The great ongoing strawman in all of this is the insistence that Wakefield must be judged some sort of failure if he isn't an ace who is better or equal to a Beckett, or a Lester, or a Lackey against the AL East. Or against "good teams." Or against "good teams in the AL East." Or simply against the Yankees. Despite the fact that he's never been considered the ace of the staff, and never been paid to perform at that level.

While we're indulging the ridiculous strawman and the cherrypicking: Beckett's ERA against the Yankees is more than a full run worse than Wakefield's. Can't wait to see what situational logic is used to handwave away that fact.

But, you see, during the regular season, I don't care.

Fine. But I do. If I am watching the Sox play a good team in say, August, and we're in the race for a playoff spot,
I'd like to feel we have a better than .416 shot at winning. Maybe you don't care about such things. I like to see
the Red Sox beat good teams more than beat-up on bad teams. And in over six "seasons" of data, we have a guy who can't
beat a good team.

Un-clutch.

As long as Wakefield beats up on bad teams above expectations, to balance out his struggles against good teams, then it has basically no effect on the outcome of the Red Sox season. I guess it offends your aesthetic sensibilities, but not mine. This isn't about wins, perhaps?

I've shown, I think in as many ways as I possibly can, that Wakefield has performed at a solidly average level for the Red Sox for years and years. He has not shown any tendency to be unclutch overall, to win fewer games than his runs allowed and run support would suggest.

Can't wait to see what situational logic is used to handwave away that fact

Nice try. If you include those meaningless games in the WS, Beckett's ERA vs NY improves a bit. He has an 11-6 record against them in games that matter. He also has good stats vs all .500+ teams, and is a legendary playoff pitcher.

You just did exactly what you accuse me of doing, BTW.

I merely asked my self the follwoing question:

What easy-to-find characterstics would "big games" for the Red Sox have?

1) Playoffs and WS
2) vs NYY's
3) vs other good teams



I have no intrest in making Wake look bad. But you all seem to have an intrest in making him look good.

As long as Wakefield beats up on bad teams above expectations,

Does he?

Un-clutch.

This is the part of your argument that I find so exasperating and confusing. What basis do you have for such a statement? He's a mediocre pitcher who can be beaten up by good teams. On what grounds do you assign this a personality trait and not simply a performance trait? You have no basis for this.

Does he?

Wakefield
vs. above .500 team - 4.81 ERA
vs. below .500 team - 4.01 ERA

league average
vs. above .500 team - 4.58 ERA
vs. below .500 team - 4.32 ERA

Yes, he is better than most against bad teams and worse than most against good teams. (edited a bit for clarity)

You just did exactly what you accuse me of doing, BTW.

No, I made fun of you for cherrypicking by offering a cherrypick of my own, just to see how much it would make you squirm. And look at you, wriggling away like a nightcrawler.

He has not shown any tendency to be unclutch overall, to win fewer games than his runs allowed and run support would suggest.

Wrong. In 72 innings of postseason ball, he has been absolutely execrable. I cannot prove this is not random, but neither can you prove it is. The fact remains, in the biggest 72 innings of his life, the man pitched like crap. It happened. The stats are on my side. This is 10 ballgames of data, roughly speaking, 10 starts. You're the one who has to explain it away, not me.

The odds are on my side. Its enough data that its probably not random.

Jose, over what time period is the data in #107 from?

And look at you, wriggling away like a nightcrawler.

As long as we don't get personal about it, Chip.

And I blew your "point" away, BTW. And I'm not cherrypicking. Like I said:



What easy-to-find characterstics would "big games" for the Red Sox have?

1) Playoffs and WS
2) vs NYY's
3) vs other good teams

Sorry, I cheated a little (not intentionally) but on 107 the Wakefield numbers are career numbers, the league averages are 2009 AL numbers. Sorry, should have said that. I did that for simplicity in the sake of league averages (on the assumption that the overall changes little year to year) and for sample size on Wake.

Anyone wants to dig further into it, knock yourself out. I'm tryin' not to get fired here though!

Its enough data that its probably not random.

You are smart enough to know that 72 innings is hardly "enough data." If Wake has some sort of choke gene in him it would make more sense if he didn't have 1992 NLCS and 2003 ALCS on his record. It seems to me that the more likely answer is "good teams hit one trick ponies well" rather than "Tim Wakefield poops his pants."

If Wake has some sort of choke gene in him it would make more sense if he didn't have 1992 NLCS and 2003 ALCS on his record.

Why? Does his ERA have to be 15.00 or something like that?
And I wouldn't bring up the 2003 ALCS in his defense.

If someone is having a problem performing under high pressure, does it logically follw that he always had the problem?
Or always will?

I feel I demonstrated that Wake has never been able to pitch well against good teams or pitch well when it counts the most.

I haven't seen much of him since he went to Boston, but he was an absolute stone-cold killer down the stretch and in the playoffs for my Pirates in '92.

Can't really square that performance with the idea of him being un-clutch. He pretty much picked that team up and carried it on his back.

You are smart enough to know that 72 innings is hardly "enough data."

Yes it is. Not to be 1000% sure, but its enough data to have meaning. Its enough data that you have to explain it away.
I was told there is no evidence the man has trouble under pressure. Well, there is some. It means something.

All told, in the biggest spots of his life he pitched quite badly. His BB's per 9 went from 3.4 to 4.8--up over 40%.

Just so we're clear, teddy-

You are no longer claiming that Wakefield giving up the lead is "typical". You are no longer claiming that Wakefield hasn't produced average value, overall, during the regular season for the Red Sox. These are claims you made that have been shown to be incorrect. You have ceased to make these claims and moved on to talking about the postseason, so I'm assuming you've walked them back implicitly.

You're now arguing that Wakefield's overall poor postseason performance should be our evidence that he is unclutch. He is not unclutch when pitching with a lead, or generally during hte regular season, but he is during the postseason. That's the claim? I find it unlikely.

It seems much more likely to me that an average pitcher has happened to have a run of four poor starts against very good teams. That's a pretty common thing to happen normally without it having anything to do with the pitcher's character or tendencies. Just an average starting pitcher having some bad games.

And I blew your "point" away, BTW.

You didn't address my point about the strawman at all, and you "blew away" nothing about the specific cherrypick of Beckett's regular season suckiness against the Yankees. Sorry, but by your dopey standards a "big game" pitcher shouldn't be going out there in August putting up nearly 6 ER per 9 against them and hoping his offense bails him out.

And I wouldn't bring up the 2003 ALCS in his defense.

Really? 14 very good innings then one bad pitch? Sorry, I'll take 2003 as a point in Wake's favor.

Wake pitched well in 2003, it was a tough spot to bring him into extra innings in the last game. But the first two games he pitched seemed like pretty big games to me. If anything 2003 ought to be a mark in the clutch side of the column.

Can't really square that performance with the idea of him being un-clutch. He pretty much picked that team up and carried it on his back.

see #114

Greg Norman did win the Open Championship twice, for instance.

Now, let's see. is there anything unuaual about Tim wakefield, that might lend itself to being less
effective if he thinks too much etc.? Nah. He's just like every other pitcher.

It is true that Wakefield has pitched poorly in the playoffs, and barring a miraculous turnaround or severe desperation should the Red Sox actually make it to the postseason, Wake shouldnt be pitching in the 2010 playoffs at all.

And no doubt Wakefield has pitched poorly against the Yankees and to a lesser extent all .500+ teams.

None of this exactly suprises me or calls out to him having some unclutch gene, since I would expect just about every other mediocre pitcher in baseball to suffer from the same disease.

Greg Norman did win the Open Championship twice, for instance.

And what does that have to do with anything? He doesn't even play baseball.

You are no longer claiming that Wakefield giving up the lead is "typical".

I didn't claim that. I said that's what I would have said, IIRC. In response to my pal Chip. You know him,
the one who comes across as so friendly and lighthearted.


I'm saying that for his entire career, give or take, unless you're playing an absolute patsy, he's been
pretty bad at winning the ballgame.

And given the time you have to prepare, etc., all those bad postseason games are more meaningful than a regular season game
at the Trop in 2004.

Just an average starting pitcher having some bad games.

Why does he get credit for the good starts in the PS, but no blame when he was bad? He was bad in other games besides the ones you mention, 2 of the 3 games in the 04 ALCS, and some before those as well.

Are all pitching performaces random? Does make-up matter? I think it does. The guy can throw 50 perfect knucklers in a row
warming-up, and he goes out there and can't find the plate. Not random.

He's been a steal until 2010 at 4 million, but he never could beat a good team. And there's evidence that he has had a history, beginning at roughly mid-career, of being too nervous to toss good knucklers in the playoffs.

I'm saying that for his entire career, give or take, unless you're playing an absolute patsy, he's been
pretty bad at winning the ballgame.

For his entire career, he's been solidly average at winning the ballgame. You're offended, aesthetically, by the arrangement of his career, but he's clearly been a solidly average pitcher for nearly two decades. Heckuva career.

123-it means that if somebody chokes, that doesn't mean they'll always choke. Arod's playoff struggles in NY were
not random, IMHO, but he got over them. He fought thru it.

And yet the "legendary playoff pitcher" started his postseason career with two brilliant runs, but is 1-3 in his last four playoff starts with a 7.71 ERA, working past the 5th inning only once.

Must be unwilling to fight through the draining of his manly essence. And don't give me any injury excuses - his bloody-socked predecessor as staff ace didn't need them!

The guy can throw 50 perfect knucklers in a row warming-up

What do you base that on? I get to about 25 games a year so I've seen Wakefield pitch a LOT in the last ten years and I can tell you that between innings he often bounces warmup pitches to the backstop.

For his entire career, he's been solidly average at winning the ballgame.

Unless you're playing a team that doesn't suck. In that case, you might as well rest your regulars.
Unless you're in the playoffs, in that case, start anybody else you an round-up at a moment's notice.

The Sox have been, roughy, a 106 OPS+ team for Wake's tenure. His ERA+ stands at 107. To me, something doesn't add up. He ought to have something better than .530 winning %, no? As I understand it, an average starter will have about a 95 ERA+. Does he give up a huge ammount of unearned runs? I don't think so, a bit above average, IIRC. I always though of Wake as a 3rd starter most years, BTW. His ERA+ is that of a 3d starter.

What do you base that on?

What Wake said after his second to last start. He said he was great in the bullpen, and no explanation as to why
he was so bad in the game. Intuitively, I'd have to think a greater part of a knuckler's game is mental.

Arod's playoff struggles in NY were not random, IMHO, but he got over them. He fought thru it.

Then why was he super-clutch in the playoffs for Seattle, before the Yankees acquired him?

Intuitively, I'd have to think a greater part of a knuckler's game is mental.

Funny, I'd think intuitively that there'd be very little mental aspect to the knuckleballer, less so than other pitchers. It's either floating unpredictably (but not so unpredictbly that it can't find the strike zone) and guys struggle to hit it, or it doesn't and he gets shelled. He doesn't have a different plan of attack for each hitter. For the most part, he's not worrying about mixing up his pitches. I'd guess he was confused why the ball was darting nicely in the bullpen but not in the game.

Then why was he super-clutch in the playoffs for Seattle, before the Yankees acquired him?

I dunno. But IMHO, he wasn't himself for a few years. He was pressing badly, again, this is just my impresssion. But it happens.

I'd guess he was confused why the ball was darting nicely in the bullpen but not in the game.

Because he wasn't throwing it right?

What Wake said after his second to last start. He said he was great in the bullpen, and no explanation as to why
he was so bad in the game. Intuitively, I'd have to think a greater part of a knuckler's game is mental.

He has also talked about nights where it wasn't moving in the bullpen and moved in the game.

You are trying to find difficult explainations for an easy situation. Average pitcher has it sometimes, doesn't have it other times. This is not unique to Wake and trying to assign a psychological aspect of it to someone you have never met is an endeavor doomed to failure.

Average pitcher

He's not really. he has a 107 ERA+--well above average. He throws a weird pitch, 95% of the time.
If its not moving, its because he's "rolling" it right? I mean, isn't that the laws of physics would dictate?

The same comment has been made something on the order of several hundred thousands times by non-knuckleballing starters who have a bad start. "I don't know what happened, my bullpen was great" is one of the hoariest of pitching cliches. As is its opposite: "I can't explain it, my bullpen was terrible, and suddenly everything clicked when I got in the game."

Intuitively, you'd have to think throwing a knuckler is almost entirely physical. The combination of grip and arm action is fiendishly difficult to execute with any consistency; if it weren't a hard pitch to throw, let alone throw well, there'd be as many guys with good knuckleballs in the minors as there are guys with good fastballs. And more than a few would be making it to the majors. But that doesn't happen.

One thing about Wake's October struggles that I don't think we've discussed. The knuckleball is a "feel" pitch. Most of the games the Red Sox have played in October have been played in cold temperatures which may have inhibited his ability to grip the ball the way he would want.

What time does the "When do we trade for platoon players for Papi* and Drew" discussion start?


*Like THAT'S gonna happen

137-does he similarly stink in April?

this is just my impresssion

Well, we agree on at least one thing.

Well, I'm disappointed. I thought this topic exploded because of trade rumors.

I looked it up. Timmy has his best monthly ERA in April: 3.99

We're back to "feeling the pressure" for his playoff failures.

Well, I'm disappointed. I thought this topic exploded because of trade rumors.

Agree with the disappointment.

Seriously, the last 100 or so posts could be summed up as follows:

A: I think Wake is not a good pitcher and is worse in big games because hes unclutch.
B: You're wrong, Wake is not a good pitcher and is worse in big games because hes not really that good.

Seems like everyone agrees with each other a lot more than they care to realize.

Some players handle pressure better than other players. When would a starting pitcher for the Red Sox
feel more pressure than at other times? In playoff games, aginst the NYY's or against other good teams, like I said.
Our boy has underpreformed badly in these types of games. I feel this is a sign of being a bad "money" pitcher.
I can't prove it of course, but neither can the other side. At least I have some evidence on my side, they have none.

The idea that all regular season games are absolutely created equal is silly. It's an example of taking an idea that has some truth to it and going way too far with it. The players, coaches managers, owners, fans, announcers, batboys, etc. don't feel this way. Neither do I.

You can help yourself into the postseason more by beating the clubs head to head that figure to be in it at the end of it--this is just one reason why beating any good club in May, especially the NYY's, is more important in the 162 sked than beating the O's.

I hate this team right now. Lackey then Beckett. Then Lester Dice and Buch. I'll just keep saying that.

ditto to 141. I was sure we had landed Iannetta.

Yeah, this thread officially sucks now.

Wake is a GREAT pitcher and would be heading to the HOF were it not for appalling managing by Jimy Williams in '99-02.

Having said that he appears to have "lost a bit on his knuckleball" this season. He's now only a good pitcher, with appalling service by the Boston relief corps, as has happened in some previous years (but not the first half of last year, for example.)

At 43, these things happen. Given his track record, it's probably worth bringing him back for one more season, as they have done -- perfectly possible for him to improve sharply at 44.

I just thought I ought to correct the emerging consensus that Wake was a mediocre pitcher. He's much better than that -- at least the third best pure knuckleballer in history.

The team's not going anywhere this year anyway.

You know what officially sucks worse? Losing two of three to the lineup that the A's roll out on a nightly basis.

So presumably its a Hermida/McDonald platoon. Is Hermida that much of an upgrade from Nava at this point?

Hermida has really sucked this year and didn't have much of a track record coming in.

I'm gonna take one more stab at this and let it go.

Although I've always liked and admired him as a man (despite recently learning from Joy Behar-Sound-Alike Darren that Wake enjoys hunting animals!), at some point in the last few years, I thought I felt/noticed a bit of a pattern that had Wakefield showing a tendency to let me down in important games. So I asked myself, what would an easy way to check that out?
If put the question to 1000 Sox fans, "Can you name the most common characteristics of a big game for the Boston Red Sox?"
I think you'd get something like this, in descending order:

1) A postseason game. --this was easy to research, and Wake has pitched quite badly in these, overall.
2) A game agaisnt the NYY's. --again, easy to look-up, and while he ERA isn't horrible, his record is bad, especially lately.
3) A crucial game in a playoff race in the regular season. --hard to look-up, didn't do it.
4) A game against a good team, since good teams are the ones that you'd be fighting in the WC race with, since the NYY's
almost always have the AL East locked-up anyway. Not all games vs good teams are like this, but many are. All games vs a WC opponent in Sep., for example, would show-up in this category. I also feel ANY game vs a good team is more imporatant to win than a game against some Weak Sister, since beating a strong AL club increases your chance of a WC berth, which is what the Red Sox are almost reduced to pursuing(there is the sub-set of good team games vs NL clubs, but again, I wasn't looking to spend hours and hours on this, although I already have).


Since Wake has fared quite badly in these types of games, has lost more than his share of them, it stands to reason
that since most of the more important games of this ilk, its also safe to say Wake has pitched poorly in "big games."
And if he's pitched poorly in big games, then it probably stands to reason that he's also blown more than his share of leads
that were handed to him in games of this type.

If somebody wants to go over each year's game logs, and see if he can discover a pattern within my pattern that has Wake
only losing to .500+ ballclubs in April and May but faring way better against them in Sep.-Oct, or only pitching
badly against the Yankees when the playoff race is over, etc. be my guest.

If a starting pitcher can't beat the Yankees, can't beat other good teams, has BB rate that skyrockets along with his ERA in the playoffs/WS, then he can't be a anything but a bad money pitcher, if he pitched for Boston from 1995-2010.

We accidentally voided King Felix. That's something, I guess.

What are the thoughts on saltamacchia?

Saltalamacchia's the first decent pick-up in ages; an excellent successor to Varitek, and acquired cheap. Theo's best move since Ortiz, certainly better than any of last winter's deals, though I like Beltre on balance. At least I regard the chances of that proving the case as being about 75%, which is about as good as you get in baseball prediction.

Also, I like the look of Kalish -- any decent growth from here and he's a real find.

Saltalamacchia's the first decent pick-up in ages;

I guess a year is 'ages' to some people.

V-Mart's a very good player, but was no more than a rental. Saltalamacchia we control till 2017.

I like Beltre on balance.

Very generous of you to say you like the third baseman putting up a .922 OPS.

His similar batters by age has some interesting players on it

1. Todd Zeile (967)
2. Mike Sweeney (965)
3. Dave Nilsson (958)
4. Jocko Milligan (957)
5. Hank Gowdy (943)
6. Stephen Drew (941)
7. Craig Biggio (940)
8. Milt Bolling (938)
9. Shawon Dunston (937)
10. Michael Barrett (936)

This team has a horrible track record when it comes to lottery ticket type players, but it is still pretty good to get him for this package, when the price was Buchholz a few months ago. 25 isn't old at all for catcher, either.

Quiz question:

What player is hitting .371 / .552 / 923, for an OPS+ of 140, while supplying gold glove defense, for the price of $9 million?

Oh, right, he's recent pick-up Adrian Beltre.

Ugh.

This team has a horrible track record when it comes to lottery ticket type players,

It

feels

this way sometimes, but Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, Arroyo, and others have been some very good pickups. I think the problem is when they go overboard.

I'll give you Arroyo, but those other guys were pretty good players who happened to work out really well. Maybe I'm picking nits, but this type of deal is a different category to me. Salty is worthless if he doesn't get any better.

Sox have the third best hitting catcher in the AL(and he's slumping) at age 31. Sox have Mark Teixiera playing third for them (except..better)...and RSN can't wait to shove them both out the door.

Of course RSN wanted to trade Buccholz three years ago for Salty, or Max Ramirez or Teagarden.

Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, Arroyo, and others have been some very good pickups.

The first three were picked up in 2003, Arroyo in 2004. That's a long time ago. And that doesn't get into dumping Arroyo for Pena, the ultimate losing lottery ticket.

I really like the Saltalamacchia pickup personally. He obviously needed a change of scenery. Now that might not be all he needs, but we'll see if the Sox can straighten him out.

Ideally I'd like to see him paired up with a re-signed Martinez for the next 3 years or so. As well as Varitek hit in part-time duty this year, his complete inability to throw simply means he has to go. If he does retire rather than trying to latch on somewhere else for a few years, I expect we'll see him become a coach of some sort for the Red Sox. I think he's got to be the odds-on favorite for the successor to Tito, for better or worse.

Rumor has it that Saltamacchia cannot throw either. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Rumor has it that Saltamacchia cannot throw either. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

He is battling Mickey Sasser disease. He's unable to catch in the majors until he can figure it out.