Why remove Wake?

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

    Why remove Wake?

    He had the easiest of 1-2-3 innings.
    I said this when I saw Bard warming up.
    Would he have removed any other reliever after such an easy, low-pitch inning?

    Does Tito share in Softlaw's bias against Wake?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wherescreamingcomesfrom. Show wherescreamingcomesfrom's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I was wondering the same thing . . .

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Why remove Wake?:
    He had the easiest of 1-2-3 innings. I said this when I saw Bard warming up. Would he have removed any other reliever after such an easy, low-pitch inning? Does Tito share in Softlaw's bias against Wake?
    Posted by harness


    Once it became tied, Bard was coming in no matter who pitched the previous inning.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from marstan. Show marstan's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    IN A TIE GAME, THE LAST GUY YOU WANT IN THERE
    IS WAKE,BECAUSE OF STEALS AND PASSED BALLS.
    HE CAN'T HOLD RUNNERS, AND TEK HAS NO ARM
    LEFT. AT LEAST BARD CAN RUN THE BALL UP THERE
    IN THE 90'S.GIVE CREDIT TO THE ORIOLES. THEY ARE
    A BETTER HITTING TEAM THAN THE SOX AND THEY
    HAVE A BETTER MANAGER. THEIR OUTFIELD OF JONES,
    MARKAKIS AND SCOTT IS BETTER THAN ELLSBURY,
    CRAWFORD AND DREW... THEY HAVE MORE POWER
    AND THAT WILL WIN GAMES OVER THE LONG RUN.
    ONLY A GON IS HITTING CONSISTENTLY NOW, AND
    THE OTHER GUYS ARE STANDING AROUND. ORTIZ
    IS HITTING SINGLES AND YOUK, DESPITE THE HR,
    IS HITTING IN THE LOW 200'S.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from marstan. Show marstan's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I SAID IT BEFORE AND I WILL POST IT AGAIN. THE SOX
    JUST CAN'T SCORE CONSISTENTLY AND THEY HAVE
    TO PLAY STATION TO STATION. IN THE AL EAST, THIS
    WILL NOT GET THEM TO THE PLAYOFFS. WE CAN'T
    EVEN BEAT TAMPA OR THE ORIOLES. WAKE UP, FANS.
    ITS NEARLY MAY. IN ONE MONTH, THIS TEAM HAS
    DEMONSTRATED AN APPALLING LACK OF POWER, AND
    THE "SHORTS" IN PITCHING. IF YOU THINK THIS
    TEAM CAN COMPETE WITH THE YANKEES, THINK AGAIN !
    YOU ARE DUE FOR A RUDE AWAKENING !!!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    It is called a formula. And some managers cannot get away from it. Just like Girardi & Soriano coming into the 8th inning last night when there was no reason for it. Managers get stuck on how it should be done and never questions as to whether it should be done.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    This has to be the first time in this board's history that someone has complained about Wakefield being removed too soon.

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Another old paradigm that needs to be shattered.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    You are a great Monday morning quarterback. Who in their right mind would want Wakefield over Bard.  If Bard doesn't get it right, this team is toast anyway. Wakefield is a mop up pitcher, not your 8th inning guy.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    No, this isn't quarterbacking. Wake is doing mop-up because Tito put him in that role from day one of this season. Does Wake ever get a chance to be put in a more critical role? Others fall out of favor with Tito, but are given the chance to redeem themselves if they pitch well.

    It's not a matter of Bard, or how he pitched. It's a matter of bias against Wakefield - and the type of pitch he throws.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wherescreamingcomesfrom. Show wherescreamingcomesfrom's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    You are a great Monday morning quarterback. Who in their right mind would want Wakefield over Bard.  If Bard doesn't get it right, this team is toast anyway. Wakefield is a mop up pitcher, not your 8th inning guy.
    Posted by ADG


    Actually it sounds like both Harness and I wondered about it while it was happening.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    You're right Moon. It's a formulated paradigm of modern-day baseball that defies old school thinking.
    I've always believed you stay with a hot hand. Even if it's for a given game.

    The more pitchers that are used - because it's their given "role" - the larger the chance one of them will be off-form. People tend to forget that many relievers are failed starters. Starters need time to establish the feel for their stuff.
    Relievers don't have this luxury.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Paradigms have been broken in baseball, but it is a slow process that usually takes a ring to make others take notice and then emulate.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    How much time will it take for Tito to get over his bias and treat Wake as he would Wheeler, or Jenks, or Albers? If any of them have 4 or 5 good outings in a row, they are then trusted in more crucial game situations.

    Would Wake be given the same guide-lines?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zack5042. Show zack5042's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    How much time will it take for Tito to get over his bias and treat Wake as he would Wheeler, or Jenks, or Albers? If any of them have 4 or 5 good outings in a row, they are then trusted in more crucial game situations. Would Wake be given the same guide-lines?
    Posted by harness

    probably not but i was thinking opposite of you here i was wondering why they took beckett out. He was only at 92 pitches and besides those two homers he was doing good i wouldve kept him in one more inning then i still would go with bard either way because bard is our best reliever.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from wherescreamingcomesfrom. Show wherescreamingcomesfrom's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : probably not but i was thinking opposite of you here i was wondering why they took beckett out. He was only at 92 pitches and besides those two homers he was doing good i wouldve kept him in one more inning then i still would go with bard either way because bard is our best reliever.
    Posted by zack5042


    Remember that Beckett threw something like 126 pitches in his last start - can't ride him like that every time out. That made more sense to me.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from zack5042. Show zack5042's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : Remember that Beckett threw something like 126 pitches in his last start - can't ride him like that every time out. That made more sense to me.
    Posted by wherescreamingcomesfrom

    Yeah but still didn't he have 6 days of rest? could've gone one more inning wouldve ended around 110
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Also, you don't want to push your starter in a 4-0 deficit.
    Josh pitches better with an extra day's rest. So, limiting his IP is the next best thing. Besides, he wasn't very effective after the first few innings.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from billsrul. Show billsrul's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Honestly, I think that the only relievers who would be given extra "leeway" to pitch the bottom of the 8th in a tie game are Bard himself, and Jenks.  I think anyone else would be coming out there.

    Albers- "non-mop" long man
    Aceves- same thing
    Okajima- LH Specialist
    Wheeler- not really sure what his role is right now, I guess he's "7th inning sometimes"
    Jenks- set-up
    Bard- set-up
    Pap- closer

    granted, I do believe taht others of those guys are given more "critical" situations than Wake, but none of them would be getting the ball  tie game 8th inning (outside of Jenks)....

    Also, as for your "roles"  thing, I'm not sure I completely agree.  Relievers generally like to know when they are  going to pitch, instead of standing around waiting for the phone all day.   Therefore, I support general "roles" in the bullpen, though I would say that bullpen management could be somewhat innovated (for instance,  I wouldn't be bringing my closer in to get a save with a  3-run lead, and  similarly,I probably would bring in my closer if my team was down a run in the 8th or 9th inning).

    Finally, with Wakefiled, there's no way I'd have him come out to  start a late inning in a tie or one-run game.  The reason is two-fold; first, he has a tendency to give up HR.  Second, he gives up a lot of SB/passed balls/wild pitches.  Third, his speed/fielding is questionable on bunts.  Adding all this together, I feel that you'd have to pull Wake anyways if a runner got on base.  Wake is great as a 5th starter,  since he eats innings and can keep a team in the game when the knuckler is on.  However, he's scary to have on the mound when  the opponent just needs to scratch out one run....


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Surely one of the sillier posts Harness has made.

    Wake was sent out there as a mop up guy--the Sox offense was moribund and Beckett gave up 4 runs, including two dingers, in six innings.  The score was 4-0, Orioles.  How bad was it?  In the very first inning, Youk came up, once again, with one man out and a man on third (and second)--and promptly struck out. 

    Then everything changed with a miracle 4 run 8th inning rally against a weak Baltimore bullpen--including, surprise, surprise, a 3 run dinger by Youk. 

    I happen to like Wakefield and think he serves a useful purpose still.  But that knuckler is notoriously unreliable and can render Wake the next best thing to a t-ball pitcher.  And Bard has been pretty effective lately.  Plus let's not forget that Tek was catching and subject to getting a passed ball or two when catching Wake.  As it is, he let a Bard pitch get by him, which led to an unearned run.

    I think Harness is guilty of the worst kind of second-guessing and have absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had Wake pitched the 8th and given up a run (as Bard did), Harness would have started a thread entitled, "why in the wide, wide world of sports was Wake allowed to pitch, let alone pitch the 8th inning in a tie ball game?"

    Speaking of which, can we not all now agree that Mike Scioscia must be a very dumb manager?  Why?  Because his guys lost four straight at home to the lowly Red Sox.  And on this board it is never the players who screw up--just the managers. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    You are a great Monday morning quarterback. Who in their right mind would want Wakefield over Bard.  If Bard doesn't get it right, this team is toast anyway. Wakefield is a mop up pitcher, not your 8th inning guy.

    Well said.

    No one has any crediblity who second guesses lifting Wakefield for Bard, in a tie game in the 8th. Wakefield came in when the team was down 4-0. He was in a mop-up situation until Youk cranked the 3 run homer.

    I thought the real story was how pitiful Varitek is behind the plate. His senses and joints are shot. He singly handedly changed the momentum of the game.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Why, of course. Credibility is parading Wake-hate around the board like a venereal disease.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I like Wakefield, but he needs to head to the NL or retire. He has no legitimate role in a pen role, nor is he good enough to warrant keeping him around as the 9th or 10 starter option. He's an old and bad movie, and a rotating AAA and retreads would not be any worse than Wakefield.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Gee, imagine that M1A2, Youk whiffing in a key situation - on a 95 MPH fastball - on a relatively slow radar gun.

    You've been around here long enough to know I don't start threads second-guessing unless I have a damn good reason or an ulterior motive. Bard has blown plenty of games. Did you ever see me start a thread second-guessing putting him in?
    Critiquing short-term performance is more your line.

    I kinda figured you might be smart enough to comprehend the meaning of the OP.
    I should have known better.
    It's not about Bard. He could have pitched 3 no-hit innings and I'd have felt just as I did when I saw him warming up.

    Wake threw 13 pitches and made the O's hitters look mediocre at best. That mattered not, as Tito has no intention of using him with the game on the line. He fears the knuckler as much as many on this board do. He wouldn't chance the fact that it's also the only pitch in baseball that can induce repetitive outs despite the fact the hitter knows exactly what's coming.

    You swallow this role BS like it was chocolate. It's overblown. There's just as much merit to staying with a hot hand as there is role-playing. And while defining roles helps in a pitcher's preparation, the odds of seeing several relievers in top form doesn't outweigh the odds of staying with an effective performance.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    I like Wakefield, but he needs to head to the NL or retire. He has no legitimate role in a pen role, nor is he good enough to warrant keeping him around as the 9th or 10 starter option. He's an old and bad movie, and a rotating AAA and retreads would not be any worse than Wakefield.
    Posted by BaseballGM


    He has no legit role because that's how he's being deployed. Thus, the perception is "he has no legitimate role". He's a 193 game winner doing janitorial service.
    That's the truth.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share