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

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Weiland:

    Start 1:  4 innings 6 ER  2 BB 2 K

    Start 2:  6 innings 3 ER  3 BB  2 K.

    Funny, when Wake goes 6 with 3 ERs, he stinks. When Wake has a game like Weiland's second game 10 out of 16 starts, he stinks. When Weiland does it one out of two games...it is "good". (Did I not call a goalpoast move, or what?)
    .
    Now, you herd of popularity dimwits. Weiland's 2nd start was quite decent. But, make way for the 2 plus years of 5 plus ERA paunched human launching machine! Wakefield! Wakefield!

    Silly clown: "bully" clown!

    Mr. Weiland, get back in minor league ball! We have Mr. Great Wakefield! He has "been around too long" record business to take care of!

    No, Wake has even better starts since Weiland left.! Last 3 starts: 3.92 ERA/0.968 WHIP. 5 of his last 6 starts are 3 ERs or less.: 

    Only when Mr. Wakefield decides he's ready to retire, will anything but the most elite young talent or elite FA aquisitions be allowed to take innings away from the great Mr. Wakefield!

    More absurdities. Now Wake is preventing eliet FAs from beinf signed here? I'm still waiting for the names of the "elite" young talent we can bring up or trade for right now. Give names. Tell us who. What's the kids name? Tell us the names. Hello? Hello?

    So, Wakefield drone, Moonslow, what don't you like about the great Tim Wakefield.

    He's young and skinny. He's a union slug. He's overpaid. His neck is too white. 

    I only like Asians and Blacks. I wish I could hate this guy, but he is just too good to lie about.

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Ram,

       Last year, 4 out of the top 9 starters in GS on the two ALCS teams had ERAs over 5.
       In 2009, 6 of the top 13 starters (and 3 of top 10) with the ALCS teams were over 5.00.
       2008: 1 of top 10 (Buch).
       2007: 3 of top 11 (Taverez, CLee & Sowers)
       2006: 0 out of 10.
       2005: 1 out of 10.
       2004: 2 out of 10.

    In total, the two AL Championship teams from each of the last 7 years have had 13 pitchers out of their starting 5 rotation (by most GS) with ERAs over 5.0. That is nearly 2 per series on average. 

    silly clown acts like it happens once a decade or something.
       
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Who said "elite", you dimwit.

    Weiland had 2 starts, and his first one was part of the bean ball O's nonsense. His second start was quite good, and didn't involve giving up 5 runs and pretending that it was only 3 ER.

    6 IP  3 ER

    Now, you deceitfully posted his 2 game aggregate average. Don't you dare ask me about a young name. You have one, you dimwit. Not that there aren't others.

    No, it's not regular for a starting pitcher to go 2 plus years with an ERA over 5 and end up on the same team's active roster!

    I have every right to say Wakefield stinks. And you can post all your selective "after surgery" and "better after Weiland was demoted" all you want, and you will be left with a bunch of lemmings who want to keep NYT access.

    Wakefield stinks. Got it.

     
  4. 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:
    ) 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 Wakeslumped 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 Lackeyis more like Wake or Beckett. His declinecould 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 2010 ERA 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 when the other guy (you & softy) uses it as a stat of relevance. 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.  
    Posted by moonslav59


    1) My allusion to Wake/Beckett was to show that the first 55-60% of their Boston years were better on the road than at home. Look at Wake's hit/IP numbers over each period. It's pertinent for a flyball pitcher.

    Far more often than not, the park affects pitchers dependant on their skill-set and their initial tenure. When you have the talent of a Schilling or a Pedro or a Lester,  their pure ability then becomes the over-riding factor.

    Here's a couple more who come to mind:
    Bronson Arroyo:
    AT FENWAY IN 2004: 5.35 ERA  1.507 WHIP 
    AWAY:                          3.06 ERA    1.010 WHIP

    AT FENWAY IN 2005: 4.92 ERA 1.359 WHIP
    AWAY:                          4.05 ERA  1.233 WHIP

    Dice: In his full seasons:
    AT FENWAY IN 2007: 4.86 ERA  1.338 WHIP
    AWAY:                          4.02 ERA  1.313 WHIP

    AT FENWAY IN 2008: 3.34 ERA 1.462 WHIP
    AWAY:                         2.37 ERA  1.158 WHIP

    Lackey vs. Boston in FENWAY - career: 6+ ERA...3.86 in CA.
    Angels staff over the last 8 years vs. Boston 
    IN Boston:   5.05 ERA  1.540 WHIP
    IN CA:         3.31 ERA  1.270 WHIP 

    REDSOX PITCHING THIS YEAR:
    IN FENWAY:                       4.28 ERA  1.352 WHIP
    IN ALL OTHER VENUES: 3.53 ERA  1.172 WHIP

    TELL ME MOON: DO YOU BELIEVE IN HOME ADVANTAGE, BEYOND VENUE?
    I sure do. The crowd. Being near family. Ask yourself this: Where is this home advantage when our pitchers take the mound in Fenway, as opposed to the road?
    Don't the fans support the team when they are in the field? Wouldn't you think the actual disparity H/A with pitching is in fact much greater!

    You want proof beyond the numbers? There's no way possible the park can enhance the hitting stats without compromising the pitching ones. No way.

    2) I addressed Lackey's supposed decline on the road in what is now my last post  on UR REALISTIC thread. I used 2009 road numbers as a point of reference.
    I suggest you read it again ( or perhaps for the first time). It exposes how level of comp. affects his performance. I had a splitting headache, was nauseous and had vision issues, but was determined to finish it and the research required. You never bothered to acknowledge it beyond UR allusion of it as a 'rant'. It wasn't appreciated. Want me to bring up UR "rants" to Softy?

    3)
    Did I subtract Lackey's 2008/9 numbers hurt? No,I didn't. Why?
    in 2008, he missed April and early May. So, where did he pitch hurt?
    Once he started his season, he threw 9 straight quality starts in May/June. 1.18 ERA in May. 1.16 in June.

    In 2009, same thing. He didn't start his season until May 16th. There's no frame of reference. I do think, going by the terms under which he was signed, that his elbow might have become an issue in 2009. He was less consistent in 2009 than in 2008.
    If any regression existed, it could have begun in 2009. That's why I drew my analogy to his road numbers in 2009. His current numbers adjust to 2009, beyond injury.

    You made this statement: "Wake wasn't anymore healthy in 2010 as Lackey was in May of this year". This is blatantly false.

    Lackey in May 2011:  14.34 ERA  2.531 WHIP
    Since then:                   5.10 ERA  1.388 WHIP

    Wake 2010:               5.34 ERA  1.350 WHIP
    Wake 2011:               4.92 ERA  1.288 WHIP

    The difference in Wake can be explained by pitching in a more normalized role.
    How he now covers first has as much to do with throwing the knuckler as it does for Sabathia to miss two weeks of buffets as a downgrade to his performance.


    4) No, you don't limit UR W/L statements to refuting that of others. I don't know how many times you mentioned the team was 26-27 in Lackey's starts. Much of it was never instigated. A very poor way to attempt to show regression.
    I notice you love to mention how the team is 11-5 in Wake's starts, but you never state the team was 6-13 in his 2010 starts. When I brought it up, you went on UR "It's obvious Wake is much healthier this year" rant.

    You like to use quality starts as a measuring stick.  Explain the minor variance in Wake's QS's between 2010 and 2011...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Moonslow doesn't like Wakefield. But there isn't any part of Wakefield's performance that he's ever criticized. That's how drones work.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Last 3 starts, 3.92 ERA, 20.2 innings, 20 baserunners.

    Wakefield has been a unique asset, especially the last 2 years when he's been the 'designated #6 starter' from the beginning of the season.  At minimal cost and financial risk, he adds depth and insurance, and when the need inevitably arises he gives innings and numbers consistent with AL East back-of-rotation level.  Theo Epstein knows his value and that's why he keeps bringing him back. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Soft, just compare Wakefield to Burnett over the past 3 years.  Burnett's ERA is a tick better, just about identical if you allow for Park Factor.  Burnett is a veteran who everyone seems to agree has 'great stuff'.  He's making an average of 16.5 million a year.  Wakefield is making an average of about 3 million a year.  Economic value. 

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    1) My allusion to Wake/Beckett was to show that the first 55-60% of theirBoston years were better on the road than at home. Look at Wake's hit/IP numbers over each period. It's pertinent for a flyball pitcher.

    Use the same time period (first 5 years). Wake's 6-10 seasons were among his worst overall, and he was a reliever for some of those years. My point is not that most or many pitcchers do just as good in Fenway as away. I am aware of the park venue differentials before you even posted them (nice wrok, by the way), but my point is that there are a select few who are not greatly effected by Fenway. Since Lackey has diminished away numbers as well from 2010-2011 as compared to ONLY 2005-2009, we don't know if the park venue is what the major cause is in hs case. It probably is. It probably has at least something to do with his inflated numbers, but we can never be 100% sure. Lackey's numbers as an Angel in Fenway against a very good hitting Sox team from 2005-2009 were not nearly as bad as 2010-2011 combined. Granted, the injury effect could be greater than I am giving it credit for. My point is mostly about your psoition that your conclusion is as clear as day. Adjusting for park venue is highly subjective. Looking at your examples below  shows a wide range of differentials. We have no way of knowing how much of Lackey's decline is venue-related, age-related, injury-related, just plain home-away-related (factors not associated with park dimensions) .  

    Far more often than not, the park affects pitchers dependant on their skill-set and their initial tenure. When you have the talent of a Schilling or a Pedro or a Lester,  their pure ability then becomes the over-riding factor.

    Here's a couple more who come to mind:
    Bronson Arroyo: 
    AT FENWAY IN 2004: 5.35 ERA  1.507 WHIP 
    AWAY:                          3.06 ERA    1.010 WHIP

    AT FENWAY IN 2005: 4.92 ERA 1.359 WHIP
    AWAY:                          4.05 ERA  1.233 WHIP

    Dice: In his full seasons:
    AT FENWAY IN 2007: 4.86 ERA  1.338 WHIP
    AWAY:                          4.02 ERA  1.313 WHIP

    AT FENWAY IN 2008: 3.34 ERA 1.462 WHIP
    AWAY:                         2.37 ERA  1.158 WHIP

    Lackey vs. Boston in FENWAY - career: 6+ ERA...3.86 in CA.
    Angels staff over the last 8 years vs. Boston 
    IN Boston:   5.05 ERA  1.540 WHIP
    IN CA:         3.31 ERA  1.270 WHIP 

    REDSOX PITCHING THIS YEAR:
    IN FENWAY:                       4.28 ERA  1.352 WHIP
    IN ALL OTHER VENUES: 3.53 ERA  1.172 WHIP

    TELL ME MOON: DO YOU BELIEVE IN HOME ADVANTAGE, BEYOND VENUE?

    Yes, I do. All sports exhibit home field advantages even when playing field dimensions are uniform. This is one reason, I am saying your adjustment for park venue may not be all about the dimensions.


    I sure do. The crowd. Being near family. Ask yourself this: Where is this home advantage when our pitchers take the mound in Fenway, as opposed to the road?
    Don't the fans support the team when they are in the field? Wouldn't you think the actual disparity H/A with pitching is in fact much greater!

    In Lackey's case there have been boos, bad media stories, family health issues (that might make it easier to concentrate when away from it all), and other added pressures. He may be adversely reacting to it all at home, and the park venue (dimensions of walls, foul territory size, humidity, wind, sun...) may not be as great as you think. That is all I am saying. Some of it could be in his head.

    You want proof beyond the numbers? There's no way possible the park can enhance the hitting stats without compromising the pitching ones. No way

    It can in idividual cases. In general, LHPs are better suited for Yankee Stadium while righties are in Fenway, however, there are individual pitchers who buck the trend, because they are smart enough, or their pitching style, matches up well with the park. I don't have access to spray charts against Lackey in LA vs in Fenway. Has the park caused more hits, or have the spray charts changed (indicating Lackey is pitching differently and may be making a mistake by changing the way he pitched due to the big wall). I guess if this is true, you could blame "park venue", but I'd be more inclined to blame the pitcher (or catcher for calling for the wrong pitches) instead of saying the venue caused the inflated differentials..

    2) I addressed Lackey's supposed decline on the road in what is now my last post  on UR REALISTIC thread. I used 2009 road numbers as a point of reference

    Why change the sample size you used in other comparisons? Yes, 2009 might have been an indication of the start of decline in Lackey's skillset for whatever reason. His overall 2005-2008 numbers weere better than 2009. I like to use longer sample sizes. I think Theo does too. Lackey's numbers from 2005-2009 adjusted for park venue (not just LAA to Bos, but less games in Sea & Oak as well) and age are what should be the issue here. I am pretty certain that park venue has had a learge influence on Lackey's numbers. I expected inflation. Our difference of opinion is in how much and how certain we are of the degree of park venue influence. You say Lackey is about where he should be (by your expectations). I say he has done worse. I have not been like others who call him a "bust". I defended his 2010 numbers to some extent this past winter. I value QS% and near QS% perhaps more than most. I expected lackey as a veteran pitcher to make adjustments and be slightly better this year than 2010. Maybe his injury and family distractions were the root to his decline. maybe he has turned the corner of late, and will shut this whole conversation down after another 10 starts. I certainly hope so.
    .
    I suggest you read it again ( or perhaps for the first time). It exposes how level of comp. affects his performance. I had a splitting headache, was nauseous and had vision issues, but was determined to finish it and the research required. You never bothered to acknowledge it beyond UR allusion of it as a 'rant'. It wasn't appreciated. Want me to bring up UR "rants" to Softy?

    A fair criticism. I am sorry for calling it a "rant". Your research was deep and supported your point. I do agree that park venue and competition level changes has had a major effect on Lackey's numbers. I just disagree with the the degree. I offered some numbers (2005-2009) that showed Lackey did not do so poorly in Fenway as many remember. I don't think I was cherry-picking that timeframe. Lackey's first 2-3 years were growth years. At Lackey's current age, I did not expect a decline due to age until maybe 2012 or 2013. I expected a higher ERA and slightly higher WHIP. I just didn't expect this much, hence my position that he has not met my expectations, and my belief that he has not met theo's either. His contract is long. He still can turn it around, and there are good signs he already has.  

    3) Did I subtract Lackey's 2008/9 numbers hurt? No,I didn't. Why?
    in 2008, he missed April and early May. So, where did he pitch hurt?
    Once he started his season, he threw 9 straight quality starts in May/June. 1.18 ERA in May. 1.16 in June.

    Good point, maybe he was fully recovered in 2008, but not in 2011. Lackey came back from injury on May 16th and had these lines:
    IP-H-ER-BB

    0-0-1-0 (1 HBP)
    5-7-4-0
    7-7-3-1 (3 HBP)
    7-10-5-2
    7-7-2-3-
    5-11-8-2
    7-10-3-0 (1 HBP)
    8-9-4-4

    Sample Total:
    47 IP, 61 H, 30 ER, 17 BB + HBP
    5.70 ERA

    If you are going to adjust 2011 numbers for injury and compare them to an unadjusted 2009 season, I do not think it is fair.

    In 2009, same thing. He didn't start his season until May 16th. There's no frame of reference. I do think, going by the terms under which he was signed, that his elbow might have become an issue in 2009. He was less consistent in 2009 than in 2008.
    If any regression existed, it could have begun in 2009. That's why I drew my analogy to his road numbers in 2009. His current numbers adjust to 2009, beyond injury.

    So, perhaps his regression is more injury related than park venue related, or 50/50, or... My point has been that we don't know for sure all the reasons for lackey's decline. It is almost certainly a combination of many factors, most of which have been discussed and dissected on this site. It's nearly impossible to pinpoint the degree of each factor. No matter what the factors, to me, he has been a dissapointment. Dice-K has too, although his injuies seem to be the over-riding factor

    You made this statement: "Wake wasn't anymore healthy in 2010 as Lackey was in May of this year". This is blatantly false.

    Lackey in May 2011:  14.34 ERA  2.531 WHIP
    Since then:                   5.10 ERA  1.388 WHIP

    Wake 2010:               5.34 ERA  1.350 WHIP
    Wake 2011:               4.92 ERA  1.288 WHIP

    The difference in Wake can be explained by pitching in a more normalized role.
    How he now covers first has as much to do with throwing the knuckler as it does for Sabathia to miss two weeks of buffets as a downgrade to hisperformance

    "blatantly false"? It's this kind of wording that frustrates many readers. I know i get that way with the silly clown too, but when it comes to injuries, nobody really knows to what degree someone is hurt and what their pain threshold is. For all we know, lackey might have a different pain threshold and not even pitched with the pain level Wake had in 2010. We don't know. I tried to explain this to soty last year with Jake. His claim was that others came back from broken ribs much faster, so jake must be milking it

    Wake's 2010 numbers were vastly higher than his 2007-mid-2009 numbers, true, not to the extent of Lackey's differential, but the sample size for Lackey is so small, just one or two pitches could have made the difference..


    4) No, you don't limit UR W/L statements to refuting that of others. I don't know how many times you mentioned the team was 26-27 in Lackey's starts

    Go back and look. I do not think I ever mentioned it until after you brought up Win totals and the whole Lackey 14 win/season position. I also used it against softy when he used wins-losses to defend Miller. I think I mentioned it once before when I was calling out JCJCJCJC for his year long rant on the team's W-L record in games Wake pitches in. Honestly, you know I do not place great importance on wins by a pitcher. I do place more on team wins whan a pitcher starts than a pitchers decisions, but it has always been way down on my list of judgement criteria.

    Much of it was never instigated. A very poor way to attempt to show regression.
    I notice you love to mention how the team is 11-5 in Wake's starts, but you never state the team was 6-13 in his 2010 starts. When I brought it up, you went on UR "It's obvious Wake is much healthier this year" 
    rant

    Yes, I have mentioned it a lot recently. I have used it to counter the whole overvaluing ERA nonsense. Most fans who use ERA a lot also value W-Ls. Neither are on the top of my list for judging pitcher skillset. They never have been. That doesn't mean they are not without value. They are both useful tools, but not the whole picture. My pitching stat of choice has alwats been WHIP. I do think ERA is much more valuable an indicator than Wins or W-Ls or team W-Ls, but as you probably know from my countless game by game line postings, I value QSs and near QSs greatly. More so than ERA. The team W-L record can sometimes acurately reflect the percentage of QSs and near QSs a pitcher has. With Beckett this year, his team W-Ls are much better than his personal decision W-Ls. The team record could be even better with "normalized" run support, but ti's still pretty darn good. Wake's 11-5 record is almost totally reflective of his amount of games he has put his team in a good position to win. Even forgetting about all the inherited runs allowed and cheap type runs allowed, Wake has pitched well enough for the team to be about 9-7 to 12-4. If you look at each game closely, he has really pitched well enough that with just a little luck, his ERA would be much lower and the team could be 13-3 in his starts. In short, I think the team W-L record with Wake is not a distortion as is Miller's 7-1 record. Strength of opponents, run support, etc... has distorted Miller's numbers

    Almost everytime I list the "updated starter numbers", I do not post W-L records. Instead, I post WHIP, ERA, IP/GS, and OPS against.

    You like to use quality starts as a measuring stick.  Explain the minor variance in Wake's QS's between 2010 and 2011...

    Wake had 9 QSs out of 19 GS in 2010 (47.4%).
    He had 2 more "near QSs (5.2 IP 3ER and 7.1 IP 4 ER)  for 11/19 put team in good position to win ratio (57.9%). His 6-13 2010 team record is not reflective of a 57.9% performance. 

    As you and I have mentioned, Wake was jerked back and forth and up and down so many times, his head was spinning. I mentioned he was recovering from back surgery, limping, fielding more poorly, etc... I do not think his 2010 season was as bad as many feel it was. The same goes for Lackey's 2010 season and his high QS%

    Wake's 2011 season, to me, has been highly influenced by the amount of inherited runners allowed, being left in too long (from a personal stat related angle) to "save the pen" (for the good of the team, which i agree with in some cases). Many of his runs, as documented several times, are of the "cheap variety".  In my opinion, much more so as a percent of earned runs allowed as other Sox starters and as compared to Wake in 2010. Despite all of this, his 2011 numbers are:
    9 QSs out of 16 (56.2%)
    Wake has had a few near QSs this year. I wont get into the inherited runs allowed, dropped balls for hits, misguided routes by Ellsbury to allow cheap runs to score and put Wake out of the "near QS" or QS criteria, I will just go by the strict numbers:
    He had 2 near QSs (6 IP 4 ER and 4.2 IP  3 ERs).
    11 out of 16 GS'ed have been QSs or near QSs (68.9%).

    So, 2010 vs 2011:
    2010: 47% QS / 58% QS + Near QS
    2011: 56% QS / 69% QS + Near QS.

    Going just by the numbers, one could say Wake was unlucky in wins in 2010 and lucky in wins in 2011. Just because you put a team in a position to win in 11 of 16 starts, doesn't mean the team will win all 11. The team has scored more for Wake this year and to start 2009 than in 2008 and 2010. Personally, I think the win luck factor this year is mitiagted by the poor luck he has had in the amount of "earned runs" he has allowed that are not really all that "earned".

    I think Wake is pitching and fielding better this year than last. His HR/9 rate is up slightly (1.2 to 1.4) and his SO/BB ratio is down (2.3 to 1.9), but almost all other indiators that I valuemost are showing a better year:

    WHIP: 1.350 to 1.288
    QS%: 47% to 58%
    Near QS%: 56% to 69%.
    ERA: 5.34 to 4.92.  
    ERA+: 81 to 84
    OPS against: .773 to .783 (Gotten slightly worse)

    Here are some more stats that matter more to others than to me...

    xFIP: 4.70 to 4.69 (Nearly identical)
    WAR: 1.3 to 0.5
    GB/FB: 0.79 to 0.80 (Nearly identical)

    Intersting Wake stats to check this out:
    Bunt hit%: 25% to 37.5%
    Knucklball % thrown: 83% to 92%



     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    No offense but it is kind of amazing you guys are putting so much time into this.  

      Wake is now what he has been for quite awhile.  He is a guy who can eat innings and win some games. He is a decent number 5 or 6 starter who makes very little money. 

    Or course he will be resigned.  He is doing exactly what he has been doing for years.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Some posters till don't get it, snake, but you are right; we have posted just about everything possible about Wake. It's time to let it all go. (With Lackey as well.)
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I think we should start analyzing Lester v. Beckett...i'm just kidding. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    Some psoters till don't get it, snake, but you are right; we have posted just about everything possible about Wake. It's time to let it all go. (With Lackey as well.)
    Posted by moonslav59


    No i Don't mean to say you should let it go.  I do mean to say it is totally obvious that Wake will be resigned.  He is such a cheap option for a number 5 starter, even as an emergency fill in.  People that say otherwise are either trolling or have unrealistic expectations of what one pays for a professional starting pitcher and all the stats you put out there wont convince them otherwise.  You and your team are right and they are wrong.  It's pretty simple.

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    You know I'll never let the Wake can't cut it thing rest. I still say this: if any other pitcher allowed 16 hits and 4 walks in a combined 21 IP over three consecutive starts, we'd all be tooting that guy's horn as a top starter and not asking for him to retire. Mike Mussina retired way too early, but what a way he went out--20 wins. If the previous statistics don't make that person an "optimal starter" then I have no idea what an "optimal starter" is.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I need to credit 791 for my latest copy. I appreciate what he offered on the Wake threads. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from cheeroh. Show cheeroh's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    time to say good buy to Wake ....
     
  16. 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:
    time to say good buy to Wake ....
    Posted by cheeroh


    Wake is a good buy, that's exactly what I'm sayin'...
     
  17. 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:
    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield : No i Don't mean to say you should let it go.  I do mean to say it is totally obvious that Wake will be resigned.  He is such a cheap option for a number 5 starter, even as an emergency fill in.  People that say otherwise are either trolling or have unrealistic expectations of what one pays for a professional starting pitcher and all the stats you put out there wont convince them otherwise.  You and your team are right and they are wrong.  It's pretty simple.
    Posted by snakeoil123

    Ok, snake. Wake will probably be back next year, again as the 6th starter. He's still a very good 5th starter, but as a 6th starter he is probably the best. 

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I don't think in the history of baseball there has been a better No. 6 starter than Tim Wakefield. Partially because other than the Chicago White Sox, I have never heard of the term...:-)
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Good point. For much of baseball history, there wasn't even a 5th starter.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    What is Wake making this year 2M...he is a bargain to say the least...Long Live Wake...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Thanks to Wake, the Red Sox have perfected the 6th starter concept, including the sometimes required creative use of the DL. And after Wake goes they're going to be looking for someone else to fill the bill. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I think Theo learned avaluable lesson after trading Arroyo.

    The Smoltz signing was an example of bringing the total starting pitchers amount to above 5.

    Picking up Miller is another example.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    I think Theo learned avaluable lesson after trading Arroyo. The Smoltz signing was an example of bringing the total starting pitchers amount to above 5. Picking up Miller is another example.
    Posted by moonslav59

    LMFAO...apparently not...because he traded away Masterson...I keep thinking back to the year and few month tenure of VMART...it just wasn't worth it. I want Masterson back. 

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    One thing was very clear, VMART never would have been signed unless he said, "all I care about is a WS title, so pay me half of what Detroit is offering me." And that would have been the act of a deranged man. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Hannycater: It was all about $ with VMART, no doubt about it...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share