PDA

View Full Version : Tim Wakefield wins game number 200



Jeffy25
09-14-2011, 02:37 AM
Becoming the 111th player in baseball history to do so.

Congratulations to him.

carson005
09-14-2011, 02:57 AM
Whoopdee freakin doo

#24
09-14-2011, 04:09 AM
Tho I'm a die hard Sox hater, I'm happy for him. Now he can finally retire.

Pinstripe pride
09-14-2011, 08:42 AM
stupid jays couldn't come through when you needed them to........................



just kidding, good for wakefield.

ManningToTyree
09-14-2011, 09:28 AM
How many losses does he have? Anyway congrats on the longevity

edit: He is 200-178

F*(&"Next Year"
09-14-2011, 10:21 AM
Way more impressive than Mo's 600th save. :D

Pittz
09-14-2011, 11:16 AM
About time.

Bombtista
09-14-2011, 12:16 PM
stupid jays couldn't come through when you needed them to........................


No its true :p. Could have been our chance to have an impact on the division for the first time this year really.

Oh well.

Super.
09-14-2011, 12:42 PM
Way more impressive than Mo's 600th save. :D

Well of course

Towelie
09-14-2011, 12:44 PM
One of the worst to ever have 200 wins.

Super.
09-14-2011, 12:56 PM
Pssh

haters

VenezuelanMet
09-14-2011, 12:57 PM
Tho I'm a die hard Sox hater, I'm happy for him. Now he can finally retire.

Nope, he still has like 6 wins to go to be the Red Sox leader in wins :D

Even tho he sucks now, you have to love a knuckeballer.

"Ace"ves
09-14-2011, 03:29 PM
Pssh

haters

True... Wakefield's record may not be impressive, but he certainly made a name for himself and contributed to the championships in the last decade

Halladay
09-14-2011, 03:35 PM
One of the worst to ever have 200 wins.

That's the ugly truth. To have 200 wins when you've really only had a few really good years and the rest pretty crap is nothing short of amazing. I honestly wish people would stop using the most irrelevant stat every created by man.

NYKNYGNYY
09-14-2011, 03:37 PM
it only took him till he was 45...no big deal

iam brett favre
09-14-2011, 03:39 PM
Why is this thread worthy? Wins dont matter, remember?

Jeffy25
09-14-2011, 04:09 PM
That's the ugly truth. To have 200 wins when you've really only had a few really good years and the rest pretty crap is nothing short of amazing. I honestly wish people would stop using the most irrelevant stat every created by man.

Fully agree.

It speaks to how anyone can win 200 games IMO.

Halladay
09-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Fully agree.

It speaks to how anyone can win 200 games IMO.

I can't remember which year it was, and it was a while ago, but Wakefield was getting some crazy run support while having a bad year and was getting more Cy Young talk then Halladay who was getting some crazy low run support and of course putting up award type numbers minus the wins. It's mind boggling that the media still put emphasis on the stat. Time to get rid of some of the old school guys. I know for a fact that on many broadcasts it's still talked about like it's relevant. Hell, during Jays games when the starters are being announced in the first it's usually the first thing they mention. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a common theme around baseball commentators among other media sources.

"Ace"ves
09-14-2011, 05:29 PM
Fully agree.

It speaks to how anyone can win 200 games IMO.

Let's not get out of control here. Its a flawed stat because wakefield is the least dominant 200 game winner... but not "anyone" can do it. Longevity is significant, pitching well enough for a team to play you for that long is significant.

Give credit where it is due. Is he amazing for 200 wins? No. Is he above average and a long-term contributor? Yes.

And wins are significant when you combine winning %

Pittz
09-14-2011, 05:58 PM
Now if only there were a Hall of Very Average for an Extended Period of Time Being Unreasonably Loved Because of Uniqueness to induct him into.

"Ace"ves
09-14-2011, 06:38 PM
Now if only there were a Hall of Very Average for an Extended Period of Time Being Unreasonably Loved Because of Uniqueness to induct him into.

its called team hall of fame :)

ne3xchamps
09-14-2011, 06:43 PM
How many losses does he have? Anyway congrats on the longevity

edit: He is 200-178

He would have had a lot less losses if the sox could get him run support. He has lost about 10-15 games where he is lights out, but the offense can't help him.

Rylinkus
09-14-2011, 07:43 PM
Congrats to Tim. A heck of a pitcher and a guy that any team in baseball would have gladly taken for the majority of his career. He signs one year deals, pitches wherever asked, and I can't remember ever hearing him complain. I'm a fan. Flawed stat or not, it will get him on ESPN for a day.

Jeffy25
09-14-2011, 07:55 PM
He would have had a lot less losses if the sox could get him run support. He has lost about 10-15 games where he is lights out, but the offense can't help him.

Wakefield this year is getting .77 runs per inning he pitches.

That is really high, Doug Fister has gotten .28 runs per inning he pithes this season.

Wakefield can't complain about run support, he has gotten more than his fair share.

bagwell368
09-14-2011, 09:10 PM
True... Wakefield's record may not be impressive, but he certainly made a name for himself and contributed to the championships in the last decade

For pitchers with 7 or more starts in the post season, his ERA is about 1 ER worse then the next worse guy all time.

He owns a number of negative Red Sox records (HBP, WP, ER, BB, etc.) and if you scale them against the innings between him and the 2nd place guy, his lead is mammoth.

His W-L% is below the Red Sox W-L% in his time.

Despite his reputation for always taking the ball, he has complained bitterly at least 4 times I can name in the press when he was upset, so much for the stoic Wake.

He's a mediocrity, and I look forward to a Sox staff w/o the pot bellied Wakefield on it.

bagwell368
09-14-2011, 09:28 PM
And wins are significant when you combine winning %

Hunh?

Wake % | BRS % (more then .075 highlighted)

.667 - .597
.519 - .525
.444 - .481
.680 - .568
.353 - .580
.429 - .525
.688 - .509
.611 - .574
.545 - .586
.571 - .605
.389 - .586
.586 - .531
.476 - .593
.688 - .586
.286 - .549
.538 - .585

Hmmmm...

Now for the playoffs:

5 ALDS: IP: 21.2 ER: 22 W/L: 0-4 ERA: 9.14
4 ALCS: IP: 28.2 ER: 21 W/L: 3-3 ERA: 6.59
1 WS--: IP: 3.2 ER: 5 W/L: 0-0 ERA: 12.27

Yeah, he's quality all the way...

1903
09-14-2011, 10:01 PM
He would have had a lot less losses if the sox could get him run support. He has lost about 10-15 games where he is lights out, but the offense can't help him.

Started 183 game with 6+ run support, 168 with 3-5 run support, and 110 games with 0-2 run support. He has a career ERA over 4 in each of those scenarios. No matter how many runs the Red Sox offense scores for Wakefield he stinks.

"Ace"ves
09-14-2011, 10:49 PM
Hunh?

Wake % | BRS % (more then .075 highlighted)

.667 - .597
.519 - .525
.444 - .481
.680 - .568
.353 - .580
.429 - .525
.688 - .509
.611 - .574
.545 - .586
.571 - .605
.389 - .586
.586 - .531
.476 - .593
.688 - .586
.286 - .549
.538 - .585

Hmmmm...

Now for the playoffs:

5 ALDS: IP: 21.2 ER: 22 W/L: 0-4 ERA: 9.14
4 ALCS: IP: 28.2 ER: 21 W/L: 3-3 ERA: 6.59
1 WS--: IP: 3.2 ER: 5 W/L: 0-0 ERA: 12.27

Yeah, he's quality all the way...

His record is 200-178, which is .538%
His post-season is 5-7 which is .417%

So no, he is not quality, thats a bad winning %. Idk if you are agreeing with me or challenging me. But if you read what I wrote, then you'd know that i don't think his winning % is good, im just defending the value of wins in certain circumstances.

I did say Wakefield had value, cause he did. He wasn't Pedro, Lowe, or Schilling.... he isn't Lester, Beckett, or Buchholz. But that doesn't mean he didnt help the team. Every player can have a contribution even if its smaller than others.

bagwell368
09-14-2011, 11:21 PM
His record is 200-178, which is .538%
His post-season is 5-7 which is .417%

I made my earlier comments on Wakefield as a BRS pitcher.

He is 186-166 for the Red Sox - that's .528, and he is below the BRS record in his time as I said.

His post season record for Boston is 3-7, and he DOES have the worst ERA of any pitcher w/ over 7 starts in ML history. Do you have something to offer in defense of that?


So no, he is not quality, thats a bad winning %. Idk if you are agreeing with me or challenging me. But if you read what I wrote, then you'd know that i don't think his winning % is good, im just defending the value of wins in certain circumstances.

I made my comments on his W-L% irrespective of yours. .528 for Boston isn't good when the Sox are .563 in his time. The difference between 85.5 wins and 91.2 wins per season. It matters in the AL East.


I did say Wakefield had value, cause he did. He wasn't Pedro, Lowe, or Schilling.... he isn't Lester, Beckett, or Buchholz. But that doesn't mean he didnt help the team. Every player can have a contribution even if its smaller than others.

Wakefield had value as a slightly above average ERA+ SP. OTOH he wasn't a horse like many knuckleballers are. 7 years 30 or more starts for Boston. Top IP years for Sox:

225
216
211
202
201
195
189
188
181

Not a stallion.

10 years between a 81-103 ERA+ for Boston. Mediocre.

I want to be clear. I don't hate Wake, but I have a major issue with those that want his number hanging on the facade, and treat him like some good luck charm, and want to keep him around. He really has slid the past two years - time for him to go.

#24
09-15-2011, 08:45 AM
Nope, he still has like 6 wins to go to be the Red Sox leader in wins :D

Even tho he sucks now, you have to love a knuckeballer.
Absolutely. I sincerely meant that I was happy for him, as I've always admired a good knuckleballer!

Actually as a native New Englander I've hated the Sox all my life. But they've had many players I've admired over the years. Williams, Yaz, Rice, Lynn, El Tiante, Clemens, Fisk, just off the top of my head. And I always liked Wake just because knuckleballers are throw-back kinda players. Just don't see them around anymore.

Jeffy25
09-15-2011, 09:28 AM
I made my earlier comments on Wakefield as a BRS pitcher.

He is 186-166 for the Red Sox - that's .528, and he is below the BRS record in his time as I said.

His post season record for Boston is 3-7, and he DOES have the worst ERA of any pitcher w/ over 7 starts in ML history. Do you have something to offer in defense of that?



I made my comments on his W-L% irrespective of yours. .528 for Boston isn't good when the Sox are .563 in his time. The difference between 85.5 wins and 91.2 wins per season. It matters in the AL East.



Wakefield had value as a slightly above average ERA+ SP. OTOH he wasn't a horse like many knuckleballers are. 7 years 30 or more starts for Boston. Top IP years for Sox:

225
216
211
202
201
195
189
188
181

Not a stallion.

10 years between a 81-103 ERA+ for Boston. Mediocre.

I want to be clear. I don't hate Wake, but I have a major issue with those that want his number hanging on the facade, and treat him like some good luck charm, and want to keep him around. He really has slid the past two years - time for him to go.

You would think Boston fans would remember the walk-off to Boone.

Or is that all forgotten because of the two rings since?

"Ace"ves
09-15-2011, 09:44 AM
I made my earlier comments on Wakefield as a BRS pitcher.

He is 186-166 for the Red Sox - that's .528, and he is below the BRS record in his time as I said.

His post season record for Boston is 3-7, and he DOES have the worst ERA of any pitcher w/ over 7 starts in ML history. Do you have something to offer in defense of that?



I made my comments on his W-L% irrespective of yours. .528 for Boston isn't good when the Sox are .563 in his time. The difference between 85.5 wins and 91.2 wins per season. It matters in the AL East.



Wakefield had value as a slightly above average ERA+ SP. OTOH he wasn't a horse like many knuckleballers are. 7 years 30 or more starts for Boston. Top IP years for Sox:

225
216
211
202
201
195
189
188
181

Not a stallion.

10 years between a 81-103 ERA+ for Boston. Mediocre.

I want to be clear. I don't hate Wake, but I have a major issue with those that want his number hanging on the facade, and treat him like some good luck charm, and want to keep him around. He really has slid the past two years - time for him to go.

Im confused as to why you are arguing with my point? Im agreeing that he isn't amazing!! idk how else to say it... prob just gonna argue with me even though i am making the same point as you

Melo15
09-15-2011, 10:02 AM
You would think Boston fans would remember the walk-off to Boone.

Or is that all forgotten because of the two rings since?

Trust me, it's not forgotten. Hell, every Red Sox vs. Yankees game on FOX shows the clip at least 10 times. But Red Sox fans love Wakefield, personally I can't stand him. Earlier this year after giving up 7 runs to the Mariners he got a standing ovation. Not even kidding.

Jeffy25
09-15-2011, 10:13 AM
so he is loved because he is a unique pitcher that has been around a long time even if he hasn't always deserved a spot.

Got it.


;)

bagwell368
09-15-2011, 12:18 PM
You would think Boston fans would remember the walk-off to Boone.

Or is that all forgotten because of the two rings since?

2003 rests upon the Manager, as does 1986. Wakefield was simply the last (or near it) resort in an extra inning game. Knowing his awful performances against the Yanks and the playoffs in general I didn't expect a good outcome.

IMO, 2003 was nearly as good as the 2004 team, and probably would have won the WS if not for the Yanks; but in my time there were freak years such as 1967, 1972, 1975, 1978, 1986, 2003 - how many years like that do the Cards have? Right.

bagwell368
09-15-2011, 12:22 PM
Im confused as to why you are arguing with my point? Im agreeing that he isn't amazing!! idk how else to say it... prob just gonna argue with me even though i am making the same point as you

Sometimes I quote a post that I am not 100% in sync with, or a 100% against. It's just like an extension of the conversation. I'll try to remember only to quote you when I'm 100% for or against so as not to cause you cognitive dissonance.

Pittz
09-15-2011, 12:42 PM
You would think Boston fans would remember the walk-off to Boone.

Or is that all forgotten because of the two rings since?

I cried after that game. It was my christening as a Red Sox fan. Definitely haven't forgotten it lol.


so he is loved because he is a unique pitcher that has been around a long time even if he hasn't always deserved a spot.

Got it.


;)


Now if only there were a Hall of Very Average for an Extended Period of Time Being Unreasonably Loved Because of Uniqueness to induct him into.

Yup.

Crucis
09-15-2011, 01:00 PM
You would think Boston fans would remember the walk-off to Boone.

Or is that all forgotten because of the two rings since?

Like Bags said, the walk-off to Boone wasn't Wake's fault. It was Grady Little's fault for leaving Pedro in the game for the 8th inning, when everyone watching KNEW that Pedro was out of gas. *I* knew that he was out of gas because Pedro had had a pretty solid limit of about 100 pitches all year long and would always start getting into trouble if he went much over it ... and he was at or a little over 100 pitches after 7 innings in that game.

If the bullpen had stunk, I might have understood the decision. But the BP did NOT stink. The BP was incredibly strong in the 2003 playoffs, with Timlin and Embry, etc. pitching great every time out. I firmly believe that had Grady Little followed the same BP usage that he'd done with those guys in all the previous playoff games, Timlin, Embry, etc. would have shut the Yanks down (as they did when they were eventually called into that game, in fact) and the Sox would have gone to the WS.

I was screaming at my TV when Grady sent Pedro out for the 8th inning, as in "Are you out of your effing mind, Grady???" or words to that effect. And the inning ended up being exactly what I thought was going to happen before a single pitch was thrown.

Wake was simply the guy who happened to be on the mound to give up the losing run. I didn't blame Wake one bit back then and never will. I don't blame Pedro either. You could see from his body language after the 7th that he knew that he was done. He must have been shocked when Grady sent him out for the 8th.

The 2003 ALCS game 7 loss was entirely on Grady Little's shoulders. And I'm firmly convinced that the decision to send Pedro out for the 8th inning when everyone knew he was gassed and the Pen was solid and ready to come on and do its job, was the reason that Grady got canned... and rightly so.

ManningToTyree
09-15-2011, 01:31 PM
He would have had a lot less losses if the sox could get him run support. He has lost about 10-15 games where he is lights out, but the offense can't help him.

But how many times has the Sox Offense given him a ton of run support while he pitched poorly and got a W? I'm guessing that is more common in his career than lack of support considering he has a career ERA over 4.

"Ace"ves
09-15-2011, 05:57 PM
Sometimes I quote a post that I am not 100% in sync with, or a 100% against. It's just like an extension of the conversation. I'll try to remember only to quote you when I'm 100% for or against so as not to cause you cognitive dissonance.

Or do yourself a favor and just don't quote me. Since someone having a slightly different opinion than you will cause you to act like a jerk.

It really wasn't THAT hard to discuss. I simply was stating my opinion on the importance of wins (giving credit to winning % as a STAT not to a person), you for some reason correlated that into me giving wakefield credit for a good wining % (which i was not doing).

I did say Wakefield was valuable, not the MOST valuable. Hell, even a lot bench players are valuable!! Don't hate on someone just because they get more credit than they deserve (wakefield is a well known name for a slightly above average pitcher).

And those are my points. You were basically throwing out points that I was not debating to start with.... that's like me saying to you "You are wrong. He only reached 200 wins due to longevity and run support". even though you NEVER claimed he reached 200 wins for any other reason. Get it? I think you might be the one with the issue.

Lil Rhody
09-15-2011, 07:40 PM
One of the worst to ever have 200 wins.

Prob true stats wise but I tell ya we may never see anyone throw the knuckleball like he has ever again! That the only reason why I like Wake and wish he would never retire

bagwell368
09-15-2011, 10:15 PM
Or do yourself a favor and just don't quote me. Since someone having a slightly different opinion than you will cause you to act like a jerk.

Pardon me, but it's not me that is being a jerk. I gave my mode in these cases, maybe I had to use smaller words so you would understand that.


I did say Wakefield was valuable, not the MOST valuable. Hell, even a lot bench players are valuable!! Don't hate on someone just because they get more credit than they deserve (wakefield is a well known name for a slightly above average pitcher).

Wow, what insight. BTW, I've disliked Wakefield for some years now, I'll keep at it as it suits me.


And those are my points. You were basically throwing out points that I was not debating to start with.... that's like me saying to you "You are wrong. He only reached 200 wins due to longevity and run support". even though you NEVER claimed he reached 200 wins for any other reason. Get it? I think you might be the one with the issue.

You must have a really big mirror and no friends.... Everyone here is allowed to make their own points free of insults and paranoia - ask the mods.

Respond if you like, on balance the quality of your posts isn't worth dealing with this sort of thing. Off to the perma ignore list with you.

Nick O
09-15-2011, 11:48 PM
whats with all the hate?? lol 200-178 isnt bad at all plus hes not the type of guy i want to hate on... from all accounts hes a very nice respectable man and i gotta be honest i love watching him pitch... he may have never been dominant but to be consistent for 2 decades is something id love to have.... im happy for him :)

Bos_Sports4Life
09-16-2011, 02:34 AM
Pardon me, but it's not me that is being a jerk. I gave my mode in these cases, maybe I had to use smaller words so you would understand that.



Wow, what insight. BTW, I've disliked Wakefield for some years now, I'll keep at it as it suits me.



You must have a really big mirror and no friends.... Everyone here is allowed to make their own points free of insults and paranoia - ask the mods.

Respond if you like, on balance the quality of your posts isn't worth dealing with this sort of thing. Off to the perma ignore list with you.


Why all the disslike for wake??

* He was the 6th starter in spring training. 7-6, 5.13 era and 145 innings isn't bad for what he is..What do you honestly expect from a guy that was supposed too be a #6 starter??

The problem isn't wake with his 5 era making 2 mill, Its Lackey with his 6.19 era making 18 mill

RTL
09-16-2011, 05:28 AM
Wakefield is the only player left from the winning ways of Pittsburgh, the 1992 team. I find that to be remarkable regardless of being a knuckleballer. Makes me wish I would have stuck with the knuckball. I wouldn't have minded playing 20 years in the show and accruing roughly $54 million. Congrats to him as I know he was stuck on it for quite a while.

bagwell368
09-16-2011, 02:28 PM
Why all the disslike for wake??

* He was the 6th starter in spring training. 7-6, 5.13 era and 145 innings isn't bad for what he is..What do you honestly expect from a guy that was supposed too be a #6 starter??

The problem isn't wake with his 5 era making 2 mill, Its Lackey with his 6.19 era making 18 mill

I dislike when people keep calling him a gamer, and that he always takes the ball with no complaint, even media people in Boston say it - but it's dead wrong. He complained bitterly to the media when he was left off of post season rosters (yes plural) even though as I pointed out he has the worst ERA of any pitcher anywhere near his innings and all above - by a large measure. He has complained about being moved from SP to RP, then to closer, then being used on days that are not the 5th day. As a 5/6/7th guy the past few years the least he could do is be ready to go, but he has been on the DL for a bad back several times. One of the most common reasons for a bad back is a gut, and he has quite a nice one. Nothing like being ready to go when you are paid $4M per to be a fill-in.

I dislike when fans say they want him in the HOF (yes some have, and not just the BRS HOF), have his number up on the facade, or want him to pass Cy Young and Clemens for most Wins by a Sox pitcher. He's mediocre, and has been for his entire career outside of two very good years, and 3 replacement level type years.

I really don't dislike the guy per se, I don't like the myth's that have grown up around him. So he is just a peach (one that I pray retires) and maybe all the crap that has grown up around him will die off. Once they do, I won't have to stick pins in his myth any longer, and he can be forgotten.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-16-2011, 03:53 PM
I dislike when people keep calling him a gamer, and that he always takes the ball with no complaint, even media people in Boston say it - but it's dead wrong. He complained bitterly to the media when he was left off of post season rosters (yes plural) even though as I pointed out he has the worst ERA of any pitcher anywhere near his innings and all above - by a large measure. He has complained about being moved from SP to RP, then to closer, then being used on days that are not the 5th day. As a 5/6/7th guy the past few years the least he could do is be ready to go, but he has been on the DL for a bad back several times. One of the most common reasons for a bad back is a gut, and he has quite a nice one. Nothing like being ready to go when you are paid $4M per to be a fill-in.

I dislike when fans say they want him in the HOF (yes some have, and not just the BRS HOF), have his number up on the facade, or want him to pass Cy Young and Clemens for most Wins by a Sox pitcher. He's mediocre, and has been for his entire career outside of two very good years, and 3 replacement level type years.

I really don't dislike the guy per se, I don't like the myth's that have grown up around him. So he is just a peach (one that I pray retires) and maybe all the crap that has grown up around him will die off. Once they do, I won't have to stick pins in his myth any longer, and he can be forgotten.


* Obviously he has no business being retired by the team, He also has no business being in the baseball hof..I havn't heard anyone make a case for him too be a hof'er. He'll get into the red sox hof however

* Who cares if he breaks the team wins record? He'd never be looked at as the better pitcher and hes a more likeable guy than clemens

And too Wrap it all up

- He HAS complained some but hes never made it into a HUGE deal, and has been an average pitcher making below average money. Heck, what other 6th starter in the AL has been better than Wakefield?

Should Wakefield be given a spot in the rotation next season?prob Not. Would I be against signing him too another 2 mill deal too be the teams 6th starter? No. And the way this rotation is set up, Health/Ability going foward will be a HUGE question mark, so whats wrong with a 2 mill dollar man with an era of 5?

People overrating him shouldn't change your opinion on the person/Player.

Nick O
09-16-2011, 04:08 PM
* Obviously he has no business being retired by the team, He also has no business being in the baseball hof..I havn't heard anyone make a case for him too be a hof'er. He'll get into the red sox hof however

* Who cares if he breaks the team wins record? He'd never be looked at as the better pitcher and hes a more likeable guy than clemens

And too Wrap it all up

- He HAS complained some but hes never made it into a HUGE deal, and has been an average pitcher making below average money. Heck, what other 6th starter in the AL has been better than Wakefield?

Should Wakefield be given a spot in the rotation next season?prob Not. Would I be against signing him too another 2 mill deal too be the teams 6th starter? No. And the way this rotation is set up, Health/Ability going foward will be a HUGE question mark, so whats wrong with a 2 mill dollar man with an era of 5?

People overrating him shouldn't change your opinion on the person/Player.

why couldnt his number be retired? he had a good career and he is loved by boston fans and spent 17 years there... i would see nothing wrong with retiring his number

Pavelb1
09-16-2011, 04:41 PM
Heck, what other 6th starter in the AL has been better than Wakefield?

ALex Cobb or Niemann would have, but Cobb got hurt. I guess Sonnanstine is the default 6th man now.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-16-2011, 05:55 PM
why couldnt his number be retired? he had a good career and he is loved by boston fans and spent 17 years there... i would see nothing wrong with retiring his number

Just wayyy too many players who did more on the field...Everyother player who was retired by bos is in the baseball hall of fame with the exception of pesky and hes spent the majority of his time with the redsox..which dates been too the 40's

I wouldn't be opposed too a guy like dewey. Pedro is iffy...

Pedroia is on a good track, but hes several very good seasons away

bagwell368
09-16-2011, 06:48 PM
I havn't heard anyone make a case for him too be a hof'er.

I'm sure it was by sub 14 year olds...


Heck, what other 6th starter in the AL has been better than Wakefield?

OK, you win, he is best 6th staff SP of all time.


Should Wakefield be given a spot in the rotation next season?prob Not. Would I be against signing him too another 2 mill deal too be the teams 6th starter? No. And the way this rotation is set up, Health/Ability going foward will be a HUGE question mark, so whats wrong with a 2 mill dollar man with an era of 5?

His perpetual deal calls for a $4M per year contract at the Sox behest. He has been very close to replacement level these past two years. He isn't going to get better, and likely will be worse next year. I'd rather take the $4M and add money to it, and get a bona fide #2, #3, or #4 SP.

bagwell368
09-16-2011, 07:01 PM
There are 24 players in Red Sox history with a higher BR WAR. Wakefield has been in 1 ASG. He's a mediocre quality player that lasted a long time, that has value, but it doesn't make him immortal, quite the contrary.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-16-2011, 07:18 PM
I'm sure it was by sub 14 year olds...



OK, you win, he is best 6th staff SP of all time.



His perpetual deal calls for a $4M per year contract at the Sox behest. He has been very close to replacement level these past two years. He isn't going to get better, and likely will be worse next year. I'd rather take the $4M and add money to it, and get a bona fide #2, #3, or #4 SP.

Hes only making 2 mill, they reconsturcted his deal last season...IIRC

And your failing too understand my point, you have too see wake for what he is..a guy making next too nothing for a guy that is 7-7 with an era of just above 5 and a guy who has ate some innings.


With Lackey and the lack of production and The injury concerns with the rest of the staff, I don't see how its a BAD idea too sign wake again for 2 mill...

bagwell368
09-16-2011, 10:50 PM
Hes only making 2 mill, they reconsturcted his deal last season...IIRC

Damn, that's right. OK, he's slightly less useless then.


And your failing too understand my point, you have too see wake for what he is..a guy making next too nothing for a guy that is 7-7 with an era of just above 5 and a guy who has ate some innings.

I see Wake for what he is, others seem to have a problem with that. He was a bargain in '93 - '97. He was up and down in terms of value from '98 - '09. He's tailed off in '10 and '11.

Earlier this year I ranked where his WAR was vs the Red Sox staff in every year and many years he was 7th, 9th, 11th. A few years he was in the top 4. His cost vs others roughly tracked that - meaning that he was paid about the same as other RS pitchers. He's earned almost $54M from the Sox in his career. Like I said starting in '97 Wake started earning real money. He was never Clemens as been pointed out here. It was never next to nothing.

Let's look at some of his years here:

YR WAR Money

98 1.3 $3.5M
99 0.0 $4.0M
00 0.2 $4.5M
04 0.8 $4.35M
06 1.3 $4.0M
07 1.4 $4.0M
10 -0.7 $3.5M
11 -1.0 $1.5M

8 of his 17 years in Boston he has been paid more then he has given.
4 of his 17 years in Boston he has been paid about what he was worth
5 of his 17 years in Boston he has been paid less then he was worth

Those best 5 years: '95, '96, '02, '03, '05 (ancient history for judging him for another contract).

Now how do we figure the lack of value of his post season? Arguably the worst post season record (ERA, etc.) in ML history?


With Lackey and the lack of production and The injury concerns with the rest of the staff, I don't see how its a BAD idea too sign wake again for 2 mill...

Let's see, he's a 45 year old pitcher with a bum back and a pot belly that has been replacement level the past two years.

Wakefield has performed about as well as Albers and Miller, worse then Wheeler - and better then Lackey and Weiland. So you want to add another stooge to our staff? Why? Because he is cheap? But he SUCKS.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-17-2011, 12:36 AM
Damn, that's right. OK, he's slightly less useless then.



I see Wake for what he is, others seem to have a problem with that. He was a bargain in '93 - '97. He was up and down in terms of value from '98 - '09. He's tailed off in '10 and '11.

Earlier this year I ranked where his WAR was vs the Red Sox staff in every year and many years he was 7th, 9th, 11th. A few years he was in the top 4. His cost vs others roughly tracked that - meaning that he was paid about the same as other RS pitchers. He's earned almost $54M from the Sox in his career. Like I said starting in '97 Wake started earning real money. He was never Clemens as been pointed out here. It was never next to nothing.

Let's look at some of his years here:

YR WAR Money

98 1.3 $3.5M
99 0.0 $4.0M
00 0.2 $4.5M
04 0.8 $4.35M
06 1.3 $4.0M
07 1.4 $4.0M
10 -0.7 $3.5M
11 -1.0 $1.5M

8 of his 17 years in Boston he has been paid more then he has given.
4 of his 17 years in Boston he has been paid about what he was worth
5 of his 17 years in Boston he has been paid less then he was worth

Those best 5 years: '95, '96, '02, '03, '05 (ancient history for judging him for another contract).

Now how do we figure the lack of value of his post season? Arguably the worst post season record (ERA, etc.) in ML history?



Let's see, he's a 45 year old pitcher with a bum back and a pot belly that has been replacement level the past two years.

Wakefield has performed about as well as Albers and Miller, worse then Wheeler - and better then Lackey and Weiland. So you want to add another stooge to our staff? Why? Because he is cheap? But he SUCKS.


Wakefield was 6th in the deph-chart at SP...what guy is expected too do much of anything when they are a 6th sp??

Heck, a guy that eats 150+ innings, With an era of about 5..for 2 mill is hardly bad value..

Next yr dice-k is gone, and with lackeys shittyness/2 of the 5 will go on the dl atleast once...why not bring back wake for that price?

If the rotation seems fine without him, great..you ask wake weather he wants too retire or be released..If the rotation ends up like a mess like this yr, he can give u solid innings while keeping the team in the majority of the games..

Just becaus people are morons and think Wakefield belongs with Williams, Yaz, Doerr, Cronin, Fisk ect as a retired sox..doesn't mean you have too lose sight that wakefield has actually HELPED this yr, even with his below average production..

"Ace"ves
09-17-2011, 12:40 AM
Wakefield was 6th in the deph-chart at SP...what guy is expected too do much of anything when they are a 6th sp??

Heck, a guy that eats 150+ innings, With an era of about 5..for 2 mill is hardly bad value..

Next yr dice-k is gone, and with lackeys shittyness/2 of the 5 will go on the dl atleast once...why not bring back wake for that price?

If the rotation seems fine without him, great..you ask wake weather he wants too retire or be released..If the rotation ends up like a mess like this yr, he can give u solid innings while keeping the team in the majority of the games..

Just becaus people are morons and think Wakefield belongs with Williams, Yaz, Doerr, Cronin, Fisk ect as a retired sox..doesn't mean you have too lose sight that wakefield has actually HELPED this yr, even with his below average production..

this exactly

Bos_Sports4Life
09-17-2011, 12:52 AM
this exactly


I Don't know what some people expect..

* Wake isn't the reason why the sox didn't go after a fa starter in the offseason, with the payroll already as big as it is.

* Who in the minors would have done better?

bagwell368
09-18-2011, 08:59 AM
Sorry but I read this thread much more as a career retrospective as opposed to what he might do next year, or what he did this year.

Due to circumstances outside of Wakefield's control he was needed this year. That doesn't make him special, just useful in a crunch. He also kept his mouth buttoned up this year, an unexpected but welcome benefit. It doesn't change the fact that he's essentially a replacement level player, as he was last year.

He is a mediocre pitcher with a long career. He may be one of the greatest of all time at that - but that hardly makes him great. Personally I'd rather have a guy with a shorter career but an actual peak - I guess that's just me.

And as nobody in the "pro Wake" camp ever seems to acknowledge - he's probably the worst post season pitcher of all time. What's the value of that?

BTW if you go to neutralized stats, with an average offense behind him his record goes from: 200-178 to 167-177.

Guys ever hear about Bob Friend, a SP in the 50's and 60's for mostly horrible Pirate teams with a 197-230 record, 3.58 ERA, 3611 IP? Neutralize him and you get 207-184, with a 3.79 - compared to Wakefield's 4.19. He was better then Wakefield. Ever hear of the guy? Wait 25 years and nobody will be talking about Wakefield.

Wilbur Wood a knucklerballer with a 54" waist line actually had some big years in the 70's. 1k less IP then Wakefield, and a lot more career value and better ERA+ (and strong MVP/Cy results). Anyone talk about him anymore? Wakefield fits below both of them, nobody but Sox fans will talk about the guy.

I'm done talking about him now. Nothing like making a fetish out of a journeyman - that blows in the post season, and doesn't come near to pitching the innings of other better knuckleballers such as Wood (4 years between 320 and 376 innings), Niekro (11 years between 256 and 342 IP), Lolich (4 years between 308 and 376).

Bos_Sports4Life
09-18-2011, 12:24 PM
Sorry but I read this thread much more as a career retrospective as opposed to what he might do next year, or what he did this year.

Due to circumstances outside of Wakefield's control he was needed this year. That doesn't make him special, just useful in a crunch. He also kept his mouth buttoned up this year, an unexpected but welcome benefit. It doesn't change the fact that he's essentially a replacement level player, as he was last year.

Hes a 44 yr old pitcher pitching in the AL East, Personally, I think hes done a solid job given the circumstances.



He is a mediocre pitcher with a long career. He may be one of the greatest of all time at that - but that hardly makes him great. Personally I'd rather have a guy with a shorter career but an actual peak - I guess that's just me.

I havn't heard ANYONE saying wakefield was GRAT, ive heard people celebrait 200 wins which i have 0 problem with...People in ANY job profession get credit for longevity...



BTW if you go to neutralized stats, with an average offense behind him his record goes from: 200-178 to 167-177.

I don't see how thats computed since his career era of 4.41 I believe is slightly above average for a sp during his same years




Guys ever hear about Bob Friend, a SP in the 50's and 60's for mostly horrible Pirate teams with a 197-230 record, 3.58 ERA, 3611 IP? Neutralize him and you get 207-184, with a 3.79 - compared to Wakefield's 4.19. He was better then Wakefield. Ever hear of the guy? Wait 25 years and nobody will be talking about Wakefield.


Wakefield will ALWAYS be in the record books on top of a ton of lists for a ton of stats, both good & bad..

He was also apart of a huge baseball market for 17+ yrs and was a member of 2 ws teams, most people will remember wakefield..






No one is saying this guy was freaking 1999 Pedro...YOUR the one who seems too be struggling too take him for what he is and YOU seem too be letting 12 yr olds change an opinion on a player

"Ace"ves
09-18-2011, 02:57 PM
Hes a 44 yr old pitcher pitching in the AL East, Personally, I think hes done a solid job given the circumstances.

I havn't heard ANYONE saying wakefield was GRAT, ive heard people celebrait 200 wins which i have 0 problem with...People in ANY job profession get credit for longevity...

I don't see how thats computed since his career era of 4.41 I believe is slightly above average for a sp during his same years

Wakefield will ALWAYS be in the record books on top of a ton of lists for a ton of stats, both good & bad..

He was also apart of a huge baseball market for 17+ yrs and was a member of 2 ws teams, most people will remember wakefield..

No one is saying this guy was freaking 1999 Pedro...YOUR the one who seems too be struggling too take him for what he is and YOU seem too be letting 12 yr olds change an opinion on a player

You speak the truth my friend. Bagwell is struggling with the fact that NO ONE here is overrating him. We all know what he is, slightly above average. But for some reason he persists on downing Wakefield to be completely worthless.

Wakefield isn't great, he isn't a legend. He is a slightly above average pitcher with a nice career. Longevity is something we can admire too, even if its not an amazing stat.

bagwell368
09-18-2011, 09:49 PM
Wakefield will ALWAYS be in the record books on top of a ton of lists for a ton of stats, both good & bad..

He's tied for 8th in HBP, and he's 9th in HR for ML records. He won't stay in the top 10 perpetually. His Red Sox records may persist, mostly bad BTW. None of that will keep him in popular memory.


He was also apart of a huge baseball market for 17+ yrs and was a member of 2 ws teams, most people will remember wakefield..

Many Sox fans will remember him, but his "feats" will not carry his fame to future generations.

BTW, in the 3 of 6 post season Series in '04 + '07 that Wakefield was actually put on the roster and used: ERA: 8.59, 12.27, 9.64 - ****ing stellar.


No one is saying this guy was freaking 1999 Pedro...YOUR the one who seems too be struggling too take him for what he is and YOU seem too be letting 12 yr olds change an opinion on a player

So sorry, I'm not struggling for anything, just exposing Wakefield's record for what it is. You like his records, and make legitimate arguments for him - great - no problem. I'll keep taking my shots at Wakefield as it suits me - goodness knows I've posted a lot more data on him then anyone else has. I took shots at Moyer, Baines, etc. in the recent past too and some wrung their hands over that. My advice is, don't like it, don't read it. I'm not planning on stopping to make you more comfortable.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-18-2011, 10:10 PM
He's tied for 8th in HBP, and he's 9th in HR for ML records. He won't stay in the top 10 perpetually. His Red Sox records may persist, mostly bad BTW. None of that will keep him in popular memory.



Many Sox fans will remember him, but his "feats" will not carry his fame to future generations.

BTW, in the 3 of 6 post season Series in '04 + '07 that Wakefield was actually put on the roster and used: ERA: 8.59, 12.27, 9.64 - ****ing stellar.



So sorry, I'm not struggling for anything, just exposing Wakefield's record for what it is. You like his records, and make legitimate arguments for him - great - no problem. I'll keep taking my shots at Wakefield as it suits me - goodness knows I've posted a lot more data on him then anyone else has. I took shots at Moyer, Baines, etc. in the recent past too and some wrung their hands over that. My advice is, don't like it, don't read it. I'm not planning on stopping to make you more comfortable.


You can continue...But your going too continue making yourself look like the fool..

NO ONE is saying this guy is a freaking ace...Hes a #5-#6 guy making 2 mill who is worth what hes making...

Your putting out #'s that don't prove ANY myth wrong, wakefield doesn't have any "myth" that im aware of. Most people realize he was a solid #4 in his prime and now hes a solid #6. people ALSO realize the ONLY reason he got too 200 wins was the direct resault of longevity and not of dominance.

There's NOTHING wrong with celebrating 200 wins, Being "Average" In the majors for 17 years is STILL an accomplishment...

"Ace"ves
09-18-2011, 10:40 PM
You can continue...But your going too continue making yourself look like the fool..

NO ONE is saying this guy is a freaking ace...Hes a #5-#6 guy making 2 mill who is worth what hes making...

Your putting out #'s that don't prove ANY myth wrong, wakefield doesn't have any "myth" that im aware of. Most people realize he was a solid #4 in his prime and now hes a solid #6. people ALSO realize the ONLY reason he got too 200 wins was the direct resault of longevity and not of dominance.

There's NOTHING wrong with celebrating 200 wins, Being "Average" In the majors for 17 years is STILL an accomplishment...

Haha, he doesn't get it. He is arguing with no body.

He keeps talking about bad stats... no one is denying them, we accept them for what they are and are simply being courteous for Wakefield's milestone. Its just a feel good milestone, its not meaningful in terms of his skill. Guy is too serious and angry to be happy about a simple milestone I guess.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-19-2011, 04:02 PM
Haha, he doesn't get it. He is arguing with no body.

He keeps talking about bad stats... no one is denying them, we accept them for what they are and are simply being courteous for Wakefield's milestone. Its just a feel good milestone, its not meaningful in terms of his skill. Guy is too serious and angry to be happy about a simple milestone I guess.


Pretty amazing Considering no one is saying hes been a great sp'er

He was a solid #4 for many years, Now hes more of a solid #6..

Personally speaking, i find it hard NOT too like a guy that spends 17 yrs wearing a Boston jersey..and a man thats done a lot in the comunity..

theslick1
09-19-2011, 05:48 PM
....Most people realize he was a solid #4 in his prime and now hes a solid #6. ......

For some reason, this just sounds funny. "Solid #4" starter is a little like calling someone a "solid #8" hitter. And I guess a "solid #6" would be akin to a "solid pinch hitter."

"Ace"ves
09-19-2011, 06:59 PM
For some reason, this just sounds funny. "Solid #4" starter is a little like calling someone a "solid #8" hitter. And I guess a "solid #6" would be akin to a "solid pinch hitter."

haha, thats funny.

But being a mopup reliever/long relief is more pinch hitter to me