Why remove Wake?

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?


    I agree, Harness.  It's cruel.  Sometimes, it's just the way management does things.

    Personally, I certainly wouldn't put him out to pasture.  It's a long season.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Management should be put out of its misery for inking Tim to a two year deal - I just don't get it.  

    Tito actually did his job by bringing in Bard..... he did not show his all too common bias towards his veterans.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Even against Aaron Boone I knew the game was over - and not because of Wakefield as a person, heck he deserved his spot on the starting 5.... but he is NO RELIEVER.  Game on the line you don't bring Wake in - he often serves up runs. His value was starting and going 7+ innings.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I recall a stretch last year where Wake was effective out of the pen.
    But Tito never put him in a critical game situation unless he simply ran out of pitchers.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    Well AMP , I can think of better ways to put such a valued player for so many years out of his misery. Joe : Try to look beyond role playing. If your car is working fine on cheap gas, do you feel the need to put in high-test?
    Posted by harness


    Because you have a very low expectation of Wake out-performing Bard.

    One good inning really does nothing to change the odds against the second inning.

    Why not just make Wake the closer on the basis of a good inning?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    You are missing the point, Joe.
    It's about being to channelled into role definition.

    Stats and player roles are all and fine. Some managers/fans like a constant flux in the line-up personal. Others like a set line-up. Tito is flexible in this regard. That's why Lowrie is getting more PT despite his "role as utility guy".
    That's why CC is hitting 7th.
    BUT, Tito will not bend with Wake.

    I believe each game has it's own feel. If a guy is effective, why change it?
    I'm not just talking about the Wake decision. Think about how many times do you see a "7th inning reliever" breeze thru his 3 hitters, throw minimal amount of pitches, but is replaced because he's the 7th inning guy - not the set-up reliever.

    Perhaps we should start calling it "role-managing".
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    You are missing the point, Joe . It's about being to channelled into role definition. Stats and player roles are all and fine. Some managers/fans like a constant flux in the line-up personal. Others like a set line-up. Tito is flexible in this regard. That's why Lowrie is getting more PT despite his "role as utility guy". That's why CC is hitting 7th. BUT , Tito will not bend with Wake. I believe each game has it's own feel . If a guy is effective, why change it? I'm not just talking about the Wake decision. Think about how many times do you see a "7th inning reliever" breeze thru his 3 hitters, throw minimal amount of pitches, but is replaced because he's the 7th inning guy - not the set-up reliever. Perhaps we should start calling it "role-managing".
    Posted by harness


    Why do you think players have roles?  It's because they are good at something.  That's why Gonzo/Youk bat 3/4.  It's why Paps closes.  If Tek goes 3-4 tomorrow, does he bat cleanup the following day?

    The reason why Wake has the role he has is because he is not particularly good.  Every pitcher will occasionally have a good inning.  It doesn't make them closers.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Harness, I think I understand.  Francona's approach is much too procrustean.  He's a hidebound traditionalist, nothing more. 

    Youk, for example, is hitting in the low .200's and should be batting well down in the order.  Pedroia has been off lately and needs to be pulled out of the #2 slot.  Lowrie should lead off every game or, better yet, bat 3d because he has the best OPS.  Now that I think about it, Francona should base each lineup on how the hitters did in the last game.  Go with whoever's hot.  Ellsbury had 2 rbi's and 2 runs tonight--and 3 hits--so he is the obvious choice for the 3 slot tomorrow night.  Gonzalez had 3 hits too, so he can lead off.  Youk and Ortiz left a bunch of guys on base, so drop them down.  Move up Salty to 5th or 4th because he did get an rbi. 

    I'm starting to like this. 

    As for the original idea in Harness's OP, Francona can follow a very simple rule.  If a reliever throws a clean inning, he gets to throw another one, regardless of game situation.  If he throws two good innings, he gets to throw two more, and so on.  Tell Papelbon he's no longer the closer, but he will get a shot, just like anyone else in the bullpen, to pitch some innings. 

    Plus Francona can do the same for the starters, only in reverse.  One bad inning would definitely establish that Beckett or Lester or whoever doesn't have it, so, even if it's the first or second inning, he can pull that bum out and give one of the relievers a chance to show what he can do.  This would almost inevitably lead to getting Wakefield into more games and, better still, a lot more innings. 

    As Harness says, it's all about how things feel.  Forget the stats, the track record, whatever. 




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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

                                  Joe, managers work in real time. When somebody is doing well,"Wake", why the rush to get him out of there? At least let him start to get in trouble. Put a runner on, gives up a base hit, that way you maximize your upside potential before you have to make a move. By doing what he did,rushed Bard, he cost himself a ballgame. Bard needed a little more time before he came in. "T" panicked, he pushed all in with Bard too early. Bard gave up 3 hits and the game.                                Even if Bard gets all the time he needs to warm up, no guarantee he changes the dynamic, but you have to give him the time he needs to warmup in order to be effective. Also get used to seeing more Marco Scutaro, I can just feel it. "T"says " I've got to keep him fresh". "T", you've got a guy hitting .400 on the bench while you play a .200 hitter you're trying to keep fresh? Really?                       
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    Harness, I think I understand.  Francona's approach is much too procrustean.  He's a hidebound traditionalist, nothing more.  Youk, for example, is hitting in the low .200's and should be batting well down in the order.  Pedroia has been off lately and needs to be pulled out of the #2 slot.  Lowrie should lead off every game or, better yet, bat 3d because he has the best OPS.  Now that I think about it, Francona should base each lineup on how the hitters did in the last game.  Go with whoever's hot.  Ellsbury had 2 rbi's and 2 runs tonight--and 3 hits--so he is the obvious choice for the 3 slot tomorrow night.  Gonzalez had 3 hits too, so he can lead off.  Youk and Ortiz left a bunch of guys on base, so drop them down.  Move up Salty to 5th or 4th because he did get an rbi.  I'm starting to like this.  As for the original idea in Harness's OP, Francona can follow a very simple rule.  If a reliever throws a clean inning, he gets to throw another one, regardless of game situation.  If he throws two good innings, he gets to throw two more, and so on.  Tell Papelbon he's no longer the closer, but he will get a shot, just like anyone else in the bullpen, to pitch some innings.  Plus Francona can do the same for the starters, only in reverse.  One bad inning would definitely establish that Beckett or Lester or whoever doesn't have it, so, even if it's the first or second inning, he can pull that bum out and give one of the relievers a chance to show what he can do.  This would almost inevitably lead to getting Wakefield into more games and, better still, a lot more innings.  As Harness says, it's all about how things feel.  Forget the stats, the track record, whatever. 
    Posted by M1A2


    So, UR saying a manager should not be flexible? Should Tito continue to bat Crawford 3rd as he did at the beginning of the season?
    Should Scutaro be playing instead of Lowrie? After all, his role is that of the starting SS. Isn't that how he's seen?

    I'm not saying every move should be impulsive. There are different ways to look at each individual scenario.
    Starting pitchers need time to find consistent form.
    Hitters with a history of success, or lack of, in a particular position deserve merit for being in or out of that position.

    As usual, you are totally blowing this out of proportion.
    Billy Martin was one of the greatest in-game managers of his time. He felt each game had it's own continuity. He felt, as I do, that once you hand the ball to a pitcher, the numbers then become secondary. It then becomes a matter of his stuff, his command, and how the hitters react to it at that given point in time.

    Bard's numbers don't mean squat if he can only locate his fastball.
    There are many decisions that have to be made.
    Some are made before a game starts.
    Some are made before a season starts.
    And others are made during the flow of a game.

    Get it?
     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Do you know what you can do with your sick, impulsive need to label people?
    I'll give you one guess.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from billsrul. Show billsrul's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : So, UR saying a manager should not be flexible? Should Tito continue to bat Crawford 3rd as he did at the beginning of the season? Should Scutaro be playing instead of Lowrie? After all, his role is that of the starting SS. Isn't that how he's seen? I'm not saying every move should be impulsive. There are different ways to look at each individual scenario. Starting pitchers need time to find consistent form. Hitters with a history of success, or lack of, in a particular position deserve merit for being in or out of that position. As usual, you are totally blowing this out of proportion. Billy Martin was one of the greatest in-game managers of his time. He felt each game had it's own continuity. He felt, as I do, that once you hand the ball to a pitcher, the numbers then become secondary. It then becomes a matter of his stuff, his command, and how the hitters react to it at that given point in time . Bard's numbers don't mean squat if he can only locate his fastball. There are many decisions that have to be made. Some are made before a game starts. Some are made before a season starts. And others are made during the flow of a game. Get it?
    Posted by harness


    OK.  Well the problem with this is also "small sample size".  Just because Wakefield throws one good inning, doesn't mean he's going to throw a second good inning.  Sure he might "look good" for those 13 pitches, but that doesn't mean the next 13 will look good.  Could it have some effect?  Maybe.  But 13 pitches is a small sample size; just because he throws 13 good ones in a row doesn't mean 13 more good ones are coming.  Bard is a better pitcher than Wakefield at this point in their careers (I think that'd be hard to disagree with).  Therefore, Francona went to Bard in the 8th.

    There's a lot of sense in the "set roles" that managers have given players today, though I somewhat agree with you in that the roles may have become a bit too defined (batting order, lineup decisions, bullpen usage, and rotation size being 4 major areas.....).  Having a thread debate on general bullpen usage could be really fun and interesting.....
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Bill, I just started a thread called ROLE PLAYING.
    I hope to explore BP usage, but more importantly, I'm hoping  posters will re-think what's being shoved down their throats regarding role acceptance.

    I feel in-game decisions should be based on in-game performance.
    Decisions have to be made as to whether to go by career numbers against a certain hitter or pitcher, recent stats, or current form.

    The Wake decision was a perfect example of role bias. Of course there are no guarantees that a pitcher looking good for one inning will continue it. But there's a strong likelihood. There's no guarantee Bard will be lights out.

    What do you think went through Tito's mind?

    "Got to go with Bard. Win or lose, go with my best".

    "Damn, Wake looks really good. And Tek is handling him fine. But Theo/the press/the fans - they'll have a coronary if Wake blows it.
    Nobody can blame me for going with Bard..."

    "Gotta play it safe. Can't take chances right now".
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Why insert Wakefield?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Ummm, he was already inserted. He pitched the 7th. Do you follow these games by braille?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Ummm, he was already inserted. He pitched the 7th. Do you follow these games by braille?

    He's already admitted he doesn't watch the games, but that was in his "former life".

    This is his horrible rebirth/ reincarnation obviously karma-directed by such a nasty/hateful previous life.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791'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


    Because a 1-2-3 inning doesn't guarantee the next inning will be so lucky.  When Wake came in, they were down 4-0.  After the Sox batted, it was 4-4.  Logically, Francona brought in his best reliever (or at least 1A) in Daniel Bard to hold the tie.  It didn't happen, but then again if your boy Varitek could block a freaking slider in the dirt, that one run probably doesn't end up scoring.  Regardless of the outcome, he made the right move. 

    BTW, I'm being half serious, half joking with the Varitek crack.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Harness,

    Of course I blew things out of proportion--but you did it first by attacking a fairly routine and completely justified use of Bard in the 8th inning of a tie game.

    Billy Martin was proof that, in managing a good team, less is more.  He was hired and fired 5 times by the Yankees and won just one WS.  Joe Torre, a far more traditional manager, won multiple WS with the Yankees.

    Francona likes a stable lineup, and who can blame him?  We're near the end of April, and it looks like he's close to one, although when to bring in righty hitters and how often to play Scutaro vs. Lowrie are still up in the air. 

    And it sure looks as though his three primary relievers are Bard, Jenks, and Papelbon.  But not Wakefield.  Can you blame him? 

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    About Wakefield.  I always thought keeping him was a good idea.  He is great for eating innings and possibly as a backup starter, but his ERA last year and this does not justify giving him a prominent role. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I believe each game has it's own feel. If a guy is effective, why change it?
    I'm not just talking about the Wake decision. Think about how many times do you see a "7th inning reliever" breeze thru his 3 hitters, throw minimal amount of pitches, but is replaced because he's the 7th inning guy - not the set-up reliever.

    harness -

    I completely agree with this statement.  You're right, the masturbatory maneuvering of bullpen management can be incredibly frustrating and occasionally baffling.  Still, his use of Wakefield and Bard was correct.  The situation of the game had completely changed, and Bard is clearly a better pitcher than Wake.  Bard will successfully get through that inning more frequently than Wake will. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Would this thread have even been created if the pitcher had been Wheeler or Aceves?

    Wakefield is a knuckleball pitcher. By nature of that and a lot of history we know that the pitch can escape the control of the pitcher and or the catcher at any time and does so with greater regularity than happens to Bard. We also know that if runners get on the pitch gets to the catcher at a speed 1/3 less than what Bard's pitches do, meaning SB are a given if the opponent is so inclined. And if the knuckler hangs high it will leave the ballpark with remarkable speed.

    The pitch means Wakefield is going to be used in low leverage situations. The ONLY reason he is on the roster is to spot start, eat innings in low leverage situations and provide depth for the starting rotation.

    Tied in the bottom of the 8th isn't low leverage. The critique of Tito would have been scolding if he left Wake in and there was a WP, PB and the tie was lost. 

    If Wake had options he'd be in Pawtucket IMO. I know Wake is loved but that is the truth IMO.   
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Ummm, he was already inserted. He pitched the 7th. Do you follow these games by braille?

    That wasn't the question. The question was why was he inserted in the first place? Does your cognitive disorder also impair your ability to move your fingers...........

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    I believe each game has it's own feel . If a guy is effective, why change it? I'm not just talking about the Wake decision. Think about how many times do you see a "7th inning reliever" breeze thru his 3 hitters, throw minimal amount of pitches, but is replaced because he's the 7th inning guy - not the set-up reliever. harness - I completely agree with this statement.  You're right, the masturbatory maneuvering of bullpen management can be incredibly frustrating and occasionally baffling.  Still, his use of Wakefield and Bard was correct.  The situation of the game had completely changed, and Bard is clearly a better pitcher than Wake.  Bard will successfully get through that inning more frequently than Wake will. 
    Posted by redsoxfan791


    I agree with 791 here.  Also, you've got to remember that the 4-0 game situation is much different than 4-4.  In a 4-4 game, teams are going to play for one run.  I don't think this is a great situation for Wake, I prefer Wake in a situation where giving up one run is ok.... (such as a start where giving up 3-4 runs in 6 innings is ok....)
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share