Wakefield, Bard Problems

by Randy Booth on Apr 5, 2006 9:52 AM EDT in News

How worried should we be about Tim Wakefield?

Or is that not the right question?

How worried should we be about Josh Bard catching Wakefield?

Whether you are on one side believing Bard was the problem last night, or if you are on the other side and think Wakefield just wasn't hitting his spots, we've still got a semi-major problem on our hands.

Thanks to the wide world of stats, we know Wakefield has struggled in Texas against the Rangers. We knew that going in, and we knew what could happen because of that. Personally, I never let that stuff affect my thought process because every day it's a different team, lineup, and weather condition; all important factors in my eyes.

There were three passed balls last night that Doug Mirabelli probably would have snagged without a blinking of an eye. Knowing Mirabelli's abilities, that is probably the truth without any stretch of the imagination.

At least Bard didn't pull an Alex Gardner. Gardner received one start for the Washington Nationals in 1884. In that game he had six passed balls and he never saw the light of day again for any professional baseball team.

Those passed balls are to Bard's credit, but I'm still worried about Wakefield. He was getting hit last night, and he was getting hit hard. There is something very wrong when a knuckleballer only sees 3.2 innings of work in a game.

He also wasn't hitting his spots. And sure, he's throws a knuckleball and no one ever knows where that'll end up (just ask Bard), but he was missing with his curveball and his fastball, too. And when your knuckleball and your other pitches aren't working, it's hard to put together a solid game - especially if you're facing an offense like the Rangers.

At what point do we scrape a struggler like Wakefield and put someone in the rotation like Lenny DiNardo or Jonathan Papelbon? Will we ever push aside Wakefield? How many more poor starts like this?

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Honestly

I think we're all reading too much into ONE start. Wake was bad last night, not because of Bard, but because he walked three batters and was getting HIT.
He's been bad in Texas his entire career. I'm not ready to write him off after one start, the first start of the season. He's still going to win 14 games for us this year, eats up innings, and does provide that wrinkle in the rotation. I'll be surprised if the Rangers hit Beckett very well at all.

As for Bard, I think he's really getting too much heat. Mirabelli wasn't automatic back there. In his first full year catching Wakefield, he had 10 passed balls, and then had 30 between 2003-2004. It's NOT EASY to catch a knuckleballer. Besides...Loretta's already showing what kind of player he is, and that's an important part of this to remember.

I'd really like to see us as fans give the players a chance. It seems everyone wants to jump down Lowell/Bard/Riske/Foulke/Seanez/Clement 's collective throats.

We're going to lose some games. In fact, we'll probably lose more than 60!!! Texas is a good hitting team, and they hit the ball last night. Simple as that. We'll need to come out tonight and pitch better baseball, and execute. That's how it works.

by Matt Rivers on Apr 5, 2006 11:34 AM EDT reply actions

Good Luck

I agree with you that one game does not a season make, and that there's no reason to draw any conclusions yet. If by the end of April things still look dreadful, then the subject should definitely be revisited. If the problem still exists then, by that time, we'll have been inundated with reminders of how much trouble Wakefield had last year when Mirabelli was out. And probably the question will come up of whether Wakefield would waive his 10-5 rights to go to San Diego. :(

by argo0 on Apr 5, 2006 11:46 AM EDT reply actions

Are you really serious about scrapping Wake?

C'mon now... Wake has been a solid contributor over the years and you can't be seriously considering this after one start with a new catcher. Not to mention, he was facing one of the toughest lineups in the AL last night. Let's give the guy a break and put this game in its proper perspective -- only 1 start of many...

Baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three times out of ten and be considered a good performer - Ted Williams

by sumelo03 on Apr 5, 2006 11:49 AM EDT reply actions

RE:

I like Wake; I think most Red Sox fans do. I just don't want a Millar/Embree issue to happen, where Wake struggles and Terry Francona continues to start him every fifth day.

And yes, one game isn't a good sample size. I'm just pointing out that the factors aren't in Wake's favor. For example, his new catcher who has struggled to catch a knuckleball and his age. Wake will break down at SOME point. Maybe not this year, but it COULD be this year.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Apr 5, 2006 1:33 PM EDT reply actions

Factors

I really don't see how Bard affects Wake's control or how he throws the ball. If he gets to be continuously bad, in favorable counts and in favorable parks against weak teams, I'll start to worry, but not until then.

Understand that Wake can't go forever, but given his track record and the longevity of knucklers, I think he's got a lot left.

by Matt Rivers on Apr 5, 2006 1:50 PM EDT reply actions

RE:

Bard doesn't affect Wake's control, he's just dropping balls resulting in runners advancing. Wake, solely, is having control problems.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Apr 5, 2006 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions

element of distraction

You're right about the control issue, but repeated past balls definitely shakes a pitcher's focus. Bard was clearly nervous last night (running to the dugout early in the 1st), so I fully expect him to settle down now that the first game is out of the way.

That said, Wake knows that it's tough to catch knucklers, and there's no way he has the confidence in Bard that he had in Mirabelli. After a couple passed balls, I'm sure all sorts of thoughts are running through his mind that he wouldn't think of with trusty ol' Doug back there. Having that kind of distraction is going to hurt even more when Wake is trying to "right the ship" after a rocky inning or two.

Let's see how Bard fares until the end of April, then see if we need to start talking about reacquiring Mirabelli.

by Rain Dog on Apr 5, 2006 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

exactly

Let's not forget how much worse Wake did last year when Varitek was catching him for that one stretch. Just as a pitcher like Schilling needs to have confidence in his catcher if he's going to throw one of those nasty splitters, if Wake feels that the catcher can't handle his stuff, he's not going to commit to his pitches. I think it probably contributed significantly to his performance.

That said, I'm not suggesting we give up on Bard yet (and certainly not on Wake!). Touch matchup for Wake/Bard right out of the gate against the Rangers, but I think they'll get it together.

by Biz on Apr 5, 2006 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Knuckleballers don't have control

Let's be frank all... Wake throws the ball out hoping it goes where it is supposed to go. A knuckleball isn't a fast ball that tails in at the last minute, so you start it just off the plate!

It's Bard's responsibility to be back there to catch the ball, knock it down, stop it from getting by him...WHATEVER. He wasn't comfortable with the pitch, any plain non-baseball fan could see that. He was stabbing at the pitches rather than letting them come to him. He has to be on the balls of his feet ready to move. These are normal things that any catcher should be ready for. He didn't even look like he could catch an ant at a picnic. I'm sorry, but let's face the facts.

I'm going to stick to my original guns. At the end of the season, the consensus of this board and others will be that the Red Sox messed up by getting rid of DM.

Say what you want about Loretta, but we probably had other ways of getting him then giving up your number 2 catcher that could be a number one starter on 25 out of the 30 teams in MLB. Who, may I remind you, didn't complain being a number 2 catcher. Give me the chance to sit on a bench with the likes of that team, with a better than average chance to win another ring... you'd be a fool to want to leave.

Put a fork in me... I'm done.

The Red Head

by the red head on Apr 6, 2006 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Rip Van Winkle

Randy,

Have you been asleep for the last nine years? Quick question? Who led Red Sox starters in nearly every significant statistical category last year?

One bad start in a park where he never pitches well and you want to dump him? Manny was 0-4 last night and is hitting .125. How much longer do you think we should stick with him, considering we have Adam Stern on the bench and David Murphy at Pawtucket?

by cosmic on Apr 5, 2006 3:49 PM EDT reply actions

sure but....

i agree, but lets not compare dinardo and papelbon to stern and murphy. Not even comparable

by forage @ Over the Monster on Apr 5, 2006 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Is this the first time?

That some of you have watched Wakefield pitch for an entire season? You never know what you are gonna get with Wake and last night was an example. I don't think we should even consider getting rid of him. It's not like Foulke, Wakefield had a good season last year, and the nature of his pitches is occasionally he gets shelled. Its only the second game for crying out loud!! haha

by pcarey on Apr 5, 2006 4:52 PM EDT reply actions

Worry about Bard, not Wakes

Wakefield gets lit up once in a while. It's part of the deal with a knuckleballer.

But knowing that his catcher was struggling can't have helped.

This won't happen, but if I were Theo I'd take a serious stab at trying to get Mirabelli back. Wells wants to go to S.D., and Bard could go with him. Make it happen.

by Hudson on Apr 5, 2006 10:41 PM EDT reply actions