I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

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

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]As long as Tto leaves him out there with a lead dwindling by the minute I hope he never wins #200.  He had a 4-1 lead and had pitched enough innings to get the win but Francona feared hurting Wake's feelings by giving him the hook until it all came apart.  AGAIN!
    Posted by fenwayjack2[/QUOTE]

    Talk about a bunch of spoiles brats....  SO one guy (Francona) isn;t doing something your way and the solution to that is to wish ILL on another. 

    Well since Obama believes that everyone but those who work deserve Handouts (and I disagree with that) I hope your car rolls down a hill into an intersection gets hit by a gasoline truck and blows up- and then you find out you forgot to pay the insurance premium last month.

    I understand your disatisfaction... and i went to an extreme to make a point, but your wishing ill will on another because you are dissatisfied surely is asinine.

    Not to mention the ILL will you wish on Wakefield actually hurts the team that you proclaim to love.  If he pitches 5 more games and they are all losses that is five times that the sox cannot pick up ground.

    Now you go get your ball and sit in the corner by yourself you spoiled brats!

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

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    ive neve rseen so many whiners that hate there team as r here now first of all wakefiled wa spitching good he left with score 4-3 when the pen gave it up again albers line .1 ining 5 runs wow wakefield blew it wake up
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slowpokegrandpa. Show slowpokegrandpa's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]All this over inexpensive pitching depth. Years from now, fans will reminisce as they do now about days of Trot and Culp and Dewey. It's a shame some of the fans don't enjoy the living history of a Tim Wakefield.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    that is becaus emost of the fands on here dont remeber past 2004 probably dont even remembe rray culp.they get on wakefield because pen give sup lead go figure
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from aquachuck. Show aquachuck's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200 : that is becaus emost of the fands on here dont remeber past 2004 probably dont even remembe rray culp.they get on wakefield because pen give sup lead go figure
    Posted by slowpokegrandpa[/QUOTE]



    I see you didn't go very far in school or sent this post after hitting a bottle or two.  Maybe you should either enroll in some night courses or go sleep it off.





     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mikeyinthebronx2. Show Mikeyinthebronx2's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]Until the RS get impressive and reliable 3-5 guys (A healthy Buch is 1 of them), Wake fills a need; he'll pitch somewhere next yr IMO. I'd clearly prefer him over Cashman's most expensive flop (Burnett). He's still a viable pitcher, (and an almost HOFer), period.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]

    While I agree I'd take Wakefield over the more expensive Burnett, he is not almost a hall of famer, Mike Mussina could maybe considered almost and he's not going to make it in.  Wakefield has pitched for many years and compiled many wins and he has had a good career but he isn't almost a HOF'er
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200 : While I agree I'd take Wakefield over the more expensive Burnett, he is not almost a hall of famer, Mike Mussina could maybe considered almost and he's not going to make it in.  Wakefield has pitched for many years and compiled many wins and he has had a good career but he isn't almost a HOF'er
    Posted by Mikeyinthebronx2[/QUOTE]

    Mikey,

    Agree with you on this one. Wakefield has been with the Red Sox a long time and we've enjoyed watching him for all this time, but an almost Hall of Famer, sorry but not even close.

    Hetchinspete.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from eddiejoe46. Show eddiejoe46's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]Generally someone who pitches in the majors for nearly 20 years will earn 200 wins, it does not mean they were great pitchers. Last I checked it was 300 wins that meant something.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from xfiles45. Show xfiles45's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    He's responsible for 4 losses in the last month - what is wrong with you people? Everytime (except when he pitches against the NL, because they don't know his JUNK) he takes the mound it's a 75% chance he will loose.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    I did  a comparrison thread to Phil Niekro in 2009 but even then people wanted Tim gone. Tim is not going to get better imo. He is not Phil Niekro (Burrito).

    Burrito, I really think you miss the trend that is Wake's career. Most pitchers peak before they reach age 34. Wake turned 34 in 2000. He had had 2 great seasons up to that point: his rookie half season (including the playoffs of 1992) and his first year with Boston in 1995 (27 starts and a 2.95 ERA). In 4 of his first 8 seasons he had an ERA above 5.08. He had 6 of 8 seasons above 4.25. He had 4 of 8 seasons above a 1.475 WHIP and 6 of 8 above 1.343. His 2 great seasons really brought up his career numbers, but take a look at his career numbers at age 34:

    85-77  4.47 ERA in 1344 IP. His career WHIP up to 2000 was 1.42.

    Wake had 2 good seasons at age 34-36 as a reliever and spot starter and was 11-7 with a 4.09 ERA (1.305 WHIP) mostly as a starter in 2003. One could argue that these were his best 3 years in a row, but half of his appearances were as a releiver in those 3 seasons. He was 34-37 with an ERA of 3.64 and a WHIPof 1.24. 

    His next 3 year stretch 2004-2006 (ages 37-40) Wake started 86 games and relieved just 2. He was 35-33 with a 4.52 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP. Most pitchers have retired by these years (ages 37-40). Wake had shown decline from his first 8 season numbers and a big decline from his previous 3 season numbers. If he had retired then, nobody would have thought twice about it.

    What came next surprised or shocked most of Red Sox Nation and baseball fans all over the world. At age 40-41, Wake went 17-12 in 31 starts in 2007. We won our 2nd ring in 3 years. Wake's ERA was a bit high 4.76 and his WHIP was not low at 1.349. Some fans on this site called for his retirement after 2007. His poor showing vs Cleveland in the post season of 2007, being left off the roster for the rest of the playoffs, and his poor performances in 2 starts and 3 relief games in the previous 2 year's playoffs were the rallying cries of the mob led by softy. It's hard for me to see 2007 as a bad year, even though his ERA and WHIP were not very good, but I never thought it was time for him to hang 'em up. Wake's next 50 starts were perhaps his best consecutive 50 starts of his entire career. He was 41-43 years old! I repeat: 
    his best 50 starts in a row occured at ages 41 to 43! (I'll get to those numbers later.)
    From 2007-2009, Wake was 38-28 in 82 starts and had a 4.48 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP.
    His ERA was almost exactly the same as his ERA from ages 25-34 and better than his ERA from ages 37-40. His WHIP was equal to or better than any of the other timeframes listed above, except for his relief period of 2001-2003 (ERAs are usually lower for relief pitchers due to some partial IPs).

    As I have argued before and mentioned above, Wake's 50 consecutive starts from 2008 until mid 2009 were his best of his entire career. Again, he was ages 41 to 43 at the time. The streak was cut short by injury, but not before he was rightly elected to the Allstar game in 2009. His WHIP of 1.182 in 2008 was 5th best in the AL and best of all Sox starters that year. All this after many board members had called for his release, retirement or worse. 
    His ERA from 2008-2009 was 4.32 and his WHIP was 1.29. This includes his final 4 starts of 2009 returning from an injury that would end up requiring ack surgery after the 2009 season. (4GS, 21 IP, 24H and 13 BB, and 14 ERs) If you take away those 4 games, his 2008-mid 2009 numbers would be 4.22 ERA and 1.25 WHIP. These are his best numbers of his career.

    Now, the back surgery after 2009 was certainly a major deal. I can understand posters thinking that a 43 year old pitcher coming off major back surgery should not be counted on to perform at past levels. If you look solely at ERA, like many here do, you would feel vindicated holding that position. While Wake did have 4 seasons with 4.97 plus ERAs before 2010, having 2 in a row shows decline in this area. I'm not going to get into the flaws of ERA, playing half the games in Fenway, facing tougher than normal offensive opponents,  and the details of how I think Wake's ERA has been inflated by more than his fare share of cheap hits and inherited runners allowed to score, but I do think all his numbers need to be taken in context.

    Wake's numbers since 2010 are:
    10-15  5.16 ERA and 1.33 WHIP. His tERA is 4.56: much more respectable, isn't it?
      (His SIERA is 4.55. His xFIP is 4.68)

    Nobody is saying a 5.16 ERA is good. I happen to think it is not as bad as it appears, but I realize that this argument sounds "homerish" or "subjective". The fact is, there are 13 other pitchers in the AL with a higher ERA than 5.16 and 17+ starts over the past 2 years.
    Look at this list of 37 AL (only) starters from 2010-2011:
    Burnett  59 GS  5.12 ERA 
    Lackey  54 GS  4.98 
    Blackburn 51    5.00 
    Porcello 50 GS 4.95 
    K. Davies  45    5.69 
    Hochevar  43    4.88 
    Arrieta      40    4.88
    Bergesen  40   5.08
    Talbot       39   4.92 
    Matsusz    39   4.98
    Wake       37   5.16
    Dice-K      32   4.81
    Peavy       32   4.83
    Millwood   31  5.10
    Bond'man  30  5.53
    Kazmir      29  6.17
    Harden      27  4.97
    Francis      26  4.89
    Vazquez    26  5.32
    Penny        24  4.97
    Tillman     24   5.68
    Reyes       23   5.44
    O'Sullivan 23  6.04
    Bannister  23  6.34
    Mazzaro    22  5.09
    Feldman    22  5.33
    Row-Smith 20  6.75
    D. Huff        19  5.51
    Drabek       17  5.52
    D. Duffy      16  5.66
    J. Gomez   15  4.98
    French       13  4.83
    Moseley      9   4.96
    Meche        9    5.69
    Sonnan.     8    4.82
    Jakab.        6    5.20
    Tallet         5    6.40  

    One could argue there is no place for a 5.16 ERAstarter on a playoff contender, but the fact is all but one AL team that has made the playoffs since 2004 have had 1-2 starters with a 5.00 ERA (last 7 years)

    tERA is not a perfect stat as well, but it is interesting to point out that Wake ranks 47th out of the top 80 starters in the AL by IP (14 teams x 5 starters = 80).
    38) E.Santana 4.35
    43) P. Hughes  4.42
    45) M. Garza   4.46
    47) Wakefield 4.56
    49) Dice-K      4.58
    50) Lackey      4.59
    52) J. Guthrie  4.62
    54) W. Davis    4.66
    70) Burnett      5.00


    Now, let's look at Wake's 1.33 WHIP. It is very close to the same or even better than all but one stretch of Wake's career, when he was a releiver. Comparing Wake's 1.33 WHIP to other AL starters from 2010-2011:
    Wake is the 45th best AL starter out of the top 80 by IP (120+ IP).
    He is tied with Mark Buerhle. Are people calling for Buehrle's release?
    Wake's WHIP (1.33) since 2010 is better than...
    Liriano
    Masterson
    Wade Davis
    Dice-K
    Vazquez
    Porcello
    Nova 
    Lackey  1.47
    Burnett 1.47
    Penny
    Rich Harden 1.50
    Blackburn

    I'm sorry Burrito, but I just don't see the massive drop off you see. Wake's career has not followed the normal beel or S-curve. And, yes, while Wake is no Phil Neikro, the comparison is not as far off as you may think.
    1) Phil played in the NL until he was 45. His ERA should have been lower than his AL counterparts. His switch to the AL was helpful in that most AL hitters were not used to seeing a great knuckleball like his. That being said, Phil's WHIP after age 44 1.572 (with ATL), then 1.368, 1.468, 1.597, and 1.651 afterwards in the AL with the Yanks
    and others. His ERA in the AL (age 45 and up) went from 3.09 to 4.09, 4.32, and 6.30
    2) Phil's career BB/9 was 3.0, but it was much higher after age 43. Wake's has been among his career best since 2010 (2.5/9IP).
    3) Phil pitched many more IP after age 43. He was amazing! Starting at age 43, he had these season IP totals: 234, 202, 216, 220, 210, and ending with 139 in 1987. WOW! No comparison there.

    Nobody's saying Wake will be Phil. Nobody is saying Wake will not decline. What most Wake defenders are saying is that at his relatively low cost, he is a valuable 5/6 starter in today's AL. He compares favorably to many other AL starters, including a few on the Sox staff making more than Wake. Linking 2010 with 2011 might not be fair. To me, Wake looks much better this year. He is not limping or flopping around on the field. He is doing a much better job holding baserunners and has the best CS% of any Sox starter this year. His 2011 numbers:
    6-5  4.97  1.311 are not bad at all. Who knows if these numbers project to 2012. I don't pretend to know if Wake can keep going or will have a steep decline anytime soon. All I know is that there are not many starters like Wake who consistently give good numbers at a low cost. 

    Out of the top 80 AL starters in the AL this year, Wake ranks:
    55th in tERA at 4.79 (ahead of lackey at #66/80)
    36th in WHIP at 1.311 (just behind Buchholtz)
    These numbers show Wake has been about like an average 4th starter in the AL this year. This is about in line with his career norm. He is not mcuh worse than his past numbers. In many ways he is doing better (BB/9, CS%, QS%, and WHIP). 

    In my opinion, he belongs back here next year. As this season has shown, starter depth is very crucial. It is not easy to find capable 5/6 starters at Wake's cost. We tried with guys like Colon, Tavarez, Byrd, Penny, Smoltz, Tazawa, Lackey, and now Miller. What will signing 2-3 guys like Bedard cost this winter? What will Wake cost? 




     

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

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]He's responsible for 4 losses in the last month - what is wrong with you people? Everytime (except when he pitches against the NL, because they don't know his JUNK) he takes the mound it's a 75% chance he will loose.
    Posted by xfiles45[/QUOTE]

    The Sox are 11-7 in Wake starts. One loss the pen let up 4 runs in the 9th for the loss. 

    The Sox have won 6 of Wake's last 9 starts.

    The Sox are 9-6 in Wake starts vs AL teams.

    Where do you get your 75% loss stats from? 
    Cherry-picking his worst timeframe, the Sox have lost 60% of his last 5 starts. In those 3 losses, Wake has let up 3, 4 and 4 ERs.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from WilcyMoore. Show WilcyMoore's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200 : The Sox are 11-7 in Wake starts. One loss the pen let up 4 runs in the 9th for the loss.  The Sox have won 6 of Wake's last 9 starts. The Sox are 9-6 in Wake starts vs AL teams. Where do you get your 75% loss stats from?  Cherry-picking his worst timeframe, the Sox have lost 60% of his last 5 starts. In those 3 losses, Wake has let up 3, 4 and 4 ERs.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    Wakefield has been a tremendous asset to the Red Sox since he joined the team.  He has had a couple of outstanding seasons in various roles and a lot of bottom of the rotation type of performances.  Indirectly he has helped the starting pitching staff immeasurably by giving players a unique look sandwiched in between "normal pitchers."  For all intents and purposes he has been a lefty in disguise.  He has been generous with his time and money to his community and has been a credit to the franchise given the caliber and lack of character of many players who have been his teammates through the years.  If one embraces him for what he is, a consummate professional and teammate, he's exceeded expectations.  Hope he gets the so-called milestone 200th win and calls it quits.  He's done his job and more through the years.   
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    I just don't get the "hope" he quits part. He's still going strong. In many ways he is pitching as well or better than his career norm. He's cheap, reliable, and has eaten more innings than any other starter since he joined the rotation.

    Mark my words: if Wake is not here next year, I will bet we have a 5th to 6th starter with worse overall numbers than his have been this year, 2010-2011, or 2007 -2011. And, they likely will cost more, since we don't have any young prospects beating down the MLB door.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    Reposted:

    I did  a comparrison thread to Phil Niekro in 2009 but even then people wanted Tim gone. Tim is not going to get better imo. He is not Phil Niekro (Burrito).

    Burrito, I really think you miss the trend that is Wake's career. Most pitchers peak before they reach age 34. Wake turned 34 in 2000. He had had 2 great seasons up to that point: his rookie half season (including the playoffs of 1992) and his first year with Boston in 1995 (27 starts and a 2.95 ERA). In 4 of his first 8 seasons he had an ERA above 5.08. He had 6 of 8 seasons above 4.25. He had 4 of 8 seasons above a 1.475 WHIP and 6 of 8 above 1.343. His 2 great seasons really brought up his career numbers, but take a look at his career numbers at age 34:

    85-77  4.47 ERA in 1344 IP. His career WHIP up to 2000 was 1.42.

    Wake had 2 good seasons at age 34-36 as a reliever and spot starter and was 11-7 with a 4.09 ERA (1.305 WHIP) mostly as a starter in 2003. One could argue that these were his best 3 years in a row, but half of his appearances were as a releiver in those 3 seasons. He was 34-37 with an ERA of 3.64 and a WHIPof 1.24. 

    His next 3 year stretch 2004-2006 (ages 37-40) Wake started 86 games and relieved just 2. He was 35-33 with a 4.52 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP. Most pitchers have retired by these years (ages 37-40). Wake had shown decline from his first 8 season numbers and a big decline from his previous 3 season numbers. If he had retired then, nobody would have thought twice about it.

    What came next surprised or shocked most of Red Sox Nation and baseball fans all over the world. At age 40-41, Wake went 17-12 in 31 starts in 2007. We won our 2nd ring in 3 years. Wake's ERA was a bit high 4.76 and his WHIP was not low at 1.349. Some fans on this site called for his retirement after 2007. His poor showing vs Cleveland in the post season of 2007, being left off the roster for the rest of the playoffs, and his poor performances in 2 starts and 3 relief games in the previous 2 year's playoffs were the rallying cries of the mob led by softy. It's hard for me to see 2007 as a bad year, even though his ERA and WHIP were not very good, but I never thought it was time for him to hang 'em up. Wake's next 50 starts were perhaps his best consecutive 50 starts of his entire career. He was 41-43 years old! I repeat: 
    his best 50 starts in a row occured at ages 41 to 43! (I'll get to those numbers later.)
    From 2007-2009, Wake was 38-28 in 82 starts and had a 4.48 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP.
    His ERA was almost exactly the same as his ERA from ages 25-34 and better than his ERA from ages 37-40. His WHIP was equal to or better than any of the other timeframes listed above, except for his relief period of 2001-2003 (ERAs are usually lower for relief pitchers due to some partial IPs).

    As I have argued before and mentioned above, Wake's 50 consecutive starts from 2008 until mid 2009 were his best of his entire career. Again, he was ages 41 to 43 at the time. The streak was cut short by injury, but not before he was rightly elected to the Allstar game in 2009. His WHIP of 1.182 in 2008 was 5th best in the AL and best of all Sox starters that year. All this after many board members had called for his release, retirement or worse. 
    His ERA from 2008-2009 was 4.32 and his WHIP was 1.29. This includes his final 4 starts of 2009 returning from an injury that would end up requiring ack surgery after the 2009 season. (4GS, 21 IP, 24H and 13 BB, and 14 ERs) If you take away those 4 games, his 2008-mid 2009 numbers would be 4.22 ERA and 1.25 WHIP. These are his best numbers of his career.

    Now, the back surgery after 2009 was certainly a major deal. I can understand posters thinking that a 43 year old pitcher coming off major back surgery should not be counted on to perform at past levels. If you look solely at ERA, like many here do, you would feel vindicated holding that position. While Wake did have 4 seasons with 4.97 plus ERAs before 2010, having 2 in a row shows decline in this area. I'm not going to get into the flaws of ERA, playing half the games in Fenway, facing tougher than normal offensive opponents,  and the details of how I think Wake's ERA has been inflated by more than his fare share of cheap hits and inherited runners allowed to score, but I do think all his numbers need to be taken in context.

    Wake's numbers since 2010 are:
    10-15  5.16 ERA and 1.33 WHIP. His tERA is 4.56: much more respectable, isn't it?
      (His SIERA is 4.55. His xFIP is 4.68)

    Nobody is saying a 5.16 ERA is good. I happen to think it is not as bad as it appears, but I realize that this argument sounds "homerish" or "subjective". The fact is, there are 13 other pitchers in the AL with a higher ERA than 5.16 and 17+ starts over the past 2 years.
    Look at this list of 37 AL (only) starters from 2010-2011:
    Burnett  59 GS  5.12 ERA 
    Lackey  54 GS  4.98 
    Blackburn 51    5.00 
    Porcello 50 GS 4.95 
    K. Davies  45    5.69 
    Hochevar  43    4.88 
    Arrieta      40    4.88
    Bergesen  40   5.08
    Talbot       39   4.92 
    Matsusz    39   4.98
    Wake       37   5.16
    Dice-K      32   4.81
    Peavy       32   4.83
    Millwood   31  5.10
    Bond'man  30  5.53
    Kazmir      29  6.17
    Harden      27  4.97
    Francis      26  4.89
    Vazquez    26  5.32
    Penny        24  4.97
    Tillman     24   5.68
    Reyes       23   5.44
    O'Sullivan 23  6.04
    Bannister  23  6.34
    Mazzaro    22  5.09
    Feldman    22  5.33
    Row-Smith 20  6.75
    D. Huff        19  5.51
    Drabek       17  5.52
    D. Duffy      16  5.66
    J. Gomez   15  4.98
    French       13  4.83
    Moseley      9   4.96
    Meche        9    5.69
    Sonnan.     8    4.82
    Jakab.        6    5.20
    Tallet         5    6.40  

    One could argue there is no place for a 5.16 ERAstarter on a playoff contender, but the fact is all but one AL team that has made the playoffs since 2004 have had 1-2 starters with a 5.00 ERA (last 7 years)

    tERA is not a perfect stat as well, but it is interesting to point out that Wake ranks 47th out of the top 80 starters in the AL by IP (14 teams x 5 starters = 80).
    38) E.Santana 4.35
    43) P. Hughes  4.42
    45) M. Garza   4.46
    47) Wakefield 4.56
    49) Dice-K      4.58
    50) Lackey      4.59
    52) J. Guthrie  4.62
    54) W. Davis    4.66
    70) Burnett      5.00


    Now, let's look at Wake's 1.33 WHIP. It is very close to the same or even better than all but one stretch of Wake's career, when he was a releiver. Comparing Wake's 1.33 WHIP to other AL starters from 2010-2011:
    Wake is the 45th best AL starter out of the top 80 by IP (120+ IP).
    He is tied with Mark Buerhle. Are people calling for Buehrle's release?
    Wake's WHIP (1.33) since 2010 is better than...
    Liriano
    Masterson
    Wade Davis
    Dice-K
    Vazquez
    Porcello
    Nova 
    Lackey  1.47
    Burnett 1.47
    Penny
    Rich Harden 1.50
    Blackburn

    I'm sorry Burrito, but I just don't see the massive drop off you see. Wake's career has not followed the normal beel or S-curve. And, yes, while Wake is no Phil Neikro, the comparison is not as far off as you may think.
    1) Phil played in the NL until he was 45. His ERA should have been lower than his AL counterparts. His switch to the AL was helpful in that most AL hitters were not used to seeing a great knuckleball like his. That being said, Phil's WHIP after age 44 1.572 (with ATL), then 1.368, 1.468, 1.597, and 1.651 afterwards in the AL with the Yanks
    and others. His ERA in the AL (age 45 and up) went from 3.09 to 4.09, 4.32, and 6.30
    2) Phil's career BB/9 was 3.0, but it was much higher after age 43. Wake's has been among his career best since 2010 (2.5/9IP).
    3) Phil pitched many more IP after age 43. He was amazing! Starting at age 43, he had these season IP totals: 234, 202, 216, 220, 210, and ending with 139 in 1987. WOW! No comparison there.

    Nobody's saying Wake will be Phil. Nobody is saying Wake will not decline. What most Wake defenders are saying is that at his relatively low cost, he is a valuable 5/6 starter in today's AL. He compares favorably to many other AL starters, including a few on the Sox staff making more than Wake. Linking 2010 with 2011 might not be fair. To me, Wake looks much better this year. He is not limping or flopping around on the field. He is doing a much better job holding baserunners and has the best CS% of any Sox starter this year. His 2011 numbers:
    6-5  4.97  1.311 are not bad at all. Who knows if these numbers project to 2012. I don't pretend to know if Wake can keep going or will have a steep decline anytime soon. All I know is that there are not many starters like Wake who consistently give good numbers at a low cost. 

    Out of the top 80 AL starters in the AL this year, Wake ranks:
    55th in tERA at 4.79 (ahead of lackey at #66/80)
    36th in WHIP at 1.311 (just behind Buchholtz)
    These numbers show Wake has been about like an average 4th starter in the AL this year. This is about in line with his career norm. He is not mcuh worse than his past numbers. In many ways he is doing better (BB/9, CS%, QS%, and WHIP). 

    In my opinion, he belongs back here next year. As this season has shown, starter depth is very crucial. It is not easy to find capable 5/6 starters at Wake's cost. We tried with guys like Colon, Tavarez, Byrd, Penny, Smoltz, Tazawa, Lackey, and now Miller. What will signing 2-3 guys like Bedard cost this winter? What will Wake cost? 



     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200 : The Sox are 11-7 in Wake starts. One loss the pen let up 4 runs in the 9th for the loss.  The Sox have won 6 of Wake's last 9 starts. The Sox are 9-6 in Wake starts vs AL teams. Where do you get your 75% loss stats from?  Cherry-picking his worst timeframe, the Sox have lost 60% of his last 5 starts. In those 3 losses, Wake has let up 3, 4 and 4 ERs.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Wake has had a great career but posts like this always amaze me.

    moon, I will ask you the same question harness eventually ran out of excuses for after claiming the weather was the factor for certain Lackey defeats.  Wake and Lackey usually get pulled when the opposing team is ahead or takes the lead which is normally after 5 plus innings "half" a game.  When people say anything negative about them, you or harness pull the same "above" excuse.  Why can't you just admit our offense and/or pen usually deserves the credit for a win "not Lackey or Wake" just because they started the game. 

    In my opinion a pitcher gets partial or full credit for pitching a good game after a game like Jon pitched today, not for being pulled because it's getting ugly.  I would love to see Wake get his 200th but your post makes no sense. 


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    Wake is like Herpes
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]Reposted: I did  a comparrison thread to Phil Niekro in 2009 but even then people wanted Tim gone. Tim is not going to get better imo. He is not Phil Niekro (Burrito). Burrito, I really think you miss the trend that is Wake's career. Most pitchers peak before they reach age 34. Wake turned 34 in 2000. He had had 2 great seasons up to that point: his rookie half season (including the playoffs of 1992) and his first year with Boston in 1995 (27 starts and a 2.95 ERA). In 4 of his first 8 seasons he had an ERA above 5.08. He had 6 of 8 seasons above 4.25. He had 4 of 8 seasons above a 1.475 WHIP and 6 of 8 above 1.343. His 2 great seasons really brought up his career numbers, but take a look at his career numbers at age 34: 85-77  4.47 ERA in 1344 IP. His career WHIP up to 2000 was 1.42. Wake had 2 good seasons at age 34-36 as a reliever and spot starter and was 11-7 with a 4.09 ERA (1.305 WHIP) mostly as a starter in 2003. One could argue that these were his best 3 years in a row, but half of his appearances were as a releiver in those 3 seasons.  He was 34-37 with an ERA of 3.64 and a WHIPof 1.24.   His next 3 year stretch 2004-2006 (ages 37-40) Wake started 86 games and relieved just 2.  He was 35-33 with a 4.52 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP . Most pitchers have retired by these years (ages 37-40). Wake had shown decline from his first 8 season numbers and a big decline from his previous 3 season numbers. If he had retired then, nobody would have thought twice about it. What came next surprised or shocked most of Red Sox Nation and baseball fans all over the world. At age 40-41, Wake went 17-12 in 31 starts in 2007. We won our 2nd ring in 3 years. Wake's ERA was a bit high 4.76 and his WHIP was not low at 1.349. Some fans on this site called for his retirement after 2007. His poor showing vs Cleveland in the post season of 2007, being left off the roster for the rest of the playoffs, and his poor performances in 2 starts and 3 relief games in the previous 2 year's playoffs were the rallying cries of the mob led by softy. It's hard for me to see 2007 as a bad year, even though his ERA and WHIP were not very good, but I never thought it was time for him to hang 'em up. Wake's next 50 starts were perhaps his best consecutive 50 starts of his entire career. He was 41-43 years old! I repeat:  his best 50 starts in a row occured at ages 41 to 43 ! (I'll get to those numbers later.) From 2007-2009, Wake was  38-28 in 82 starts and had a 4.48 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP . His ERA was almost exactly the same as his ERA from ages 25-34 and better than his ERA from ages 37-40. His WHIP was equal to or better than any of the other timeframes listed above, except for his relief period of 2001-2003 (ERAs are usually lower for relief pitchers due to some partial IPs). As I have argued before and mentioned above, Wake's 50 consecutive starts from 2008 until mid 2009 were his best of his entire career. Again, he was ages 41 to 43 at the time. The streak was cut short by injury, but not before he was rightly elected to the Allstar game in 2009. His WHIP of 1.182 in 2008 was 5th best in the AL and best of all Sox starters that year. All this after many board members had called for his release, retirement or worse.  His ERA from 2008-2009 was 4.32 and his WHIP was 1.29.  This includes his final 4 starts of 2009 returning from an injury that would end up requiring ack surgery after the 2009 season. (4GS, 21 IP, 24H and 13 BB, and 14 ERs) If you take away those 4 games, his  2008-mid 2009 numbers would be 4.22 ERA and 1.25 WHIP . These are his best numbers of his career. Now, the back surgery after 2009 was certainly a major deal. I can understand posters thinking that a 43 year old pitcher coming off major back surgery should not be counted on to perform at past levels. If you look solely at ERA, like many here do, you would feel vindicated holding that position. While Wake did have 4 seasons with 4.97 plus ERAs before 2010, having 2 in a row shows decline in this area. I'm not going to get into the flaws of ERA, playing half the games in Fenway, facing tougher than normal offensive opponents,  and the details of how I think Wake's ERA has been inflated by more than his fare share of cheap hits and inherited runners allowed to score, but  I do think all his numbers need to be  taken in context . Wake's numbers since 2010 are: 10-15  5.16 ERA and 1.33 WHIP. His tERA is 4.56: much more respectable, isn't it?   (His SIERA is 4.55. His xFIP is 4.68) Nobody is saying a 5.16 ERA is good. I happen to think it is not as bad as it appears, but I realize that this argument sounds "homerish" or "subjective". The fact is, there are 13 other pitchers in the AL with a higher ERA than 5.16 and 17+ starts over the past 2 years. Look at this list of 37 AL (only) starters from 2010-2011: Burnett  59 GS  5.12 ERA  Lackey  54 GS  4.98  Blackburn 51    5.00  Porcello 50 GS 4.95  K. Davies  45    5.69  Hochevar  43    4.88  Arrieta      40    4.88 Bergesen  40   5.08 Talbot       39   4.92  Matsusz    39   4.98 Wake       37   5.16 Dice-K      32   4.81 Peavy       32   4.83 Millwood   31  5.10 Bond'man  30  5.53 Kazmir      29  6.17 Harden      27  4.97 Francis      26  4.89 Vazquez    26  5.32 Penny        24  4.97 Tillman     24   5.68 Reyes       23   5.44 O'Sullivan 23  6.04 Bannister  23  6.34 Mazzaro    22  5.09 Feldman    22  5.33 Row-Smith 20  6.75 D. Huff        19  5.51 Drabek       17  5.52 D. Duffy      16  5.66 J. Gomez   15  4.98 French       13  4.83 Moseley      9   4.96 Meche        9    5.69 Sonnan.     8    4.82 Jakab.        6    5.20 Tallet         5    6.40   One could argue there is no place for a 5.16 ERAstarter on a playoff contender, but the fact is all but one AL team that has made the playoffs since 2004 have had 1-2 starters with a 5.00 ERA (last 7 years) tERA is not a perfect stat as well, but it is interesting to point out that Wake ranks 47th out of the top 80 starters in the AL by IP (14 teams x 5 starters = 80). 38) E.Santana 4.35 43) P. Hughes  4.42 45) M. Garza   4.46 47) Wakefield 4.56 49) Dice-K      4.58 50) Lackey      4.59 52) J. Guthrie  4.62 54) W. Davis    4.66 70) Burnett      5.00 Now, let's look at Wake's 1.33 WHIP. It is very close to the same or even better than all but one stretch of Wake's career, when he was a releiver. Comparing Wake's 1.33 WHIP to other AL starters from 2010-2011: Wake is the 45th best AL starter out of the top 80 by IP (120+ IP). He is tied with Mark Buerhle. Are people calling for Buehrle's release? Wake's WHIP (1.33) since 2010 is better than... Liriano Masterson Wade Davis Dice-K Vazquez Porcello Nova  Lackey  1.47 Burnett 1.47 Penny Rich Harden 1.50 Blackburn I'm sorry Burrito, but I just don't see the massive drop off you see. Wake's career has not followed the normal beel or S-curve. And, yes, while Wake is no Phil Neikro, the comparison is not as far off as you may think. 1) Phil played in the NL until he was 45. His ERA should have been lower than his AL counterparts. His switch to the AL was helpful in that most AL hitters were not used to seeing a great knuckleball like his. That being said, Phil's WHIP after age 44 1.572 (with ATL), then 1.368, 1.468, 1.597, and 1.651 afterwards in the AL with the Yanks and others. His ERA in the AL (age 45 and up) went from 3.09 to 4.09, 4.32, and 6.30 2) Phil's career BB/9 was 3.0, but it was much higher after age 43. Wake's has been among his career best since 2010 (2.5/9IP). 3) Phil pitched many more IP after age 43. He was amazing! Starting at age 43, he had these season IP totals: 234, 202, 216, 220, 210, and ending with 139 in 1987. WOW! No comparison there. Nobody's saying Wake will be Phil. Nobody is saying Wake will not decline. What most Wake defenders are saying is that at his relatively low cost, he is a valuable 5/6 starter in today's AL. He compares favorably to many other AL starters, including a few on the Sox staff making more than Wake. Linking 2010 with 2011 might not be fair. To me, Wake looks much better this year. He is not limping or flopping around on the field. He is doing a much better job holding baserunners and has the best CS% of any Sox starter this year. His 2011 numbers: 6-5  4.97  1.311 are not bad at all. Who knows if these numbers project to 2012. I don't pretend to know if Wake can keep going or will have a steep decline anytime soon. All I know is that there are not many starters like Wake who consistently give good numbers at a low cost.  Out of the top 80 AL starters in the AL this year, Wake ranks: 55th in tERA at 4.79 (ahead of lackey at #66/80) 36th in WHIP at 1.311 (just behind Buchholtz) These numbers show Wake has been about like an average 4th starter in the AL this year. This is about in line with his career norm. He is not mcuh worse than his past numbers. In many ways he is doing better (BB/9, CS%, QS%, and WHIP).  In my opinion, he belongs back here next year. As this season has shown, starter depth is very crucial. It is not easy to find capable 5/6 starters at Wake's cost. We tried with guys like Colon, Tavarez, Byrd, Penny, Smoltz, Tazawa, Lackey, and now Miller. What will signing 2-3 guys like Bedard cost this winter? What will Wake cost? 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    GREAT POST MOON. Thanks for the research, time, and effort.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WilcyMoore. Show WilcyMoore's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    "I hope he quits" because a guy like Wake at this point in time actually is a detriment to progress.  He essentially takes a roster spot away from a young player with potential who will not get the chance to show what he can do at the big league level.  If you believe in your GM and his acumen in identifying and developing talent, you want to see the young guys whom he drafted 2 plus years ago perform when they are perceived to be ready.  With Lester, Lackey, Beckett, Buchholz and Matzusaka essentially locked in near term, what opportunity does a young pitcher in the system have to show what he can do when Wake is added into the mix as the depth or insurance starter?  Lester got his chance in part because Pedro signed with the Mets and Lowe went to the Dodgers.  Buchholz got his chance because Schilling retired.  At some point, a GM has to send a message to younger players that they will get their chance if they perform.  Keeping Wake on the 25 man roster year after year sends the wrong message in my opinion. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    I hope Wakefield gets his 200th. He is a classy guy who has always given 100 percent to the team. His work ethic is better than many on the team...but age is a factor and it's frustrating that Francona doesn't seem to see that Wakefield is a different pitcher after 85-90 pitches. I knew last night once that pitch count went over 90 and he was still in the game that he was in trouble.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from HankukSox. Show HankukSox's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    Tim Wakefield, Lost 5 games (since his last win)

    Jul 29 - White Sox 7.0 innings, 3R, 3ER, 3H, 2BB, 1HR
    Aug 3 - Indians 6.2 Innings, 3R, 3ER, 5H, 2BB, 1HR
    Aug 08 - Twins 7.0, 5R, 3ER, 8H, 0BB, 1HR
    Aug 14 - Mariners 8.0, 5R, 4ER, 9H, 2BB, 1HR
    Aug 20 - Royals 5.1, 4R, 4ER, 9H, 0BB, 0HR

    Last night was simply not a good game for him.  But looking at the last 5...  You can seriously say he has not given the team multiple chances to win?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200 : Wake has had a great career but posts like this always amaze me. moon, I will ask you the same question harness eventually ran out of excuses for after claiming the weather was the factor for certain Lackey defeats.  Wake and Lackey usually get pulled when the opposing team is ahead or takes the lead which is normally after 5 plus innings "half" a game.  

    Actually Wake averages about 6.5 IP per start. (103.1 IP/16 straight starts since May 22nd, but if you want to lowball his numbers, I'll go along for the ride. 

    When people say anything negative about them, you or harness pull the same "above" excuse.  Why can't you just admit our offense and/or pen usually deserves the credit for a win "not Lackey or Wake" just because they started the game.  

    I have said many times that run support is a major factor in W-L records. I have said that ERA is a reflection of the team and the pitcher together. I know Wake has not pitched great this year. I never said he did. My defending of Wake almost always comes after you and others stats "fatcs" that just aren't true, or they are not taken into the context of the game. When someone sayd we lose 75% of the games Wake pitches, I showed this is not true. You leap to the conclusion that I am arguiong that we have won 11 out of Wake's 18 starts solely because of the way Wake has pitched. I never claimed that. We could be 7-11 with a few breaks the other way. I know that. 

    I have shown Wake's ERA is higher than years past, but I have tried to show that in the context of an abnormal amount of inherited runners allowed to score, and many runs scored on bunt hits, seeing eye grounders, misplayed flyballs (for hits) and more, I feel Wake's ERA as a reflection of how well he has pitched this year is actually not as bad as it looks. I have never said that he deserves to win 100% of the games he allows 3 ERs in. Nobody wins all those games. What I have shown with other stats and game by game logs is that Wake has pitched well enough for our team to win 60-70% of the time. Wether we actually do or not is another matter, but what more can you ask from a 6th starter?

    In my opinion a pitcher gets partial or full credit for pitching a good game after a game like Jon pitched today, not for being pulled because it's getting ugly.  I would love to see Wake get his 200th but your post makes no sense. 

    Jon gets a lot of credit for his game today. Wake hasn't pitched a game like that for a while. As for Wake's 200th win, I could care less if he never gets it, as long as the team wins when he and others start.

    My post makes total sense. I am showing where Wake fits into the overall context of the AL 5th and 6th starters. People calling for his release or resignation are blind to the realities of MLB. No, Wake is not an ace. Nobody but you and others expect a 6th starter to pitch like an ace.

    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200 : I did  a comparrison thread to Phil Niekro in 2009 but even then people wanted Tim gone. Tim is not going to get better imo. He is not Phil Niekro.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    No, Wake is not Niekro. And Youk is not Eddie Mathews. But both players serve the team in their own capacity. A player with diminished value can still be an asset. And until the team has better alternatives, they will continue to acknowledge these assets.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    I hope he quits" because a guy like Wake at this point in time actually is a detriment to progress.  He essentially takes a roster spot away from a young player with potential who will not get the chance to show what he can do at the big league level.

    This is the lamest argument of all. Name these young studs that Wake has held down. 
    Doubront?
    Weiland?
    Wally?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    As if lousy Wastefield needs to hold down "a stud". LMAO!

    Doubrant, Weiland haven't been give a chance to show what they can do. Doubrant, when healthy, has been wasting time in AAA. Weiland was given 2 starts and his last one wasn't bad for a rookie. Not to mention Miller, who has been jerked around and held to the last minute before being called up.

    Wakefield is a loser, plain and simple. He is the face of the "no doubt" homer in the ALCS. He hangs his head like a loser, and complains that he'll go to Tampa if his role isn't changed.

    If Wakefield was on any other team he'd have been kicked off the team long before now. He is a circus, a side show, hanging around for some stupid ceremony about 200 wins and "all-time record wins for Red Sox pitcher". Seeing Wakefield with Cy Young should be enough to make real baseball fans throw up.

    Get this old donkey his 200 win on hits 10th attempt and kick him off the team for good! No playoff roster, no 2012 roster spot!

    I know most Red Sox fans can't wait to see Wakefield back out there in 2012, waddling around like a fat goose.

    If Theo can't develop better young bottom rotation pitching than that, he needs to be fired! He's had a stone age to replace Wakefield, who most cetainly hasn't been any "innings eater" in years. More like a buffet table eater!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I Hope Wakefield Never Reaches #200

    So sick it's beyond the point of needing a response.
     

Share