 0 Team lost 9-4 *This was horrid but 1 of Wake's ERs was allowed to score when Albers cam in and imploded. Wake left the game with the lead 4-2 and 1 on. But, I guess he deserved all the blame for this loss in yours and softy's eyes.
4.0 8 4 2 Team lost 15-5 * This looks horrid too, but 3 runs score after a dropped 3rs strike with 2 outs.
4.0 3 0 0 Team lost 10-0 *Wake pitches very well in 4 innings of relief.
5.0 3 4 3 Team lost 11-10 * 1 Unearned run scores of Wake in 1st, 1 ER scores on steal of home, Wake leaves the game ahead 8-5 and Bard implodes handing the Jays the win. I guess you blame Wake for this loss as well.
Burr, get your facts and memory straight before you jump on softy's bashwagon.
I know I responded to Roy first, but that was simply because I was distracted by the return of my beautiful wife .... and when I came back to the board, I was reading from the last post backward.
I appreciate your clear and factual reporting here, Moon. Many of us are ruled by our emotions and allow them to color our memories improperly. Did Wake have a tough run at 200? Seems so - but more often than not, it was his team mates that failed to hold on to a decent performance.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:
In baseball, a quality start is a statistic for a starting pitcher defined as a game in which the pitcher completes at least six innings and permits no more than three earned runs.
The quality start was developed by sportswriter John Lowe in 1985 while writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer. ESPN.com terms a loss suffered by a pitcher in a quality start as a tough loss and a win earned by a pitcher in a non-quality start a cheap win."
It's interesting to me that a QUALITY START includes an ERA of 4.50 .... Wakefield had a lifetime ERA below that of a quality start at 4.41 ...
It is amusing to me that in an atmosphere where so many were acidically opposed to the big money, long contract players (i.e. the traded ones to LAD), that we have these folks that are also targeting a guy who played year to year at a bargain of $4 million per. SO WHAT if he hoped to reach 200 wins! We are talking about players - uh, people whose egos help drive them to become professionals at the least and uber stars at the most. Wake was a rarity. Sure he WANTED TO PITCH. Big deal. Isn't that what all pitchers WANT? (Shhhh ... don't bring up they want to eat chicken and drink beer and play video games. The last time I looked, the stands and board is full of folks who like to do the same. And PROBABLY would at work if no one caught them.)