Why remove Wake?

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    He's a guy pushing 50 who has been around the block too many times.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    He's 44.
    If he's pushing 50, you're pushing 60.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]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.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Have to agree with you Harness. Knuckleballers get a bad rap (rep?). When Wake is on, he is virtually unhittable!
    Should have never come to that however, the fly ball in center, Vtek's passed balls, Youk striking out with runners on 2nd and 3rd and one out. This was clearly a team loss, no one person to blame.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    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

    T-Ball doesn't have pitchers. Batting practice pitcher would be more accurate, but you have to admit, Wake can make that knuckler dance and has pitched a lot of great games and given the team more good innings than bad.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    44 is closer to 40-42, when he had a great 50 start stretch than 50.

    If Tito had kept Wake in and he got rocked, this board would have gone bonkers.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Putting Bard in was a no brainer. It just didn't work out. Leaving Wake in was not a consideration. Hindsight is always 20/20.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Putting Bard in was a no brainer. It just didn't work out. Leaving Wake in was not a consideration. Hindsight is always 20/20.
    Posted by dgalehouse[/QUOTE]
    Exactly. Can you imagine the uproar had Wake come out for the 9th and given up a home run? Which, let's face it, was more likely than him pitching another 1-2-3.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Those who think Tito has very little confidence in Wake are obviously right.  This was his second appearance since April 11.  Kind of a crazy situation really.

    The real issue here is Bard.   
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Harness,

    I will admit that in the past I have always favored going with a reliever when he is pitching well because you never know what the next guy is feeling like that day or night. 

    That said, we do know these things about Wake and Bard:  1) Wake still has his moments, but his ERA is consistently over 5 this year and last; 2) one good inning by no means signifies that the next inning will be just as good; 3) Bard was our best reliever last year (lowest ERA, anyway), and his ERA, will up this year so far, is still just a little over 3 (vs. Wakefield's over 5 ERA); 4) Bard and Papelbon have been a pretty effective combo in the late innings last year and this year; 5) Tek catching Wakefield is fraught with danger because Tek has a tough time grabbing that knuckler. 

    From the above, most people would conclude that Bard was the logical guy to pitch the 8th in what was now a ball game--tied at 4.  Sending Wakefield back out there could have worked, but it would not have been the right move. 

    To me the larger issue is that the Sox, after winning 5 of 6 on the West Coast, have fallen back to their losing ways.  Buck Showalter just might have been right.  The Orioles may not be going anywhere this year, but they can still beat our guys, even with a lousy bullpen. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Strong arguments both ways.....  Still, even though I love Wake & he was looking good, I would have made the same call as Tito.   
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I look at this question and wonder why it was asked. The game is tied. You go to the best in your bullpen late and close.

    Why? Well try a walk, a passed ball, a stolen base and a semi deep fly to CF. That is a very likely scenario with Timmy. Any base runners he surrenders have a high probabilty of getting into scoring position, more so than with any other pitcher available to Tito. Tie game, bottom of the 8th, no brainer IMO.

    Now in hindsight Bard wasn't sharp, Tek leaked passed balls without trying to catch the knuckler and the result was pretty much the same. But Tim Wakefield just is not the defintion of a late and close reliever and Bard is.


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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    When he took him out I thought to myself that he could have given him a chance - let Wake pitch to the first guy and if he puts someone on then bring in Bard. Bard seems like he either dominates or blows up, so if he's on a man on first doesn't mean too much.

    I wasn't thinking about Wake possibly giving up a homer . . . I guess I've blocked out Aaron Boone memories.

    Now I'm inclined to think taking him out was the right move. Hot hand or no, Wake isn't your best and you don't want to lose without your best out there. I don't like really rigid roles in the pen, but this move makes more sense to me now.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from joel49. Show joel49's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Putting Bard in was a no brainer. It just didn't work out. Leaving Wake in was not a consideration. Hindsight is always 20/20.
    Posted by dgalehouse[/QUOTE]
    Those who took part in last night's game thread know that I called for Wake to pitch the eighth before Bard was seen trotting in.  If he puts a runner on, then you make the change.  My take was that the O's looked feeble against him in the seventh, and my reasoning was that the O's hitters were so geared up for Beckett's fastball that Wake probably could have gone once through the order with relative ease.  IMO taking him out was a slap in the face.  I've never liked formulaic BP rules, though.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Perhaps Vtek wasn't comfortable catching him but the way it looked, Tek must have thought Wake WAS still pitching in the 8th, 'cause he sure couldn't handle Bard either!

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : Those who took part in last night's game thread know that I called for Wake to pitch the eighth before Bard was seen trotting in.  If he puts a runner on, then you make the change.  My take was that the O's looked feeble against him in the seventh, and my reasoning was that the O's hitters were so geared up for Beckett's fastball that Wake probably could have gone once through the order with relative ease.  IMO taking him out was a slap in the face.  I've never liked formulaic BP rules, though.
    Posted by joel49[/QUOTE]
    Joel , I get your point but I still think bringing in Bard there was the percentage move. Sadly, it did not work and we will never know what would have happened had Wake stayed in. But, can you imagine the wrath that would have been directed at Tito if he had stayed with Wake, and Wake hung a knuckler, as he often does, for the go-ahead home run?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Bard pitches the 8th, Paps the 9th...thats the formula that our manager likes..Harness I hear what your saying but thats the way its been, no?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from joel49. Show joel49's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : Joel , I get your point but I still think bringing in Bard there was the percentage move. Sadly, it did not work and we will never know what would have happened had Wake stayed in. But, can you imagine the wrath that would have been directed at Tito if he had stayed with Wake, and Wake hung a knuckler, as he often does, for the go-ahead home run?
    Posted by dgalehouse[/QUOTE]
    No doubt, dgale.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from joel49. Show joel49's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]I look at this question and wonder why it was asked. The game is tied. You go to the best in your bullpen late and close. Why? Well try a walk, a passed ball, a stolen base and a semi deep fly to CF. That is a very likely scenario with Timmy. Any base runners he surrenders have a high probabilty of getting into scoring position, more so than with any other pitcher available to Tito. Tie game, bottom of the 8th, no brainer IMO. Now in hindsight Bard wasn't sharp, Tek leaked passed balls without trying to catch the knuckler and the result was pretty much the same. But Tim Wakefield just is not the defintion of a late and close reliever and Bard is.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    Katz, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if memory serves me Bard has failed a number of times when coming into a tie ballgame.   He seems to pitch better when trying to preserve a lead.  Maybe someone would be inclined to check.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Bard's numbers in tie game situations this year are horrendous, not surprisingly.  But his career numbers in tie situations are excellent, a .522 OPS against.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    This lame thread is a glimpse into the baseball mentality of an old poster going by Harness.

    And, for the record, Varitek has trouble catching the ball, period, not just Wakefield's goofball.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    "And, for the record, Varitek has trouble catching the ball, period, not just Wakefield's goofball."

    Time to put Softy on ignore. It's the double identity thing (very condescending to all of us who know you are the same person) that has pushed me over the edge. 

    That and the Wakefield broken record thing. I'm not sure you're wrong about Wake but the amount of times you trollishly hammer your views on this has become trollishly unbearable. Too bad, as I'll miss some of your sharper insights but this is just too much. 

    I'll check back on you in six months or so and see if you've become less redundant.

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I'm not Softy, which is just a few older posters way of avoiding the issues.

    However, what is redundant isn't my take on Wakefield, it's Wakefield himself.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    It was nice to see Wake pitch well in a meaningful situation. It might take more time to gain Tito's confidence.

    It would take an eternity (or until he is 50) for him to gain softy's confidence.
     

Share