Why remove Wake?

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]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 relieversare Bard, Jenks, and Papelbon.  But not Wakefield.  Can you blame him? 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    Max, I believe Torre had more to work with than Martin. Torre was the reciprocate of outlandish spending. I seriously doubt Torre would have equalled the accomplishments of what Martin did with Oakland and Texas.

    I believe a manager's effectiveness stems from his fit- how his demeanor meshes with a particular GM/FO/venue.

    The primary relievers are the ones who are performing up to task. Salary or plasyer bias should be secondary. If Wake suddenly has 10 shutout frames on a row, and Jenks hits the skids, do you think Tito will hand the ball to Wake in the set-up role?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Torre was a solid presence in the dugout and in particular not a drunk.  Billy Martin was a train wreck.  He could be brilliant, but he couldn't control himself, so how could he control his players?  

    Harness keeps insisting that Wakefield is the key to the bullpen, and that's a very long stretch.  I like Wakefield because that knuckler can still be effective, but his ERA has stayed over 5 for too long.   

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Torre was a solid presence in the dugout and in particular not a drunk.  Billy Martin was a train wreck.  He could be brilliant, but he couldn't control himself, so how could he control his players?   Harness keeps insisting that Wakefield is the key to the bullpen, and that's a very long stretch.  I like Wakefield because that knuckler can still be effective, but his ERA has stayed over 5 for too long.   
    Posted by M1A2[/QUOTE]


    No, Harness keeps insisting that you should learn how to comprehend a thread.
    Show me where I said Wake is the key to the BP?
    Show me where I said Wake is a closer?

    This is about role bias. AM I GETTING THROUGH TO YOU?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]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 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[/QUOTE]

    No, his use of Wakefield/Bard was not proven to be correct.
    Wake pitched an effortless, 13-pitch 7th. He was removed.

    Bard had little command. He let the first two get on, and then, in all likelihood, crossed up Tek when he failed to realize signals change with the runner on 2nd.

    Tito elected to go with "THE 8TH INNING GUY", who's now 0-3, instead of a pitcher who was pitching well. Would Wake have pitched a good 8th? Who knows.

    But the move at that juncture didn't work out. It was not correct.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wakefield only eats potato salad, effortlessly.

    It was correct to remove Wakefield, and there is a consensus on how pitiful this thread is.

    It was a one run game, tonight, why Oki instead of Wakefield?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Because Wake was exhausted - from Tito's speech explaining why Wake was removed after 13 pitches.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wakefield gets exhausted just getting up from the bench.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    It must be a bit tiring, physically, to devote so much of his time and resources to as many good causes as he does.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Yes, the cause of team mascot can't be diminished in it's importance.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    BTW: What ever happened to Wally-softlaw?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Whatever happened to HaplessHarness?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    He was happy until March 22.
    Then a conniving liar appeared on the scene.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from eggplants. Show eggplants's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

                           BGM........It was "Wake" because the score was 4-0. "T" was already in snooze control. Who else to put in other than the lowest rated pitcher in your BP. If the opponent scores more runs, so what , whats the difference  you lose 4-0 or 7-0.Wake me when it's over. But "Wake" and the offense crossed "T" up. They gave him a tie ballgame,disturbed his slumber, forced him to manage.   The  results were not good. He didn't have to rush Bard, no way. Whether or not you feel that the 8th. inning belongs to Bard or "Wake" should have been left in a little longer, while relevant, is not overriding. Bard needed more time. When a relief pitcher doesn't get enough time to warmup bad things happen...and did. There was enough time and time to create time for Bard to get what he needed. I think he should have been up before Youk touched Home Plate. Let's chalk it up to a BP malfunction.                                                        Now as far as why Okie and not Wake last night, the game was closer,Okie was rated higher in the Pen than "Wake".So in "T"'s mind, it's Okie. Besides, according to "T", "Wake was tired after 13 pitches", meaning I thought about bringing him in but opted for Okie.                                                                      I see "Wake's" going to start for Buch who's having trouble with his internal combustion engine in Sundays game. Can you imagine starting a guy who gets tired after 13 pitches? Kinda brings to mind that old saying, You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time.         8 Years and counting
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wake draws Felix Sunday.
    This should give the clown softlaw a chance prance...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Reminds me of the match up at Philly last year vs Halladay.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : No, Harness keeps insisting that you should learn how to comprehend a thread. Show me where I said Wake is the key to the BP? Show me where I said Wake is a closer? This is about role bias . AM I GETTING THROUGH TO YOU?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Glad you asked.  Please go back to your OP in which you insist that Wakefield should have pitched the 8th inning of a tie ball game--and that he should have pitched instead of Bard.  Most people, Francona included, think that Bard is the second best arm in the bullpen and even the heir apparent to the closer job if Papelbon isn't resigned.  But not you.  You say Bard is not as good as Wakefield to pitch the 8th inning of a tie ball game.   

    Back to you, big guy. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    deaf ears*
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Here's the OP:


    He had the easiest of 1-2-3 innings.
    I said this when Bard was 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?




    Now, you tell me where I said Bard is not as good as Wakefield to pitch the 8th in a tie ballgame.

    You enjoy putting words in my mouth when you know I won't say them.
    You have to paint me black to make you look good.

    You obviously don't comprehend the meaning of the OP.
    It's about bias against Wake.
    It's about role definition and it's drawbacks.

    It's not about Bard or his ability. If I wanted to slam Bard, I could have said
    "Bard's 0-3, 3.65 ERA - not exactly in top form".

    It's about in-game decision making and the bias that affects it. Try looking beyond UR one-dimensional disdain for me and see this for what it is...instead of what you want it to be.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    OK, you didn't say he was better than Bard.  But most everyone else agreed that Bard was the right guy to pitch the 8th in a tie game--heck, he was the only choice--and you kept insisting that Wakefield should have stayed in.  That is tantamount to saying Wake is better. 

    Now here's a news flash for you since you did say, repeatedly, that Francona didn't leave Wakefield in because he doesn't like the knuckler or whatever.  Tomorrow Wakefield starts in place of Buchholz--precisely why he was kept on the roster in the first place. 

    So defend yourself on that one--that Francona doesn't like Wakefield or whatever. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    What's to defend?
    Wake is the 6th starter who doubles as BP innings eater.
    That's his "role".

    I never "insisted" Wake should pitch the 8th. I simply questioned the decision to remove a pitcher who threw a perfect, effortless 7th frame. How much of Tito's Wake bias went into that decision?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    It is not bias to want to use your second best reliever in the 8th inning of a tie game.  It's just common sense, especially when Wake has such a high ERA.  He gave Francona a clean inning, which was great, but, once the game was tied, the stakes went up.  It was time for the first string. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    If you feel the move was not a result of bias, then fine. You are entitled to UR opinion.  I feel there's much grey area in what went into that decision.
    I am basing this on the erratic and mis-use of Wake last year.
    He had too many periods of inactivity. This, despite a nice BP run in August.

    Tito doesn't treat Wake like he does his other relievers.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wake's ERA is over 5 this year and last, and last year he pitched more innings than he did in 2009 when he started 21 games. 

    Please name one other reliever in MLB with a consistent ERA of over 5 who is used more than Wakefield. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pelosireturns. Show pelosireturns's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]If you feel the move was not a result of bias, then fine. You are entitled to UR opinion.  I feel there's much grey area in what went into that decision. I am basing this on the erratic and mis-use of Wake last year. He had too many periods of inactivity. This, despite a nice BP run in August. Tito doesn't treat Wake like he does his other relievers.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Hi Harness. I could use an "Ebb and Flow" revisited thread to cheer me up!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    It's how Wake was used last year. His inactivity between appearances could easily have contributed to his erratic performances.

    How good would Bard be if he had 7-9 days down time, then be asked to pitch two days? Then be off another 8 games. Then be asked to start at a moment's notice.
     

Share