What do you miss about Wakefield?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    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.

     



    First, I think too much is made of that "we deserved" quote. I don't think it's fair to sum up a guy who otherwise has been a stand-up, good guy based on one ill-advised comment. I don't think any of us would want to have our worst moment describe us. None of us are perfect so I think we should look at the overall picture, rather than give unfair weight on a negative moment.

     

    Second: Those "slew: of horrid starts did not lead to the demise. Here are his starts after 199.

    7 IP, 3 ER: Team scored one run. He could have/should have had 200 here.

    6.2 IP, 3 ER: ND in 4-3 win. So the team won the game and he pitched well enough to win.

    7 IP, 3 ER: Full dislcosure, he allowed five runs, but also, the team won the game. Again, a no-decision. 

    8 IP, 4 ER: Sox scored just three runs in a loss. Not a great start, but a decent start for a No. 5 starter.

    So for the first four attempts, he did his job. The team went 2-2 and he pitched well enough to go 3-1. So it wasn't a slew of bad starts. He did exactly what any team would want from a No. 5 starter, and that's what he was.

    After that, of course, he struggled three bad starts but one very good relief experience before he finally won 200.

    EDIT: I posted this before seeing moonie's post.  So this just repeats his points.

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    Diversions. Distractions. Misrepresentations. Instigations. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from michaelsjr. Show michaelsjr's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    nothing.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    Is this the Jackie Bradley Jr thread?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    I this the "why not Linares" thread?



    What?

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

     I've made a mistake to start this thread...

     

    Then, does that mean you are admitting to 227 mistakes: the amount of Wake threads you have started

    ... AFTER HE RETIRED ?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Wastefield didn't retire, he was kicked to the curb, begging all the way.



    semantics. Your still dogging the guy even after his playing days... let it gooooo

    you know that's how brain anurisms form right??

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Wastefield didn't retire, he was kicked to the curb, begging all the way.



    Forced retirement is still retirement.

    Your continued obsession with a "kicked to the curb" 6th starter and back up catcher is so puzzling.

    Is it because these two positions were the closest to being correct positions you have held in years?

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Wastefield didn't retire, he was kicked to the curb, begging all the way.




    Too bad we can't kick you to the curb.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    Blaming Wakefield for that disaster of a year is specious, to use a favorite term of yours.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Wakefield lost a lot of my respect when he told the media that the fans "deserved to watch me win my 200th game". And I thought this was a team sport where team wins came first. How many attempts did it take him to win his 200th game? Eight? Or was it 10.....while his team was undergoing a choke job for the ages. No, it wasn't all his fault, but while that was going on I certainly did not want to hear his selfish arrogant rant.

    This sums of Wastefield, quite well.




    No its doesn't. Not even you are that dumb and blind...Its certainly a bad way to end his time in Boston, I agree. But TW also did a lot of selfless things and put the team ahead of him. He was/is also a great person in this community and has graciously donated his time and money.

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Wastefield didn't retire, he was kicked to the curb, begging all the way.

     




    Too bad we can't kick you to the curb.

     



    I'm just so happy that the kicking Wake to the curb decision cleared the way for this:

                 GS  W-L  ERA  WHIP

    Stewart 2  0-2   22.24  3.000

    Dice-K  11 1-7     8.28  1.708

    A Cook  18 4-11  5.65  1.468

    D Bard   10  4-6   5.30  1.620

    Beckett  21 5-11  5.23  1.327

     

    Wake's last two years with Boston:

    19  4-10  5.34  1.350

    23   7-8   5.12   1.358

    Total:

    41  11-18  5.22  1.355

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    wake was a selfless guy at times, and other times he was all about himself...as usual these posts are lacking in perspective...he wasnt just the guy who sacrificed himself to get slauightered by the yanks in the postseaso and saved the pitching core for an epic comeback - he was also not just the guy who was delusional in his last days trying to get that last win by convincing himself the fans "deserved" it...

    the sum of a guy is what's important and he served the Sox well except for his last few years (minus-the all start first half)

     

     




    sounds about right. He showed how much of a "team guy" he could be, but at the end it was all about HIS record.

     

     



    So wrong southie. I'm surprised.

     




    I understand and acknowledge the selfless things he has done for this team and for the community. I think the way he said that we all deserve to see him break the record rubbed me the wrong way.

    I will always have respect for wake and the things he did for this team and town. I really do think in the end it was about his record.

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    I miss watching him cover first.



     "what do I miss about Wakefield"

             Nothing.

            On the mound he was an accident waiting to happen.

            And it usually did.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    wake was a selfless guy at times, and other times he was all about himself...as usual these posts are lacking in perspective...he wasnt just the guy who sacrificed himself to get slauightered by the yanks in the postseaso and saved the pitching core for an epic comeback - he was also not just the guy who was delusional in his last days trying to get that last win by convincing himself the fans "deserved" it...

    the sum of a guy is what's important and he served the Sox well except for his last few years (minus-the all start first half)

     

     




    sounds about right. He showed how much of a "team guy" he could be, but at the end it was all about HIS record.

     

     



    So wrong southie. I'm surprised.

     

     




    I understand and acknowledge the selfless things he has done for this team and for the community. I think the way he said that we all deserve to see him break the record rubbed me the wrong way.

     

    I will always have respect for wake and the things he did for this team and town. I really do think in the end it was about his record.



    I don't. If it was all about the record. He'd have announced his retirement after the season. Wake was a fierce competitor. A couple statements might have come out wrong or been wrong to some extent, but he was all about the team winning. It's not like his goal personal conflicted with the team's goal- like Ripken hurting the team to play everyday. Wake's goal was to win each game he played in- that is not a harmful goal.

    He did not pitch that poorly after his 199th win. The bats and pen let him down a bit, but he never complained or pulled any Lackey mound antics. 

    His last 2 years were not great, but if you look at his starts and how many of them were good enough to keep us in the game, he was not as bad as the 5.22 ERA indicated. More importantly, he was not even close to the leading candidate for assigning blame for the 2011 missed playoffs. Nor was our back-up catcher.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to royf19'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.

     



    First, I think too much is made of that "we deserved" quote. I don't think it's fair to sum up a guy who otherwise has been a stand-up, good guy based on one ill-advised comment. I don't think any of us would want to have our worst moment describe us. None of us are perfect so I think we should look at the overall picture, rather than give unfair weight on a negative moment.

     

    Second: Those "slew: of horrid starts did not lead to the demise. Here are his starts after 199.

    7 IP, 3 ER: Team scored one run. He could have/should have had 200 here.

    6.2 IP, 3 ER: ND in 4-3 win. So the team won the game and he pitched well enough to win.

    7 IP, 3 ER: Full dislcosure, he allowed five runs, but also, the team won the game. Again, a no-decision. 

    8 IP, 4 ER: Sox scored just three runs in a loss. Not a great start, but a decent start for a No. 5 starter.

    So for the first four attempts, he did his job. The team went 2-2 and he pitched well enough to go 3-1. So it wasn't a slew of bad starts. He did exactly what any team would want from a No. 5 starter, and that's what he was.

    After that, of course, he struggled three bad starts but one very good relief experience before he finally won 200.

    EDIT: I posted this before seeing moonie's post.  So this just repeats his points.

     



    Good things shared, Roy.   Simple proof that if one reads the stats, even if he hasn't seen the evidence in person, that outcry can be balanced by sensibility.

     

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    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.

     

      "Quality start

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   Jump to: navigation, search

    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.[1] 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.)

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

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    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.

    Wake gave it his all. He came up short more often than we hoped, but as a 6th starter, he was not the reason we lost in 2011.

     

      "Quality start

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   Jump to: navigationsearch

    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.[1] 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 acheap 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.)


    Wake pitched half his games in Fenway and many more than his share vs tough hitting teams.

    His career ERA+ is 106.

    Wake's QS% from 2001 to 2009:

    71%

    73%

    55%

    47%

    52%

    57%

    48% (After this year,  softy first called for Wake's booting)

    60%

    57%

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: What do you miss about Wakefield?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Wake pitched half his games in Fenway and many more than his share vs tough hitting teams.

    His career ERA+ is 106.

    Wake's QS% from 2001 to 2009:

    71%

    73%

    55%

    47%

    52%

    57%

    48% (After this year,  softy first called for Wake's booting)

    60%

    57%

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's funny that we recognize the Fenway factor for hitters but rarely allow that to be an issue with pitchers.  Odd thinking to me, since IF A HITTER TENDS TO HIT BETTER IN FENWAY, the natural recipient of that additional assault is, by nature of the issue even in physics, the PITCHER.

    One of the main reasons we signed Napoli was the Fenway factor ... One of the main reasons Freddy Lynn became a good but not great hitter was he was traded away from Fenway.  We could go on and on .. but why?  Your point of Wake pitching in Fenway for half of his starts is VERY well made.

     

Share