Stats Are Your Friend

The Globe this morning, on the Sox picking up Wakefield’s extension:

He went 7-11 with a 4.63 ERA in 23 starts, his won-lost record mitigated only partially by the fact that the club scored just six runs while he was on the mound in his 11 defeats.

"Mitigated only partially"? In Wakefield’s 23 starts, he gave up more than four runs, earned or unearned, just five times. Two of those were in the first two starts after returning from the disabled list. He lasted fewer than six innings just seven times — three of which were immediately before his DL stint and two immediately after.

Wakefield was just as good this year as he was any other year (except maybe 1995, when he was unreal) until the stress fracture. He simply received no run support — losing four games in which he threw a quality start (those four wins would have exactly reversed his record) Stats are readily available to reporters like Gordon Edes. Maybe they should use them sometimes.

22 comments… add one

  • I remembered he was having a (relatively) good year – so how did his ERA end up so high?

    Lar October 31, 2006, 12:18 pm
  • Wakefield’s ERA was at 4.19 and then he gave up 11 ER over 9.1 innings to MIN and TOR.
    Proving my theory that Tim Wakefield is hittable…at least twice a year.

    walein October 31, 2006, 1:23 pm
  • Lar– His second half was pretty bad. His ERA numbers weren’t helped by the fact that he didn’t average too many innings per start (in the second half); but he wasn’t pitching well at all in the 2nd half.

    walein October 31, 2006, 1:25 pm
  • this is a good choice by the Sox. Wake, when not carrying around a broken rib like this year, is dependable and makes nearly every start of the year. He has his moments, but that’s a result of the pitch he throws. He makes the starting rotation on any team in the majors when healthy. It’s really a no-brainer for the Sox to have a guy you know you’ll be able to depend on and pitches very well against the Yankees and in Yankee stadium.

    Brad October 31, 2006, 1:55 pm
  • Wake was having his typical solid year until the stress fracture, which affected his pitching before he went on the DL and immediately after his return. It’s also aggravating that the injury that landed him on the DL was a one-time incident unrelated to his shoulder or arm, yet he’s now referred to as “injured.” I think he did have back problems that held back his recovery, but if you’re changing your mechanics to compensate for your injured side, I could see it affecting your back.
    Anyway, I’m a huge Wakefield fan — he’s classy, he’s professional, he’s a team player, and he’s very good (which always helps). He got a bad rap this year, and it’s frustrating to see normally solid reporters like Edes buying into the CW without doing 5 minutes of homework.
    That is all.

    Paul SF October 31, 2006, 2:19 pm
  • yet another example of the crack sports section staff at the globe

    YFinBeantown October 31, 2006, 2:35 pm
  • Nothing beats the Cafrdo list of “2003 draftees” with David Murphy. He threw a bunch of big names in to show how Murphy was behind the curve of other, much more successful big leaguers — except the biggest names were drafted two to three years earlier.
    No correction. No nothing. You can find the FJM post about that silliness here.

    Paul SF October 31, 2006, 3:26 pm
  • It was a complete no-brainer to bring Wakefield back, not just because of the dearth of pitching on the current market and the flukish nature of his rib injury but because of how reliable he is. He’ll be healthy next year and he’ll give us 12-16 wins and 200 or so innings with a better than average ERA. His contract is one of the smartest moves Theo has made during his tenure.
    Anyone else think that getting a better hitting catcher for Wakefield will help with his run support issues next year?

    mouse October 31, 2006, 3:45 pm
  • Absolutely, mouse. I’d love to see Rod Barajas splitting time with Tek on roughly a 40/60 basis.

    Paul SF October 31, 2006, 3:54 pm
  • …wakefield is my favorite red sox player…i don’t know him of course, but he seems like good guy, and a class act…he is everything you all say he is, dependable, durable [usually], and he owns the yankees…smart move to keep him…i did see somewhere [probably the globe] that the sox weren’t planning to keep mirabelli…i suppose they’ll need to sign a young backup to learn how to catch the knuckler…

    dc October 31, 2006, 3:56 pm
  • Paul,
    I don’t know about that 40/60 split with Tek. I’m of the camp that Tek was never right out of spring training. Take it as an off year for him (like Posada the year before), but I think he’ll be back to form this year. Check that, I HOPE he’s back to form and once again a top slugging catcher in the leauge.

    Brad October 31, 2006, 4:26 pm
  • Well, the 0/60 is a rough split. I mean, I’d want Barajas or whoever catching Wake (or Beckett or whoever) every time out and then maybe once every two or three times through the order spelling Tek on another pitcher. So in five times through the order (25 starts), the backup catches 8, Tek catches 17. I guess that’s closer to 33/67. The overall point is that we need Tek just as healthy at the end as at the beginning. At the end of 2005, he fell off a cliff, and he was still in freefall in 2006.

    Paul SF October 31, 2006, 4:35 pm
  • and then you can change the C on his jersey to CL for Cheerleader!

    walein October 31, 2006, 5:01 pm
  • …or “c” as in “can’t get it done anymore”…face it fellas, both our teams need to start looking for new catchers…by the way, why does he insist on wearing the “c” on his chest…it ain’t hockey, but even if it was, it’s so lame…

    dc October 31, 2006, 11:50 pm
  • would it be lame if Jeter did it? How about the other guys in the majors who do it?

    Brad November 1, 2006, 9:46 am
  • yes Brad, it would be lame if Jeter did it. It looked lame when Barry Larkin did it in Cincinnati, it just looks lame on a baseball uni.

    YFinBeantown November 1, 2006, 10:15 am
  • Since the team made the decision about the “C,” I’d lay off Tek for that one. And I also have a hard time believing the “C” would somehow be lame if Jeter wore it.

    Paul SF November 1, 2006, 10:16 am
  • dc, I’m surprised you think Posada needs to be replaced. In a year or two, maybe. But he had a good year offensively and was better defensively than he was ever in his entire career.

    Quo November 1, 2006, 11:14 am
  • Wake is like the Energizer Bunny – he just keeps going and going. When he’s on no one can hit him. When he’s not, well, then it’s batting practice time…

    RP November 1, 2006, 4:45 pm
  • quo…you’re right, i was pretty satisfied with posada’s year, but given that he is in his mid-30’s, the yanks need a plan to replace him in a couple of years…i’m thinking that they need to identify that replacement now, and put him in an understudy role for the next couple of years…so, i think we’re saying the same thing…

    dc November 1, 2006, 9:05 pm
  • …paul, it would be lame if jeter wore the “c”…i was hoping he’d make that decision…if i recall correctly, he didn’t think it was necessary, and noted that no prior yankee captain wore the “c”…after all, we get it drilled into us enough that he’s the captain, right?…even i’m sick of it…part of me doesn’t care about who the captain is, it’s an overrated designation for the most part…

    dc November 1, 2006, 9:09 pm
  • I think we do agree dc. The Yankees identifying a replacement for him that COULD be ML ready in a year or two should be a top priority. It’s easy to note that Posada had the better year between our two catchers, however, and while I would like to hope not, even given that Posada is older, I’m guessing he’s the smarter bet to put up similar numbers next year than Tek to get back to his normal level of production.

    Quo November 1, 2006, 11:05 pm

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: