Why remove Wake?

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    ...and match up well against a reigning Cy Young winner!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]...and match up well against a reigning Cy Young winner!
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    He did one hell of a job today!  He deserved the win!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I finds it ironic that the question I originally asked in the OP (from Wakes last BP appearance) again surfaces on this board - in multitude.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BOSOX1941. Show BOSOX1941's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : He did one hell of a job today!  He deserved the win!
    Posted by redsoxdirtdog[/QUOTE]

    Why was he taken out of the game?????? I believe Harness is right, it's bias.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why remove Wake? : Why was he taken out of the game?????? I believe Harness is right, it's bias.
    Posted by BOSOX1941[/QUOTE]

    It's bias against weak stats, that's all.  You're supposed to biased in favor of your betters players.  Wake is not our best pitcher.  Over a full year, he will probably come in with an ERA of about 5.00.  Not bad for a #6 SP, but the guys from the BP are more likely to out-pitch him than not.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Right now, Joe, the set-up "role" remains a weak spot. Nobody has been consistent in bridging it to Pap. The last thing this team needs is another weak link.

    The pitcher who pitches the best should earn the right to pitch in that spot...regardless of who it is. Current form is usually the over-riding factor.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59'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. 

    1) He was used as a reliever only 25 Innings last year and 11.1 this year.

    2) Relievers should have lower ERAs than starters because they often come in with 1 or 2 outs making it harder for their runners to be allowed to score. ERA is not a good tool to measure relievers: WHIP is better.

    3) Wake was hurt in 2009. That is why he had more IP in 2010.

    4) Wake's ERA is this year is 4.24, not over 5. It would have been much lower had Jenks not walked in his runner today.

    5) Wake's ERA as a reliever last year was 3.60, not over 5. He had a 1.040 WHIP in 2010 as a reliever

    6) The opponents are batting .194 off Wake this year. My guess is not many relievers have a better number than that.

    2011:
    17 IP  12 Hits  3 BB  0.882 WHIP  4.24 ERA
    (8 ERs, but one a ripoff thanks to Jenks)

    2010-2011 combined relief numbers:

    36.1 IP  17 ER  32 Hits  5 BB
    4.21 ERA  / 1.02 WHIP

    Very respectable relief numbers indeed.

    Add to that the fact that he can spot start like today, and I'd say there are not many relief picthers who can do all that he can.


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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Great stuff Moon!
    Funny how the facts run contrary to the Wake bias...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Today we saw Wake's proper role--spot starter.  He was terrific.  But he is not the right guy to keep in when the game is tied in the 8th inning. 

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    The "right" guy is the guy who is pitching well and is deserved.
    Wake should have been allowed to finish the 6th.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wake is legendary for losing it quickly--even when he pitched great in prior innings.   This was the most pitches he's thrown this season, and Francona correctly decided it was time for relief. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Right now, Joe , the set-up "role" remains a weak spot. Nobody has been consistent in bridging it to Pap. The last thing this team needs is another weak link. The pitcher who pitches the best should earn the right to pitch in that spot...regardless of who it is. Current form is usually the over-riding factor.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but the idea that current form is one inning is kind of ridiculous, with all due respect.

    In his previous 7 outings before the BA game, Bard's ERA was 0.00 with 4 singles and 1 walk in 7.1 with a 7/1 K/W ratio.  Wake is not remotely close to being as good as Bard.  If jenks has a good inning, Bard is still coming in in the 8th.  If Wheeler has a good inning, Bard is still coming in in the 8th.  Same with Paps.  If Bard has a good 8th, Paps is still coming in in the 9th.

    As much as anything ever discussed in here, Bard over Wake for 8th inning duties is a slamdunk.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Current form in the context it was used wasn't linked to one good inning. It was a generalization, applicable when the bridge (consistency thereof) to Paps is becoming problematic.

    As we both know, Joe, pitching form changes from one year to the next, as well as one week to the next. Bard so far isn't what he was last year.

    Bard in high-level situations this year: Opp. are hitting .455 off him. (.168 last year - larger SS)
    Mid to low level: appx. .181.

    Jenks in High-leverage: OPP are hammering him - over.500 BA!
    Wheeler isn't even trusted in that role.
    Albers is a work in progress.

    My point is, until someone steps up and solidifies this 2011 bridge to Paps, Tito is going to have to allow more to filter into his decision-making process in this regard.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wake is legendary for losing it quickly--even when he pitched great in prior innings. 

    I don't agree.

    Wake "loses it" about as much as other good pitchers. Sometimes he get's lit up early in a game, sometimes in the middle, and sometimes after pithing well for a few innings... about like every other pitcher in MLB.
    No more...somewhat less than most pitchers.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    The difference between knuckle-ball pitchers as opposed to conventional ones is that it's easier to get into a good rhythm - since basically only one pitch has to be established. And consequently, it's easier to lose that rhythm since there's no safety net of secondary pitches.

    The erratic nature creates a bias, but the results - the bottom line - has less variance than people think.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Seattle had the worst offense in the AL, a year ago. This year, there is only one team worse in OPS. They are a terrible offensive team. As I said before this game, Wakefield going a few innings and getting lucky does not validate the fact he is a waste of a roster spot. A revolving door of AAA'ers could have gone 5 and change, Aceves to name one. Except Aceves is a legitimate decent pen option, as well, unlike Wakefield. Wakefield needs to go, and this fumes off the de facto DL merely confirms it. Tito took him out because it was miracle he lasted that long. All wins are needed, but had he left Wake in for another couple of innings the dam would have ruptured.

    Wakefield spot starting for 5 and change once a months off the de facto DL is not a legitimate role on the team. The guy either needs to accept a AAA assigment, find work elsewhere or retire. Nothing about his one outing did anything but underscore that he doesn't belong on the active roster. He belongs retired or in AAA.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    The clown cuts n' paste the same post 6 times. He probably didn't even see the game - just the highlights.

    Ask the fans who gave Wake a standing ovation how they feel about retiring Wake.
    He was masterful.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]The clown cuts n' paste the same post 6 times. He probably didn't even see the game - just the highlights. Ask the fans who gave Wake a standing ovation how they feel about retiring Wake. He was masterful.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I think it's more than that. This is symptomatic, IMO, that he's become temporarily unruffled due to Wake beating King Felix. With the possible exception of that alien Obama's re-election, what could be worse?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Obama's re-election will only arm him further - fueling his next potential ban.
    Wake can retire him with Law...and lessen the board's misery.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater'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]

    DING-DING-DING-DING-DING....WE HAVE A WINNER OF THE TITO/THEO SPIN MASTER AWARD BREAKER..I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR SO LONG, IT HURTS TO CONTINUE SAYING IT...THEY ARE BIASED AGAINST HIM, AND THEY CREATED HIS SITUATION, AND THE IDIOT FANS BOUGHT IN...THE GUY THROWS AN ABSOLUTE GEM, AND GOT PULLED FOR FEAR OF HE MIGHT LOSE IT? AGAINST  A TEAM HE WAS OWNING?? UNFRICKENBELIEVABLE....FIRE TITO/THEO!!!!
    THEY BOTH ARE GUILTY OF TRYING TO NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR "EASING" WAKEFIELD OUT OF THE ROTATION AND OUT OF THE TEAM'S PITCHING PLANS..INSTEAD LET'S WATCH GUYS LIKE BOBBY JENKS COME IN AND SAVE THE DAY....YUP, THAT'S THE GUY YOU WANT OUT THERE...SOX ARE IDIOTS...THE FANS, WHO I BELIEVE ARE POST-2004 KNUCKLEHEADS ARE BIGGER IDIOTS
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Obama's re-election will only arm him further - fueling his next potential ban. Wake can retire him with Law ...and lessen the board's misery.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    LAST TIME I CHECKED, OBAMA CLEANED UP BUSH'S MESS...THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT...NOW, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Obama's re-election will only arm him further - fueling his next potential ban. Wake can retire him with Law ...and lessen the board's misery.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Well, Obama just got a boost by getting Bin-Laden, even though he was only involved on the perimeter.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Why can't some people on this board admit that Francona screwed the pooch on this one. I'm sick and tire of the excuses for this clown, he consistently makes poor decisions when it comes to his use of the BP, and plays percentages and data more than a feel for the game. He decided before the 6th inning started to pull Wake if he'd let a runner reach but when it was with two out, it made the decision even more egregious. Then he brings in Jenks who proceeds to implode but Francona leaves him to tie the game, for fear of having to use two relievers in the same inning. Saunders hit a rope to Crawford, if that was well placed, this game was lost.
    What was amazing to me was that he didn't have anyone warming up after Jenks walked in the first run, nor the tying run. Given his previous outing, Francona should have had someone ready in case Jenks had trouble. But no, not Francona. He's an absolute joke!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from sunslav. Show sunslav's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    On the postgame show Tito gave the explanation. It was based on the statistics in the database that MLB managers have access to and apparently self proclaimed armchair managers in this forum do not. The statistics used involved the matchup between the next batter vs. Wake and vs. Jenks. Tito employed this information in making his decision. Stop trying to outguess someone unless you have all of the information next to your armchair.

    Jenks studied his mechanics after the game and pinpointed the flaw in his mechanics and will work on correcting it starting today. It helps to watch pregame, postgame, and read everything before coming here and mouthing off when you are not qualified to do so. Be a fan and just enjoy the games. It is your dog that doesn't hunt because he eats dogfood fortified entirely with 20-20 hindsight.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Statistics involving batter-pitcher match-up must be taken with a grain of salt.
    Each at bat is different, and the sample size is often quite small. Furthermore, game conditions vary tremendously.

    If Drew is 3-10 off J. Weaver, do we conclude he's a.300 hitter off him? What if two of the hits were bloop singles, and the other outs were SO/weak balls put in play?

    What if many the games were completely lopsided? Did Tito check into high-leverage situations? 

    Sorry, but this excuse is lame. When there's a situation where nobody is performing well in the bridge to Papelbon, the only credible alternative is to go with who's in top form.

    That means Wake if he's on.
    That means going two frames with Albers in a tie game instead of Wheeler or Bard.
    That means using Pap in a tie 9th frame if he's the one Tito trusts the most.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share