Yankees Expect a Bidding War over Elite WAR Ratings for 2012 FA Tim Wakefield

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    "Wastefield" is currently the "#3" starter on this team - a team contending for a world title.

    Get medical attention and brain surgery.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    The brain surgeon said he was doing a 2-for-1, soft.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    "Faith in Wakefield" is like faith that spending will get you out of debt. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from REBEL. Show REBEL's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]1) I thought softy never made "projections". 2) At his current rate of projecting who signs FAs, the odds just went up that Wake will return. 3) Wake will be 45 for most of next year, but it is nice to see softy finally realize that 44-46 is not 50. 4) Not sure how "smart" it is not to re-sign a pitcher who leads his team to a 10-5 record thus far for only about $4M/yr. But then again, nobody ever said clowns were supposed to be smart.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    WAKES IS THE BEST BARGAIN IN BASEBALL, SO HE WILL BE BACK!
    WHEN YOU HAVE A TANDUM LIKE SALTY& TEC, WHY WOULD YOU NOT CONTINUE WITH IT?  TEC COULD GET A LIFETIME TYPE CONTRACT SO THEY CAN MOVE HIM TO COACHING/MANAGING, ETC. WHEN THEY THINK THE TIME IS RIGHT!  EXPECT HIM TO BE THE BENCH COACH FOR A FEW YEARS, THEN FOLLOW TITO, WHEN HE RETIRES.


    BOTH PAPS AND PAPI WILL BE RESIGNED. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    REBEL APPEARS!!!! YESSSSSSSSS
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Expect Wakefield to put up a 6 plus ERA followed by Moonslow posting stat snipets that Wakefield is still one of the best 4 or 5 starters on the team and bad and poor fieldind doesn't do Wakefield justice.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield


    posted at 8/8/2011 5:38 PM EDT
    www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=9158fb618b4fe6215c89926c6c528a05&plckUserId=9158fb618b4fe6215c89926c6c528a05">
    Posts: 288
    First: 7/31/2011
    Last: 8/9/2011
    Only feeble mind is the one who looks at Granderson's season and somehow concludes it is better than Ellsbury's 

    Kid, hyperbole aside, you need to tone the rants down. Most people don't even have Ellsbury on top of his own team MVP. Even in metrics alone, Pedroia ranks higher according to this balanced MVP discussion:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/14557/time-to-start-figuring-out-the-mvp-races

    Get over Granderson being black and a Yankee. He's having a better year than Ellsbury. Get over it.
    **********************************
    Literally, LOL'd when I read this.  The balanced discussion you cite here has Pedroia, Bautista, Ells as 1-2-3.  Granderson (who is having a great season) isn't in the top 5.  So, when you mention AGone in the MVP discussion, we might as well just use the type of sophistry you engage in and say "he isn't even considered second place MVP on his own team" ... not that I think he isn't having a very good season.  I actually root for my team and players.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield : harness, Do you make up everything you post?   Lackey is our #4 at the moment behind Bedard and Wake #5.  Here is more proof for you to ignore that again proves you wrong.  Scroll down to where it says depth chart, then come back and twist what you originally said around to make it look like we didn't understand you again. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/tim-wakefield/84940
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Another hollow response from the Yale man.
    My statement was to Softy. He prioritizes ERA. Get it?
    Wake has the 3rd lowest starter ERA of current, healthy starters...Boston numbers.

    See, Buch is out. And Bedard is unproven in Boston. Wake is nearing win #200.
    Show me anyone beyond Lester/Beckett in the current rotation whose Boston starting ERA numbers are better as of when I made my statement. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield : I'll throw this nugget out there...what if John Lackey looked like he does, was as tall, and everything about him including his statistics in every year was the exact same as it is now. Nothing statistically changed...but the only difference was he was Tim Wakefield's younger brother and threw the knuckleball (think Joe and Phil Niekro). Tell me moon, and tell me harness, who would you rather have in October? A guy who in his last 3 starts gave up 20 baserunners in 21 IP total in hits/walks (less than 1 whip) or Lackey? It's all about people's fears of the knuckleball. And the funny thing is in that argument is if I'm reading these posts right, moon is defending a pitcher he's not really all that in love with, and harness is doing the same when I've seen harness totally defend Wakefield the last few years.moon has been clear about his overall non-confidence in Wake in the postseason despite the numbers still showing Tim being overall more effective than the "injured" Lackey. (I have made a long post or two about the wait factor that Wakefield had in the postseason. He has to sit 2 to 3 weeks before throwing, and he's almost always rusty to poor when he has to sit that long. That's why he's better off throwing in a game 2 of a series not a game 4). My point is that Wakefield's 45 and I think it's really about people worried about the world crashing down fast when he throws. I must be the only guy who has never once worried about that factor. And I guess when push comes to shove, Wakefield could throw another 5 straight starts with this type of effectiveness, but Lackey would probably get the playoff start and Tim left off the playoff roster. Because I feel Tito/Theo are thinking precisely the same way. They enjoy what Wake is doing, but have no plans for him to pitch an "important" postseason game if they don't have to throw him, something that my guess a high percentage of all Sox fans agree with. This is just the regular season, so it's ok for Tim to throw in the pennant race, just not the postseason anymore. That is why the No. 6 starter thing got coined. It's part of the Sox PR machine, and a way to show Tim the door for the postseason. He wasn't in the plans, we're glad he fills in admirably, we gave him a job, he's a good soldier, but we are frankly afraid he will get bombed in a potential playoff game. That's the mindsight, and it's because of the knuckleball. It's the only thing that can be distinguished as the problem. Wakefield is healthy, he is 45, he is a professional, and he's a veteran of the wars, and I think he is just as capable of throwing a 2003 gem now as he was then.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Yes, it is ironic that both Moon and I are defending players that aren't personal favorites. He won't stand by and see Wake being slandered because of his pitch, physique, or age. I won't let these "Lackey is in steep regression"/ "Lackey is a bust" allusions go because I know they aren't true.

    As for UR question, I don't have to assimilate Lackey as a knuckler to answer it (although as a fan, I do love watching the pitch and how it baffles the game's elite:). If it came down to Wake or Lackey in a PO game, I think it should come down to who's in better form and who the competition is.  Form being equal, I like Wake against a lefty line-up. Switch hitters hit righty off him for a reason.
    I like Lackey against a RH line-up.

    I have no qualms about starting Wake over Bedard or Lackey if Im feel he can give the team it's best shot.

    As for Wake post back surgery, I'll kill two birds with one stone and address Moon's position on this as well as yours: The only difference I see in Wake this year from last is a pitcher who, by circumstance, now knows his spot. He's not being jerked around with multiple days off, which Moon, you and I felt definitely affected his performance last year.

    I took the position last year that he was not the same pitcher as he was prior to the surgery. What I mean is that he doesn't have, or wish to utilize, as much volatility to his "out knuckler". Instead, he's pitching more to contact. Look at his BB/IP numbers since his back issue: they are quite different than before it. The downside is giving up more dingers. But less walks means being more pitch efficient and less stress on the back.

    Look at his 2010/2011 numbers: his SO/IP rate is actually better in 2010. His HR/IP rate is up from 1.2 to 1.4. Nothing earth-shattering.
    His ERA is different by .42, which can be skewed by any one outing. His WHIP in 2010 reflects his career norm. It's 1.288 so far this year, which I think is the result of pitching in a normal environment.

    Now, let me show you the difference between Wake healthy and Wake really hurt:
    2009: after the AS break:
    ERA 6.00  WHIP: 1.714

    He gutted it out as best he could. I say no way Boston re-signs him in 2010 unless they were very comfortable with his post-surgery. I think he was monitored closely, had a decent SP in 2010 if memory serves, and I don't believe they would have pitched him if he were not right.

    Pitchers, as they age, have to deal with injuries and loss of stuff. But their experience allows for making the necessary adjustments to still be effective. IMO, I don't think we'll ever see Wake revert back to 2008/first half of 2009 form.
    But that doesn't mean he should be put out to pasture. His durability since the back issue is strong indication he's physically fine and contributes by giving the team a chance to win. Something neither Buch nor Dice are now doing.

    The biggest difference between Wake 2010 and now, beyond the inconsistencies of days between pitching and the great Tito shuffle, is his W/L record/team W/L record when he starts. And this is easily explained by having a deeper pen (recall, Tito compromised pen depth when Wake pitched last year. He lost some games he could have won if Tito treated him as he did Buch or Lester) and an offense not decimated with injuries. Same thing for Lackey. Wake is the same pitcher he was last year. Lackey, beyond his elbow issue, is the same pitcher he was last year.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    harness, have you noticed a more nimble Wake in the field this year compared to last? 

    Wake was visibly limping and falling all over the place last season. IMO, he looks like the 33 year old Wake out there this year. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]We're not talking about 2008/2009 You used 2011 to "prove" Wake wasn't hurt in 2010. I don't see why one can't use 2007-2009 numbers to "prove" 2010 was an injury and injury-recovering year . .. We are discussing 2010/2011. Wake's ERA/WHIP from last year to this aren't vastly different. At least, not like they were when he was pitching hurt after the 2009 AS game through the end of the season And you wont accept the massive decline in Lackey's numbers from 2005-2008 and 2010-2011...Every stat, not just ERA. . If he hadn't been shuffled back and forth last year and poorly deployed, I'm betting his 2010 numbers would equal his current ones, minus W/L record. He was limping and clearly in pain in the latter half of 2009. He talked about it often. I've not seen or heard him say one word about being in pain in 2010 or 2011. You are only assuming He was limping in 2010...noticably. Just becazuse he doesnt whine and pout like lackey, doesn't mean he wasnt hurt. Besides, being on the DL does not prove Lackey was hurt. When he came back, you discounted his bad games,e ven though he was playing-you wont do the same for Wake. . You are also  assuming  Theo's expectations about Lackey. How the hell do you know what he thinks?  Because they had Lackey ahead of Wake in the rotation (Wake actually not in it). You are kidding yourself if you really think Theo/Henry and Tito expected this. What if it was Henry's decision and Theo fought it but lost? Again, reaching for straws . SLOT numbers are for slot players. It's about performance, not who's projected where. Was Josh projected to have a 5+ ERA last year? Yea and No, but he was clearly hurt and he has been up and down his whole career . Was Buch projected to sit out the 2011 PO's? I don't see the connection. UR perception of Lackey's under-performance is based on:  1) Him pitching hurt in April/May. He was DL'ed. That's why he had the cort. shots in his elbow No, it is based on his overall numbers vs what I expected.. 2) Your misconception of the kind of pitcher he is. He's the same pitcher he was in CA once adjustments are made. Just as AGONE is from his Petco numbers translating to Fenway Prove it. How do you know he hasn't declined on his own? .  His WHIP since then is in line with his 2010 numbers, which are in line with his CA numbers once adjusted. His ERA is skewed by one outing. Otherwise, it's similar to 2010 They are not.  They are way off, and you are counting lackey's first 2 years in LA. Look at lackey's 2005-2010 numbers, his age, and that is more like what to expect ( before park adjustments).    "Being blinded by one stat (ERA) is not an excuse"                                                                Moonslav59 Being blinded to every stat being in steep decline is uneasonable.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I've addressed Wake, so I'll focus this on above high-lighted statements on Lackey.
    Expectations are a matter of perception. If you look at Lackey's overall numbers to draw UR conclusion, then saying Lackey is a 6.14 ERA/1.533 WHIP pitcher is the same thing as saying Beckett was a 5+ ERA pitcher last year. Or that Wake was a 6+ ERA pitcher after the AS break in 2010. Either you account for injury/down time for all or neither.

    Lackey's numbers before/after the DL are day and night. If you refuse to acknowledge this, I have to question why.

    The real issue is his supposed regression. My position is he's not regressing from his CA prime now anymore than he was in his '09 CA year. Not when he's healthy. You asked for proof of this - of the numerical adjustment from CA to Fenway.
    Let's start here:

    Current RedSox pitching stats:
    Fenway:                 4.23 ERA   1.351 WHIP    .260 OPP BA   .728 OPS
    All other venues: 3.54 ERA  1.171 WHIP  .223 OPP BA .665 OPS

    Why is it you recognized the effect the park has on hitters, but not pitchers?
    Does it affect all hitters the same way? No. Lefty splits vary.
    Does it affect all pitchers? No. The great ones like Pedro and Scilling will win anywhere, despite venue/run support. That's why I don't buy into the generalization  that wins are a team function. Not with those guys. With pitchers like Lackey? Yes. Absolutely. IMO, he doesn't have the stuff to dominate in Fenway, and his stats show he pitches well against lesser teams or decent ones in pitching venues.

    Simply adjust the ERA/WHIP numbers in Fenway and away, and they are similar to his CA 2005-2008 years.

    Want more? You claim that CA pitching staff during Lackey's prime years was pretty damn good. I say they were more a product of  venue and were overrated. Consider:
    This is how the whole CA staff pitched against Boston in CA/Fenway in those years:

    IN CA 2009: 57 IP     52 H  21 ER  22 BB
    IN FENWAY: 25.6 IP  28 H  12 ER  11 BB

    IN CA 2008: 27 IP     19 H  7 ER   13 BB
    IN FENWAY: 53 IP     57 H  25 ER  17 BB

    IN CA 2007: 27 IP     31 H  13 ER  8 BB
    IN FENWAY: 58 IP     71 H  44 ER  30 BB

    IN CA 2006: 27 IP     22 H  8 ER    9 BB
    IN FENWAY: 28.6 IP  33 H 13 ER  11 BB

    IN CA 2005: 36 IP    39 H  15 ER   6 BB
    IN FENWAY: 50.3 IP 46 H  27 ER  28 BB

    TOTALS:

    IN CA:           174 IP    163 H   64 ER   58 BB   3.31 ERA  1.270 WHIP
    IN FENWAY: 215.6 IP 235 H  121 ER  97 BB  5.05 ERA 1.540 WHIP 

    Tell me true: did the defense differ dramatically?
    Did RedSox hitters suddenly morph into mortality on the plane out west?
    What happened to this CA staff in Fenway?
    The consistency is obvious. Just as the catcher's relevance consistency was when I tried to get that point across to you (and especially to DC) two years ago.

    Perhaps now it's clear why Boston had CA's number all those years: The respective parks masked the pitching numbers. Boston had better pitching, and we both know pitching is the predominant factor.

    Simply address the variance to Lackey.

    EDIT: Yes Moon, I have noticed Wake's fielding his position better. This might have been something he worked on during the off-season. Or it could be an indication of improved health. Tough to know.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]Expect Wakefield to put up a 6 plus ERA followed by Moonslow posting stat snipets that Wakefield is still one of the best 4 or 5 starters on the team and bad and poor fieldind doesn't do Wakefield justice.
    Posted by softylaw[/QUOTE]


    Before I go here, I must preface these comments by saying that I LOVE WAKE!!!

    I hope he stays in a Red Sox uniform through next year in some capacity!

    THE IRONY!!!!

    A reasonable, marginally articulate, semi-bright, Red Sox fan COULD make a plausible argument for Wake not being as beneficial to the Sox as perhaps another young emerging pitcher might be.......

    SOFTY......  Does nothing but marginalize himself, thus being the most articulate spokesman in opposition to his own points!!!   :)

    All he ever needs to do.....  is open his mouth (or start posting), and it becomes crystal clear where the truth lies />>>>    Always in the opposite direction he's spraying.  He is that little Chiwawa barking up the mighty Sycamore!!!    (metaphorically speaking..... I don't want to lose Softy for the third time in one post, as anything on the meniscus of my literal writing is sure to makes his figurative head explode!) 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I've addressed Wake, so I'll focus this on above high-lighted statements on Lackey.
    Expectations are a matter of perception. If you look at Lackey's overall numbers to draw UR conclusion, then saying Lackey is a 6.14 ERA/1.533 WHIP pitcher is the same thing as saying Beckett was a 5+ ERA pitcher last year. Or that Wake was a 6+ ERA pitcher after the AS break in 2010. Either you account for injury/down time for all or neither. 

    Lackey's numbers before/after the DL are day and night. If you refuse to acknowledge this, I have to question why

    I have agreed on his recent success a number of times. I question why you keep questioning me why.

    The real issue is his supposed regression. My position is he's not regressing from his CA prime now anymore than he was in his '09 CA year. Not when he's healthy. You asked for proof of this - of the numerical adjustment from CA to Fenway

    No, I didn't. You already showed all the numbers below. I made the point that several piutchers, including Wake, came to Boston and did not have park regressions. My question or challenge was...

     HOW do you know his regression in numbers was venue based or that he just declined? None of us know the answer to this and never will know
    .

    Tell me true: did the defense differ dramatically?

    I don't know, but I do know that the Sox hitters were better than average.
    .
    Did RedSox hitters suddenly morph into mortality on the plane out west?

    No, but the whole differential might not be park venue in nature.

    What happened to this CA staff in Fenway?

    This doesn't prove that Lackey's regression is 100% park venue change in nature.

    The consistency is obvious. Just as the catcher's relevance consistency was when I tried to get that point across to you (and especially to DC) two years ago

    No it's not. Lackey had decent season's in Fenway. You are including his 1st 3 years in MLB. That was not the same guy as 2005-2008. 

    2003: 2 GS  10 IP  18H  11 ER  (9.90 ERA)
    2004: 1 GS  3.1 IP  7 H  4 ER  (10.80 ERA)

    Take away those 2 years and then make your "adjustments". 

    2005:  1-6-5-2  (3.00)
    2006:  1-6-9-3  (4.50)
    2007:  2-9.2-20-10 (8.38) (Playoffs: 1-6-9-4  6.00)
    2008:  1-9-2-2  (2.00)  (Playoffs: 1-7-7-2    2.63)
    2009:  1-7.2-8-2 (2.35) (Playoffs: 1-7.1-4-0  0,00)
    I believe Lackey started the first game of all the playoff series with Boston. Team's don't usually start their 4/5 starters the opening game of the P.O.'s)

    2005-2009 at Fenway:
    Regular season: 5 GS/ 38.1 IP/ 44H/ 19 ER (4.46 ERA)
    Playoff Series:  3 GS/  20.1 IP/ 20H/ 10 ER (4.43 ERA)

    58/1 IP is a significant sample size that shows he was not greatly effected by Fenway. It could be used to show his regression was not mainly caused by park venue change. If he had a 4.45 ERA in Fenway in 2010 and 2011, we wouldn't be having this conversation. (My guess is that Lackey has faced easier opponents in Fenway from 2010-2011 than 2005-2009)
     
    This argumnet has gone around in circles 2-3 times now. Nothing new is being said. Just because I don't agree with your position, doesn't mean I don't undestand your stats and supporting evidence. I do understand them. I just don't think park venue and injury have caused as great an adjustment as you do. It's really not anything either of us can prove definitively..

    Perhaps now it's clear why Boston had CA's number all those years: The respective parks masked the pitching numbers. Boston had better pitching, and we both know pitching is the predominant factor.

    I think hitting had something to do with it, and playoff sampe sizes are small.

    Simply address the variance to Lackey.

    EDIT: Yes Moon, I have noticed Wake's fielding his position better. This might have been something he worked on during the off-season.


    Be serious, harness. At age 44 Wake learned how to field better? Why are you denying he was limping and struggling to move on off the mound in 2010. Softy cited several examples of him "flopping around" last year. We all saw it. Maybe Wake hasn't admitted he was hurting publically, but I am 100% certain he was. How much it effected his pitching is certainly debatable.

    Or it could be an indication of improved health. Tough to know.

    Tough to know if the park venue change was 100% of the issue as well. 

    Can we call it even?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I think it did take some adjustment time in 2010 for Wake from a fielding aspect more so than a pitching aspect. I still throw (in an old man's league) and I'm about Tim's age. The movement or bouncing off a mound after a pitch to run to a spot and field a ball or run to 1st to receive a 1b's throw takes so much more energy, and more back/feet pounding. I can only imagine what someone might feel like after a back surgery. It was probably awkward for him to run. That's my opinion, but I agree he did look labored when he would field a ball off the mound.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    See, Buch is out. And Bedard is unproven in Boston. Wake is nearing win #200.

    See, Wake's ERA is over 5 for over 2 years.

    See, Bedard is proven to be a good starter when he's able to make starts.

    See, young pitchers need innings to gain experience, adjust to MLB pitching and get confidence.

    See, young pitchers given enough innings produce one young pitcher who is better than Wakefield.

    See, no one should care about Wakefield's "I've been around too long" record chase, as all focus should be on winning games.

    And Moonslow, "a more nimble" Wakefield. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]I think it did take some adjustment time in 2010 for Wake from a fielding aspect more so than a pitching aspect. I still throw (in an old man's league) and I'm about Tim's age. The movement or bouncing off a mound after a pitch to run to a spot and field a ball or run to 1st to receive a 1b's throw takes so much more energy, and more back/feet pounding. I can only imagine what someone might feel like after a back surgery. It was probably awkward for him to run. That's my opinion, but I agree he did look labored when he would field a ball off the mound.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    You may be right, but Wake was noticibly limping much of last year, and we all know how inportant a pitcher's legs are to his game.

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Really someone should just ask Wakefield about it. He's an honest guy and I'm sure he would tell you the straight dope. Right now it's all speculation about 2010. Certainly from a visual standpoint, he is running better off the mound and pitching as well as he ever has in 2011.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    See, young pitchers need innings to gain experience, adjust to MLB pitching and get confidence. 

    No, I don't "see" them. I keep asking you to point them out, but all you have said is:
    1) You wanted Miller in early May (he was struggling mightily in AAA at the time)
    2) Weiland (You never mentioned his name until he got called up)
    3) Doubront (You clearly don't know that he was on the DL, because you have mentioned his name over and over, even after being told.)

    Tell us who.

    Who are the young stud pitchers that Wake is holding back?

    Besides, if there were a stud, if anything, Lackey and Miller held him back- not Wake.

    Ignore the facts all you want. Bring up 2010 all you want. Wake is the 3rd best starter (at worst 4th depending on Bedard's health) by the numbers on this team. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]I've addressed Wake, so I'll focus this on above high-lighted statements on Lackey. Expectations are a matter of perception. If you look at Lackey's overall numbers to draw UR conclusion, then saying Lackey is a 6.14 ERA/1.533 WHIP pitcher is the same thing as saying Beckett was a 5+ ERA pitcher last year. Or that Wake was a 6+ ERA pitcher after the AS break in 2010. Either you account for injury/down time for all or neither.  Lackey's numbers before/after the DL are day and night. If you refuse to acknowledge this, I have to question why I have agreed on his recent success a number of times. I question why you keep questioning me why .The real issue is his  supposed  regression. My position is he's  not  regressing from his CA prime now anymore than he was in his '09 CA year. Not when he's healthy. You asked for proof of this - of the numerical adjustment from CA to Fenway No, I didn't. You already showed all the numbers below. I made the point that several piutchers, including Wake, came to Boston and did not have park regressions. My question or challenge was...   HOW do you know his regression in numbers was venue based or that he just declined? None of us know the answer to this and never will know . Tell me true: did the defense differ dramatically? I don't know, but I do know that the Sox hitters were better than average. . Did RedSox hitters suddenly morph into mortality on the plane out west? No, but the whole differential might not be park venue in nature. What happened to this CA staff in Fenway? This doesn't prove that Lackey's regression is 100% park venue change in nature. .  The consistency is obvious. Just as the catcher's relevance consistency was when I tried to get  that  point across to you (and especially to DC) two years ago No it's not. Lackey had decent season's in Fenway. You are including his 1st 3 years in MLB. That was not the same guy as 2005-2008.  2003: 2 GS  10 IP  18H  11 ER  (9.90 ERA) 2004: 1 GS  3.1 IP  7 H  4 ER  (10.80 ERA) Take away those 2 years and then make your "adjustments".  2005:  1-6-5-2  (3.00) 2006:  1-6-9-3  (4.50) 2007:  2-9.2-20-10 (8.38) (Playoffs: 1-6-9-4  6.00) 2008:  1-9-2-2  (2.00)  (Playoffs: 1-7-7-2    2.63) 2009:  1-7.2-8-2 (2.35) (Playoffs: 1-7.1-4-0  0,00) I believe Lackey started the first game of all the playoff series with Boston. Team's don't usually start their 4/5 starters the opening game of the P.O.'s) 2005-2009 at Fenway: Regular season: 5 GS/ 38.1 IP/ 44H/ 19 ER (4.46 ERA) Playoff Series:  3 GS/  20.1 IP/ 20H/ 10 ER (4.43 ERA) 58/1 IP is a significant sample size that shows he was not greatly effected by Fenway. It could be used to show his regression was not mainly caused by park venue change. If he had a 4.45 ERA in Fenway in 2010 and 2011,we wouldn't be having this conversation. (My guess is that Lackey has faced easier opponents in Fenway from 2010-2011 than 2005-2009)   This argumnet has gone around in circles 2-3 times now. Nothing new is being said. Just because I don't agree with your position, doesn't mean I don't undestand your stats and supporting evidence. I do understand them. I just don't think park venue and injury have caused as great an adjustment as you do. It's really not anything either of us can prove definitively. . Perhaps now it's clear why Boston had CA's  number  all those years: The respective parks masked the pitching numbers. Boston had better pitching, and we both know pitching is the predominant factor. I think hitting had something to do with it, and playoff sampe sizes are small. Simply address the variance to Lackey. EDIT: Yes Moon, I have noticed Wake's fielding his position better. This might have been something he worked on during the off-season. Be serious, harness. At age 44 Wake learned how to field better? Why are you denying he was limping and struggling to move on off the mound in 2010. Softy cited several examples of him "flopping around" last year. We all saw it. Maybe Wake hasn't admitted he was hurting publically, but I am 100% certain he was. How much it effected his pitching is certainly debatable. Or it could be an indication of improved health. Tough to know. Tough to know if the park venue change was 100% of the issue as well.  Can we call it even?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    1) I question why you question Lackey because you said you drew your expectation from OVERALL NUMBERS. I only want to ensure we are on the same page regarding measuring his numbers healthy.
    His stats since coming off the DL are similar to his 2010 numbers.
    This  is what we can expect going forward IMO: 4.25-4.35 ERA/ 1.4 WHIP.
    They adjust to his CA numbers if you adjust for venue, etc.

    Can I further prove the adjustments required for Fenway? Well, I've showed the Sox hitting in both venues against CA pitching. The numbers are over-whelming in favor of venue.

    I've shown the Fenway/away splits this year. Again, the disparity is stark. Go back as many years as you wish. Average it all out. You will find Fenway to be a hitting park that favors hitters over pitchers. I can't give an exacting formula if that's what you want. It depends on the individual. But the generalization holds true. How can it possibly favor hitters and not be detrimental to pitching overall? It makes no sense.

    Why was Wake so good in his first year? Maybe being an unknown and unconventional pitcher had something to do with it. As I said earlier, Wake's production in first 10 years in Fenway, or about 55-60% of his initial tenure, favored pitching on the road. The H/IP took a sharp turn after that, as I stated to you earlier. Same with Beckett in that 55-60% of his initial time in Boston favored the road - by a full run in ERA. Like Wake, he's learned how better use the park since.

    I'm willing to bet you'll find the park compromises most pitchers, especially early on. Understand, I'm not saying to attribute the entire differential to each pitcher. But when several modes of measurement go in the same direction, it simply becomes a question of the degree of variance - which is similar to CERA.

    2) You use an 8 game sampler for Lackey pitching in Fenway - at about a 4.45 ERA while pitching in CA, 2005-8. (note: I used a 391 IP sampler measuring the Angels whole staff vs. the Sox in both venues).

    His 2010ERA in Fenway was 4.35. Where is this regression you speak of?
    His 2011 ERA in Fenway, when healthy, is 5.44, so far. Beyond that one July 4th debacle, it's about 4.45. This season has yet to play out.

    3) We differ on injury/level of adjustment due to venue.
    I say Lackey was pitching hurt in April/May of this year. They completely skew the numbers.

    April/May:              8.01 ERA  1.807 WHIP  19/18 SO/BB
    June to present:  5.10 ERA 1.388 WHIP 57/14 SO/BB
    To not see this differential due to injury is beyond me. As for park adj, just watching what it does for AGONE, via an extreme example, should tell you how it can also adversely affect pitching.

    Regarding Wake, I never said he just learned how to field better. I said he may have worked on some things in the off-season. I'm not Wake. I don't know.
    I agree with you he looks more nimble. How that affects throwing a knuckle-ball is another issue. His physique obviously doesn't hinder his ability to throw the pitch. There simply isn't any vast differential in numbers from 2010 to 2011 for me to say he was reeling from back surgery.

    Nor would I use team record with either Wake or Lackey to cement a position.
    The team was 6-13 in Wake's 2010 starts. He threw 5-6 nice quality starts in losing causes. Lackey threw 8 of them.  I guarantee at least half of them, for both pitchers, would have been wins this year. That would make the team 20-15 in Wake's starts since 2010. And 28-17 in Lackey's healthy starts.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]See, young pitchers need innings to gain experience, adjust to MLB pitching and get confidence.  No, I don't "see" them. I keep asking you to point them out, but all you have said is: 1) You wanted Miller in early May (he was struggling mightily in AAA at the time) 2) Weiland (You never mentioned his name until he got called up) 3) Doubront (You clearly don't know that he was on the DL, because you have mentioned his name over and over, even after being told.) Tell us who. Who are the young stud pitchers that Wake is holding back? Besides, if there were a stud, if anything, Lackey and Miller held him back- not Wake. Ignore the facts all you want. Bring up 2010 all you want. Wake is the 3rd best starter (at worst 4th depending on Bedard's health) by the numbers on this team. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Besides, if there were a stud, if anything, Lackey and Miller held him back- not Wake.

    Ignore the facts all you want. Bring up 2010 all you want. Wake is the 3rd best starter


    No, Lackey and Miller aren't paunced and 45 years old.

    Ignore the 5 plus ERA for over 2 years and near 5 ERA for 2011 all you want, Wake is a human junkball launch pad who is inferior to younger talent. Stop asking me who when Miller and Doubrant and Weiland are simply 3 names among many cheap and available accross the landscape of MLB and minor leages.

    Checkmate and match.

    Kid, go fix the wedgie the teenage delinquents just gave you.

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    ) I question why you question Lackey because you said you drew your expectation from OVERALL NUMBERS. I only want to ensure we are on the same page regarding measuring his numbers healthy.
    His stats since coming off the DL are similar to his 2010 numbers.
    This  is what we can expect going forward IMO: 4.25-4.35 ERA/ 1.4 WHIP.
    They adjust to his CA numbers if you adjust for venue, etc.

    Can I further prove the adjustments required for Fenway? Well, I've showed the Sox hitting in both venues against CA pitching. The numbers are over-whelming in favor of venue.

    That is not proof that the reason Lackey's numbers went up were becaue of the park. Look, I'm not saying the park is not part of the reason his numbers went up. I am saying it is not the whole reason, and that it can never be proven either way.

    I've shown the Fenway/away splits this year. Again, the disparity is stark. Go back as many years as you wish. Average it all out. You will find Fenway to be a hitting park that favors hitters over pitchers. I can't give an exacting formula if that's what you want. It depends on the individual. But the generalization holds true. How can it possibly favor hitters and not be detrimental to pitching overall? It makes no sense.

    Why was Wake so good in his first year? Maybe being an unknown and unconventional pitcher had something to do with it.

    Yes...key word "maybe". If Wake had a bad first 5 seasons in Boston, you'd have "proven" it was park venue. In his case it would  (or might) not have been the reason. The same can be said about Lackey. He might have declined had he stayed in LA also...WE DON"T KNOW! Yes, maybe injury and playing with an injury might be the reason or excuse, but Lackey was hurt a few times in LAA as well. Did you subtract thse injury numbers from hyis LAA "norm" before you made your comparison? No, but you are in his Boston numbers.

    As I said earlier, Wake's production in first 10 years in Fenway, or about 55-60% of his initial tenure, favored pitching on the road. The H/IP took a sharp turn after that, as I stated to you earlier. Same with Beckett in that 55-60% of his initial time in Boston favored the road - by a full run in ERA. Like Wake, he's learned how better use the park since.

    His track is not even close to Beckett's track:
    1) Beckett has not been here 10 years.
    2) Wake did better at home for several years at the start.
    3) When Wake slumped from age 29-34, he slumped home and away.

    Wake home/away:
    1995 almost same ERA/WHIP, but .026 less opp's OPS at home.
    1996 worse home ERA by 0.56, worse/close WHIP, worse OPS by .090.
    1997 better home ERA, about the same WHIP, .060 worse OPS at home.
    1998 almost same ERA, better WHIP and OPS at home
    1999 over 2 runs better on ERA, way better WHIP, better OPS at home.

    Beckett home/away:
    2006 0.37 worse home ERA, about .1 WHIP worse, .096 worse OPS.
    2007 almost 2 runs ERA worse at home, .2 WHIP and .046 OPS worse.
    2008 2.80 worse ERA at home! about .25 worse in WHIP and .228 OPS
    2009 better at home in all 3 areas by a significant amount.
    2010 better at home by a significant amount
    2011 mixed criteria results.

    We have no way of knowing if Lackey is more like Wake or Beckett. His decline could be the result of many factors, not just or even including venue change.

    I'm willing to bet you'll find the park compromises most pitchers, especially early on. Understand, I'm not saying to attribute the entire differential to each pitcher. But when several modes of measurement go in the same direction, it simply becomes a question of the degree of variance - which is similar to CERA.

    That's all I am saying. You have your degree and I have mine. We both have stats to back us up. Neither can prove anything. The difference is, you are saying you have proven your case.

    2) You use an 8 game sampler for Lackey pitching in Fenway - at about a 4.45 ERA while pitching in CA, 2005-8. (note: I used a 391 IP sampler measuring the Angels whole staff vs. the Sox in both venues).

    His 2010ERA in Fenway was 4.35. Where is this regression you speak of?
    His 2011 ERA in Fenway, when healthy, is 5.44, so far. Beyond that one July 4th debacle, it's about 4.45. This season has yet to play out.

    My point is there isn't much regression at home, his regression has come on the road! That is my major proof that he had done Ok in Fenway from 2005-2009, and his ERA in Fenway with Boston is worse while in theory facing worse hitting teams.

    3) We differ on injury/level of adjustment due to venue.
    I say Lackey was pitching hurt in April/May of this year. They completely skew the numbers.

    April/May:              8.01 ERA  1.807 WHIP  19/18 SO/BB
    June to present:  5.10 ERA 1.388 WHIP 57/14 SO/BB
    To not see this differential due to injury is beyond me. As for park adj, just watching what it does for AGONE, via an extreme example, should tell you how it can also adversely affect pitching.

    Was he hurt during his first start?
    Was he hurt during the LAA years? Did you adjust those numbers?
    Is his sample size too small after coming off the DL to prove anything?


    Regarding Wake, I never said he just learned how to field better. I said he may have worked on some things in the off-season.

    Worked on what? His fielding? His health?

    I'm not Wake. I don't know.

    It is obvious he is healthier this year. it's effect on his pitching is not so obvious. I can admit that.

    I agree with you he looks more nimble. How that affects throwing a knuckle-ball is another issue. His physique obviously doesn't hinder his ability to throw the pitch. There simply isn't any vast differential in numbers from 2010 to 2011 for me to say he was reeling from back surgery.

    Nor would I use team record with either Wake or Lackey to cement a position.
    The team was 6-13 in Wake's 2010 starts. He threw 5-6 nice quality starts in losing causes. Lackey threw 8 of them.  I guarantee at least half of them, for both pitchers, would have been wins this year. That would make the team 20-15 in Wake's starts since 2010. And 28-17 in Lackey's healthy starts.

    The only time I ever use W-L arguments for pitchers is hwen the other guy (you & softy) uses it as a stat of relevence. W-L is way down on my list of stats that matter. Team W-L is above personal W-L, but they are both way down the list. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Besides, if there were a stud, if anything, Lackey and Miller held him back- not Wake.

    Ignore the facts all you want. Bring up 2010 all you want. Wake is the 3rd best starter


    No, Lackey and Miller aren't paunced and 45 years old.

    Ignore the 5 plus ERA for over 2 years and near 5 ERA for 2011 all you want, Wake is a human junkball launch pad who is inferior to younger talent. Stop asking me who when Miller and Doubrant and Weiland are simply 3 names among many cheap and available accross the landscape of MLB and minor leages.

    Yes, there are tons of great young pitchers across the leagues that are easily plucked away from their teams and inserted into a pennant race that will do better than our 3rd best healthy starter rigfht now. Brilliant!  Again, just give me one name.

    You can't.


    Checkmate and match.

    Kid, go fix the wedgie the teenage delinquents just gave you.


    And you wonder why I call you "silly clown".
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    tons of great young pitchers

    A clown uses hyerbole like "great young pitcher". Wakefield stinks! OK. It doesn't take "a great young pitcher" to replace Wakefield! Experienced young minor league pitchers with one or two MLB callups who are not top 2 on another team's value list are all over the minor leagues! 

     

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    [QUOTE]tons of great young pitchers A clown uses hyerbole like "great young pitcher". Wakefield stinks! OK. It doesn't take "a great young pitcher" to replace Wakefield! Experienced young minor league pitchers with one or two MLB callups who are not top 2 on another team's value list are all over the minor leagues!   
    Posted by softylaw[/QUOTE]

    Sure, but what sort of ERA do you think most of them would pitch to in the AL East, where a talented and expensive veteran like A J Burnett is struggling to keep his ERA under 5.
     

Share