Going forward: where does the Sox rotation stand?
by Randy Booth on Sep 1, 2009 6:00 AM EDT
in News
Email
PrintIf the Red Sox make the postseason, they will need four good, reliable starters to even think about winning another World Series. Pending injuries, you can slot the names Josh Beckett and Jon Lester at the top of that list. That's a no-brainer.
But that's where the dilemma comes in: who will be those other two pitchers the Sox will need?
Right now, there are five prime candidates that pop in my mind, in no particular order:
While Beckett and Lester go through the normal ups and downs of a Major League starting pitcher, the five pitchers listed above have giant question marks right above their heads.
TIM WAKEFIELD - Wake is pitching well this season, there's no doubt about that. But is he healthy? After being on the shelf for over a month, Wake came back and pitched seven strong innings against the White Sox on Aug. 26 to earn the win. For me, that was a sigh of relief. But then the back news came out and we're left wondering which Wakefield we'll have for the rest of the season.
CLAY BUCHHOLZ - I think for most of you, Buchholz is the only lock out of this group. And at this point in the season, Buchholz is in the rotation for the rest of the year, no matter what goes down. Buchholz has shown flashes of brilliance (most recently on Saturday) and flashes of his old self (despite giving up two runs or less in four of six starts this month, he allowed seven each in the other two). That's where the question mark comes in: which Buchholz are we going to see?
DAISUKE MATSUZAKA - The biggest question mark of all. Dice-K, who last pitched for the Sox June 19, hasn't pitched a decent game since June 2 -- and that was his only decent game of the season so far (five innings, six hits, one run, six strikeouts). In his most recent rehab start, Dice-K got rocked in New Hampshire. While we haven't seen anything positive from Dice-K this season, we know historically that he can pitch well. So if he comes back, are we going to see 2008 Dice-K or the most recent version? If we have last year's, this team will be hard to beat.
JUNICHI TAZAWA - Taz earned five starts in August. While he didn't light the world on fire, he also wasn't Brad Penny. His stint with the Sox ended, though, after giving up nine runs in four innings against the White Sox. Taz is a long-shot for the postseason roster, but he at least deserves a mention.
PAUL BYRD - Well, you know I love Paul Byrd. Byrd has had his one solid start, but who really knows how he'll do from here on out? Another long-shot just because we've only seen one start.
While September will most likely iron all these issues out (which, I cross my fingers, means the Sox are in the playoffs), what do you think of the Sox's rotation? Is it a problem? Is it a big problem? Is Buchholz the guy the Sox really need to bank on, or is Wakefield and Matsuzaka going to be healthy?
Or, better yet, is Paul Byrd going to rule the world one batter at a time?
130 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sox management has done quite well to secure the offense/defense, but
or maybe because of that, it will be the pitching that makes the postseason decisive decision. Gonzales (whose surprise hitting is just an extra) and Martinez seem to be big and proper pickups. The offense seems comfortable and poised to strike for 4-5 runs per game. Therefore, the starting pitching must keep a lid on so to speak and hold teams to under 5 runs ideally. That should be the goal, and if Bryd and Buch can come through (given that Lester and Beckett in the crunch can do it), this may work out.
Actually, I believe this series against tithe Rays will predict the ending of this story.
All the Sox have to do is win one in TB
Even if TB takes two, the Sox will be four games up with twenty-seven games left. That’s a big lead.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I think this weekend is more important
against the white sox, because even if lester, beckett, and buchholz all somehow lose, that won’t kill our wildcard chances (we’ll probably still be in first). I think what will be more telling will be how Byrd and Tazawa pitch, because in my mind, they’re the big question marks in the rotation for the last month.
dude i remember
before the six game road trip to TB and NYY you said that it would determine our season, and then they lost every game and they’re still in a good position. And now you say that this series will predict the “ending of the story”
that depends on what your definition of good position is.
There were in the hunt for division champs back then, and now one could say that is almost out of the question.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't have to win a division to win a WS.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Nick Green!
Sorry… should have said Clay but I couldn’t resist. I’m weak. OK, it’s Clay, it’s Clay, I know it is.
It was Jon Lester...
…who won the clinching game of the 2007 World Series when he was about as green as Buchhy. I think that had a lot to do with his development into the pitcher he is. I don’t necessarily see the Sox having too big a concern with starting Clay in a high-pressure game. That said, I picked Wake as my #3. Clay as #4.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
I'm hopeful it's manageable, yeah.
But, if not I’m more than comfortable with Buchholz as the #3.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
I'm Nova Scotian....
More like “We purk our cars in th’ same grage, b’y!”
Man I love that tuna casserole.
I just think the little light went on...
and Clay’s on his way now. He’ll have good days and bad days (so do Beckett, Halliday, etc.), but I think the regression era is over for him, and he’ll be a reliable Number Three. He may be more than that in a year or two.
by Mister Snitch on Sep 1, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
So many questions...
Just a question here, not meant to start some sort of flame-war, but why has everyone forgotten the fact that Byrd was a HGH-user? He claimed that it was legit, but then it turns out it was a quack dentist who prescribed to them. He basically got a free pass, without ever even apologizing—he just lied and said it was for a medical condition and that everyone knew about it. To me that’s the worst kind of user—the one who lies about it.
I’m just very curious—what gives?
“Receipts showed Byrd spent $24 850 on hGH prescriptions through the Palm Beach Rejuvenation Center, an anti-aging clinic that was investigated for illegally distributing anabolic steroids and hGH with bogus prescriptions” http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/list-admitted-users.htm (not that I am totally sure this is a reliable site for information)
Actually...
why has everyone forgotten the fact that Byrd was a HGH-user?
It was covered quite in depth in the Byrd post here on OTM. Or do you mean in the mainstream media? If it’s that’s the case, I guess because it came out 2 years ago that he was busted for HGH, and wasn’t a Sawk at the time. It may have gotten a lot of airtime in Cleveland, but in the national media not so much because he isn’t a SUPERSTAR (no matter how much Randy loves him).
Man I love that tuna casserole.
Go to PSA and ask them about Pettitte
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Do you think we should be less accepting of Byrd because of the HGH? Or do you think it should just be more out in the open?
Clarification
My comment was directed at the lack of lasting response by the mainstream media, not by members of this website at all.
I have no desire to say that people’s reaction to Byrd should be, my wish is just that it would get more in the open. No one really called Byrd out when his ‘legitimate medical condition’ was actually just a quack dentist. Perhaps it is just that he wasn’t/isn’t a Bonds or Clemens-type. Maybe if both of them had been more likable, the MSM’s reaction would have been more like Byrd’s?
Came out in postseason of 07, some spring of 08
The Indians were playing the Sox in the playoffs when it came out in 2007.
Yeah, I think most of it is timing...
…and the fact that he’s not a BIG NAME GUY.
I don’t think that it’s being hidden, but it was announced at the time and now it’s in the past. Bonds & Clemens have they’re alleged-usage as possible barriers to induction to the HoF. Byrd has no such issue. Therefore, not much of a story.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
Pettitte comparison
I suppose that I am most surprised because when Pettitte ‘apologized’, it was made such a big deal about how he came clean and America’s tremendous capacity for forgiving people who come clean, but they hate/vilify people who lie.
Byrd lied like crazy, there was tons of evidence about it, and nothing was really said other than that initial reaction in the playoffs of 2007. When it was found he was lying, that he had a quack doctor, MSM didn’t really report that (that I remember).
Size Matters
I really think a lot of it has to do with who it was. Pettitte was a big name in a big market team who’s name was released in a REALLY BIG report. He was also the BFF of a huge name who was denying up and down that he was involved. So, it was like Pettitte was risking his friendship to come clean. Media loves it.
Byrd was a #4 starter in Cleveland and the truth about his dentist or whatever came out in the off season. Not enough legs to the story for the media to run with it.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
the Clemens connection
While it still would have been a big story if/when Pettite admitted steroids use, the fact that by doing so he essentially confirmed that Clemens was a liar was why the story was such a huge deal at the time. It was the contrast between “good guy” Pettite and “villain” Clemens.
I always thought that was a bit weird. But I also don’t get the media love for Josh Hamilton either. Did Pettite ever get half the shit poured on him that Papi did? I don’t think so.
Personally, I don't care about PED's
and the mainstream media does not care either if it is someone that does not fit into their “juiced” narrative.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
It has to be Buch and Byrd. If Wake is injured, he’s going to get shelled if we send him out there in postseason, so he’s not a reliable starter. Dice-K is more aptly called Dice-BB or Dice-HR this year, even in Portland; let’s not even think about counting on him until next year. And if Tazawa wasn’t on the roster last night, isn’t he ineligible for the postseason roster anyway unless he replaces someone who is injured (like Wake)?
That leaves Buch and Byrd. So I hope Buch has figured out whatever made him stink for most of last year and about half his starts this year, and that Byrd has more than just his first start left in the gas tank, or it’ll be a very short postseason.
Buch has not stunk for 1/2 of his starts.
He has stunk for 2 of 9 starts. He was not good for one, decent for one and was excellent for 5.
Here are the innings and earned runs:
1) 5.2- 1
2)4-3 (only 90 pitches)
3)5.2-2
4)4-7
5)6-2
6)7-1
7)6-1
8)4.2-7
9)8.1-1
He has been inconsistant but not stunk for 1/2 his starts. He needs to walk fewer guys. If you take away the 2 bad starts he has allowed 11 earned runs in 38 2/3 innings=2.85 ERA.
Let me guess -- you think Dice-K deserved Cy Young consideration last year?
An ERA of 2.85 in a handful of starts doesn’t tell you he’s been good. And for individual starts, rather than looking at IP — which really doesn’t work in his favor, given that he’s only gone 6 innings or more in 4 of 9 starts — or earned runs, which is a useful metric but hardly defining, how about looking at something like game score, which accounts for IP, hits, strikeout, walks, and runs?
1) Game score = 57. Decent, not great.
2) 39. Poor — and the reason he threw only 90 pitches was because he was completely ineffective with those pitches.
3) 46. Subpar, and he was very lucky it wasn’t much worse.
4) 15. Craptacular.
5) 50. Passable.
6) 61. Good.
7) 59. Good.
8) 24. Awful.
9) 80. Dominant.
So using a Bill James method, we have five quality starts — as measured by scores of 50 or above, as opposed to 6 IP with 3 or fewer ER — one that just missed and could have been much worse but for some luck, two that were unquestionably atrocious, and one that was lousy and would have been a lot worse but for some luck.
Some other key factors: he has a WHIP of 1.70 (very bad), and he’s only striking out 5.6 batters per 9 innings (too low for him) while walking 4.7 (too high for anyone). Even in a few of his quality starts, he’s not throwing strikes. So while I think he will get better, when I say he’s stunk for half his starts, it’s only an exaggeration by one start at worst, and he absolutely has done a poor job on more than the two starts in which he was pounded.
You know I don't think that.
But what you say is missleading as well. First off-his WHIP is 1.54, not 1.70. Second of all the K rate is down only by a fluctuation, not a real effect. How do I know? His swinging strike % is still high and his contact % overall is better than Beckett’s. The fact is that even befor he Ked 8 in his last game, he should have been closer to 1 K per inning. His FIP is 4.73 and trending down. It would be better without said K fluctuations. His BAPIP is still high. In 2 of those games (the Yankee game and the As game) he was monumentally squeezed as noted by Kzone analysis and by anyone who watched. Net result-more base runners than you would like.
Don’t cherry pick. If you are going to go this route, then you can’t say he sucked last year. He had an unsustainable BAPIP of 366 last year and was very unlucky. He Ked 8.09 per 9. So which is it?
by Buzzy on Sep 1, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
oh and your math sucks.
he is far below “quality” (eg Crappy) in 2 of 9 games by game score…er…as I said. He was “not good” in one (39). Decent for one (50). Crappy for 2 (15 and 24). And good for the rest. Hmmm..just like I said. Nice use of an argument with lots of words around it to completely agree with what I said and contradict what you said.
46 is good?
What’s that about my math sucking? You might want to try counting to three before resorting to ad hominems.
Big difference?
how different is 46 than 50? Ok lets redo it your way-2 shitty, 2 subpar, 1 decent, and 4 good. That is far from “stinking in 1/2 of his starts.”
Difference is difference
What’s the difference between good and not? It’s an arbitrary distinction, but it’s still a distinction. The game score metric sets 50 as the benchmark for a quality start, just as the quality starts metric sets 6 IP with 3 ER or fewer as its benchmark.
But neither is really “good.” A better adjective would be “adequate.” An outing of 6 IP with 3 ER or fewer could generally be described as adequate, but the QS metric is ridiculous because it doesn’t really tell you anything beyond IP and ER about how the pitcher is throwing. I’m more comfortable with describing a game score of 50 as “adequate” because game score accounts for a lot more than merely using IP and ER. But “adequate” still isn’t good. And when your average outing doesn’t even get that high — though perhaps it would be more fair to rely on median than mean for something like this — that means your overall performance is less than adequate.
That’s the difference between 46 and 50 on the game scores metric. 50 is a “quality start,” 46 is not. 50 is “adequate,” 46 is “less than adequate.” And the only reason it matters that 46 is close to 50 is because it’s not an 18 that makes you want to treat a pitcher like the second coming of AL John Smoltz.
You’ve heard the old adage that close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades? Baseball is a game of fractions of an inch, and close not only isn’t “good,” it’s not even “adequate.”
Semantics.
whatever you want to call it, Buch has shown an ability to be a good number 3 starter. Going forward I would rather have him start than anybody not named Lester or Beckett.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
As for the rest of it...
…fair enough, I was looking at the wrong line of a stats chart for some of his numbers and didn’t look at swinging strike % or contact rate — mea culpa. And yes, his BABIP is still a little high, though .306 is not really outside the range of normal fluctuation. But when you have to go with “his FIP is 4.73 and trending down,” you’re not talking about someone who has been good by any stretch of the imagination.
Further, all pitchers get squeezed sometimes. When you lose a game and complain it’s because the umpire squeezed the strike zone on you, you’re just showing you don’t have the maturity to play the game — the other guy got squeezed to, but he reacted better than you.
And really, do you want to make the case that Buchholz wasn’t horrible last year? Yeah, he was unlucky judging by BABIP, but lousy pitchers get unlucky too. If you want to use traditional metrics, he was 2-9 with an ERA approaching 7. If you want to use game scores, he had four starts of 50 or above, another five in the 40s, and four in the 20s, and one under 20. His K/9 was fine, but his BB/9 was just under 5. And his FIP wasn’t so different from what it is this year. So yeah, he was awful last year, he’s been better this year, but he’s been far from “good.”
boy
that’s alot of words. Look, you said he sucked in 1/2 his games. I was correcting you. And we agree-he sucked in 2/9 of his games. Far from half. End of story. I am not saing he is a Cy Young candidate. I am not saying he is consistantly good. As for your FIP comment-what do you think his FIP would be if we remove the 2 crappy games (that is what small samples do-create large fluctuations)? It would be damn good.
Re: Game Score
If Buchholz is dominant in 1 of every 9 starts, he should average 3+ dominant starts over a full season. That’s pretty good. Couple that with good and very good starts and you have an elite pitcher.
Another thing to note, by Game Score, Beckett has been subpar in 10 of 26 starts (39 ). Buccholz has been subpar in 3 of 9 starts (30). In other words, Buchholz’s subpar rate compares favorably with Jon Lester, who has been subpar in 8 of 26 starts (31 %).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know why the percentages didn’t show. Buchholz has been crappy in 30% of his starts, compared to 39% for Beckett and 31% for Lester.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
that said, Exile is correct that Buchholz is still very inconsistent-which is to be expected give MLB service time.
Which given the sample sizes is an equal proportion
Now ask yourself in how many of Lester’s inadequate starts were the Sox out of the game early because he started so badly and they had to live to fight another day. Compare that with Buch. I don’t have hard data to make the comparison and don’t really have time to look it up, but my gut says that in starts when Lester or Beckett have been off their games, they’ve been more likely to keep the Sox in the game than Buch has, whereas Buch falls apart at the very beginning and the Sox have to ride it out.
Strangely enough
The Sox won Buchholz’s two worst starts: 18-10 v. Baltimore (4IP 7 ER) and 12-8 v. Chicago (4.2 IP 7 ER). Buchholz pitched well against the Tigers and MFY in losses. In his other loss—3-1 to Texas—he went 4 IP and allowed 3 ER. So, in a sense, he has only failed to keep his team in the game once out of nine starts (and that was a 3-1 loss).
Beckett’s two worst starts were also both NDs: a 16-11 win over the MFY (5 IP 8 ER) and a 10-9 win over Toronto (5.1 IP 7 ER). Lester’s worst start was a 14-5 loss to TB (4.1 IP 8 ER). Lester only had one tough loss, the rain-shortened interleague game v. Florida. In every other loss, Lester failed to keep his team in the game. He has had some tough NDs that the Sox lost, though.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
He seems a lot more confident in himself this year on the whole.
Comes out after a 4.2 IP, 7 R performance and has an absolutely dominant start, his best since the no-hitter really (better than that one against the Rays last year where Iwamura fucked it all up). He comes back well from jams or when an error is committed behind him (I remember being at Lackey’s near no-no against us last year. Lowell committed an error at 3rd and I said “Well, that does it for Buck”. I was right on the money) and he generally seems to just be composed. I think it really helped to go back to the minors and dominate back there again.
That's the big thing
He seems a lot more confident in himself this year on the whole.
I remember watching him last year and the look he would get in his face when he would get in trouble was pure panic. He seemed absolutely convinced that he was @#$%ed. I don’t see that this year, and that’s why I have confidence in him. He seemingly has a completely different mentality.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
Nothing beats DLowe face
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I think VMart has helped considerably
Its no coincidence that VMart is now catching Buchholz and there seems to be chemistry.
I think it was a coincidence at first.
The first 3 times were all typical Tek days off. Day games after night games and the like.
I think they won’t mess with what’s worked, though.
this whole meta discussion
shows the fallacies that abound when you confuse statistics and probability.
Buchholz has had some bad starts and some good starts this season. By itself, that does not mean that he’ll continue to have bad and good starts in the same ratio, or that his ERA or WHIP will stay at the level measured by this small sample.
We are measuring a quantity that is itself in flux. Buchholz is becoming a better pitcher and is making a transition from an insecure starter to a confident starter. A more useful analysis is gained by looking at the pitch charts that we see after his starts. Clearly Buchholz has great stuff, so the question is his consistency.
To throw some math at you, what we’re looking at here is a situation where one model of his pitching doesn’t suffice. Rather, he needs a reversible-jump model, where he moves from being one kind of pitcher to the other, and the big question is not the average performance from the two types, but rather the probability he’ll be in the better state, i.e. be the better pitcher, so to speak. I think that probability is definitely increasing.
And right now, I trust him a bit more than I trust Beckett, who’s been throwing up gopher balls lately.
Maybe putting Wake in the pen as a long-relief type of guy.
The knuckler would ruin the opponents’ timing after seeing Beck/Lester/Buch once or twice. It can also help if anyone gets in trouble early so we don’t eat up our pen early. Has Wake ever shown reservations about pen work?
This is all assuming he’s healthy of course.
Do you really want to bring in a guy with the bases load
and say 2 outs who throws a knuckleball. One passed ball/wild pitch and in they come. There is a place for the flamethrowers, and important relief would be it for me. Yes Wakefield is too old, but I am talking knuckleballers in general here.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Would Tito be that dumb?
I’d rather think that he’d use someone else to end the inning, then put Wake in as needed.
But this is why I watch from home.
So it woud be only qualified relief!
Maybe a knuckleballer could do that. Will have to think on it.
Anyway, in Wakefield’s case, this is mute as I believe he is finsihed due to age related breakdown.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Do you remember the no hitter Schilling almost pitched?
It was pure adrenlin, and it about did him in at his age. That is what you saw with Wakefield the other day. He went all out and now he is paying the price. You see, getting old is not just a frame of mind for human beings It is real.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
My 50 year old stepdad still laces up his hockey skates every winter.
He should have crapped the bed long ago but he still gets out there and puts up a decent line for two teams where everyone’s at least 10 years younger than him. Getting old IS a frame of mind, and people like Wake and my stepdad show that.
Someone who works out and plays as well as Wake, especially with his type of pitch, doesn’t get “old” until much later. Is this a sign of things to come? Probably, but I’m not counting Wake out for this season, and not even close to counting him out for next year.
Your 50 year old stepdad is not in the NHL.
There are no 50 year olds that I know of in the NHL, and I doublt there have been any/many. Why is that?
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
He really only played in the NHL unitl he was 43.
Her then went to the WHA , but when they merged into the NHL he did play one year at 51. So even this unusual guy really did not make it to 50 in a traditional carrer sense. He made it to 43.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
And I would argue that Wake is an unusual guy...
…in that he throws a pitch that is easier on the body. He might be slowing down, but it is way too presumptuous to call him done.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
No 50 year old should be anywhere near hockey skates
is what I was trying to get at. Wake, if anything, should be in better shape and therefore less likely to break down.
I work as a ski instructor in the winter,
and one of my co-workers is 83 years old. Some people can just do things when they are old that most of us will not be able to do.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Schill pitched his near no-no and then had 2 bad starts.
he then proceeded to have an August with a 3.48 ERA and a September with a 3.16 ERA. Curt threw just 100 pitches in his near no-no—not exactly an especially taxing outing. Wakefield doesn’t exactly even have an ability to go all out. He’s still only throwing 70 MPH, he’s throwing the knuckler, and he didn’t even throw too many of them. Sure, the back is old age, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be good, or that he can’t be good without ruining himself.
by Ben Buchanan on Sep 1, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think he was ever the same after that great an effort.
He was in a decline mode before that with his ankle and all, and I think he knew that was his last harrah. It probably made him go all out, and with old guys, that can do you in on an irreversible basis.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, no, he didn't come close to no-hitting anyone again.
He just posted fantastic numbers for 2 more months and then had 3/4 good-great starts in the postseason.
So yeah, clearly he fucked himself up with that effort.
I see your ,but
I went back and review the 2007 season concerning Schilling. Below are some links concerning this season and his no hit effort. It does seem to me that he came back but was quite inconsistent, and he did not make it to the next season. I still stand behind my impression that his all out complete game effort to get that no-hitter, a game I watched and remember vividly, did contribute at his age to the ending of his career due to age-related injuries. A younger pitcher could have done this without such potential damage, and even Schilling would have benefited by not being left in so long to throw so much that day. However the under the no-hitter potential circumstances, he had to be left alone. I think he paid for that at that age.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, he didn't throw all that much more than usual.
In fact he had 3 starts earlier that season with 100+ pitches in a row. And the MRI very specifically showed there was no actual damage. It’s not a secret that old pitchers get injured easier. But it’s also not a secret that when you turn 40 or 42 it doesn’t mean you’re done for good and you have to exchange your career for 1 great start.
Wakefield probably wasn’t really ready to come back when he did, 100%. But he was close enough that they gave him the start and he excelled. If anything, Schilling is just proof that Wakefield can come back from missing this 1 start and be great the rest of the season. Whether or not he comes back next season is really a matter of personal choice. His pitching style doesn’t require much arm strength. It’s a finesse approach depending on mastery of a very difficult but not-at-all-taxing pitch. He could throw the Knuckler till he’s 50.
Does Wakefield look in shape to your eye?
He does not to mine. Now Smoltz looked in shape, and yet he could not overcome age-related injuries. As for Schilling, gunning for that no-hitter made him cross the line, and at his age injury often results. I suspect that Wakefield in that last outing crossed the same line due to pressure to perform. The resultant new or recurrent injury will not heal fast or well because of his age. He, like Schilling, may well come to realize that enough is enough.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Ahain, does it matter?
He throws the knuckleball. You’ve yet to account for that at all. He isn’t Schilling. He doesn’t need to be.
even on wednesday
Wake pitched great, undeniably, but, I was there, and watching him walk to the bullpen BEFORE the game started, he was noticeably limping. Then in the game, fortunately the infield was there to help him out a lot- he didn’t field anything, but was ok at getting out of the way so that someone else could field for him (pedroia covering first, youk sprinting to the mound to get a popup). I love Wakefield, but he needs time to recover and I don’t think he’s going to be reliable enough to be a viable postseason starter this year.
I remember watching him limping on the mound and thinking if he was playing a team that had ANY running ability, they would be in serious trouble.
Wake always kinda waddle-limped around.
But the fielding thing is something of a concern.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
Unless the teams start bunting on him 100% of the time
I think Wake’s fielding will be of rather limited concern.
He gets 61% flyouts, and most ground balls don’t require a pitcher to field them to begin with.
Let’s say he gives up 1 extra single per game based on a lack of fielding ability. Now consider if 1 single is really the difference between a Tim Wakefield start and a Junichi Tazawa start.
who do you want to bring in
with the bases loaded and 2 outs?
I don’t think “going to the bullpen” = “being immediately thrown into the most stressful possible situation that any reliever might face”.
Why when I hit reply under a comment
does it end up in the wrong place (as an initial comment) like 1/3 of the time? Why?
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
starters
ok…picture this…….DelCarmen three innings,Ramirez….three innings….Saito three innings….using the rest of the bullpen as backup.YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
really?
It would make all of those guys unavailable for at least one game, probably two.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Depending on the # of pitches thrown
They could be out for the next three games, thus shortening the pen.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Buchholz is the guy.
He’s always had top-of-the-rotation billing, the fact that he’s starting to show it with some more consistency shouldn’t be too surprising to any of us. He’s got a 95 MPH fastball to go with 2 plus secondary pitches. It’s time to let the kid out of the doghouse for ‘08. He’s pitched like a major leaguer, time to treat him like one.
I think the fans.
He didn’t have it at all last year, and now this year they expect him to be lights-out 100% of the time. Whenever he has a bad outing folks get NG-itis and start flashing back to 2008. He’s improved leaps and bounds and I have faith in him.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
Probably because he crashed SO BAD last year.
There were big expectations on him last year that didn’t pan out at all. Makes sense that they’d want to be doubly sure that he was set so it didn’t cause another set-back for him. There’s quite a bit invested in the kid.
Man I love that tuna casserole.
That and he's still not great
He’s too inconsistent to be reliable, but he’s the third best starter in the organization right now, assuming (as is likely) that Byrd can’t go six shutout innings every time out. That makes him the guy.
Did Tito have an opportunity?
Dice-K disappeared too quickly. Buck didn’t even have a great time in the minors last year. They needed to see him dominate like he did in AAA this year before they felt comfortable.
Then we didn’t really have a lot of openings. It was Beckett/Lester/Wakefield/Penny/Masterson before they had confidence in Buck, then it was Beckett/Lester/Wakefield/Penny/Smoltz because you have to give Smoltz his shot.
When they got their first opportunity to start him after he’d proved himself in AAA again, they jumped on it. And now he’s got the 5th most starts on the team.
by Ben Buchanan on Sep 1, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Talking about NG-itis,
There are real causes for this condition. Any Red Sox fan born before 1950 has it to some degree, and if born before 1940 it can be acute. Before 1930, it is absolutely paralytic or all encompassing. People who have it that were born after 1950, are probably just parroting their parent’s fears!
I touched on this in a post the other day. During most of the twentieth century (thanks Tom Yawkey) people went 50, 60, 70 and 80 years without a Sox ws win. Now when the Sox do show promise after winning, we are all afraid that management will tolerate another 50+ years lull, and it is a very nerve-racking potential condition. So have a little heart for us sufferers of NG-itis. I like that diagnostic name, BTW! Maybe we can patent it.
by NG on Sep 1, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand it.
But we did win another one, and the front office has built one of the best farm systems despite drafting towards the end every year. Payroll sits consistently at around 120 million, and even through losing one of our top pitchers for the year and a 3/4 type for a good 2 months, we’re sitting 4 games up in the wild card. They brought in Martinez to jump start a struggling offense, have locked up 3 top-of-the-line players for 4-5 years (Youk, Petey, Lester), and let’s not forget that we’re on pace for about the same number of wins as we’ve had for the last couple years.
Sure, we’re not picking up the 3 biggest FA names in the offseason for 500 million dollars despite tons of injury concerns
But we’re not the Yankees, and if you expect us to be, then you’re misguided.
The Red Sox will spend Yankee money if Joe Mauer or Felix becomes available
but I agree the Sox will not overspend to be competitive. Which is the current Yankee strategy.
I agree with the Mauer/Felix thing.
I think the Sox will pay what’s necessary when it comes to really huge names. The counterargument is Tex, but I don’t think they could’ve gotten Tex anyways. Forgone conclusion to the Yanks.
That's true
But in the case of Mauer, it won’t take Yankee money to land him. The Yanks are fully loaded at catcher and first, which is where they would park Mauer. I don’t think they can really go after him.
Felix may be a different story. The Yanks may pursue him if he is available, if for no other reason than they would not want the Sox to get him AND Mauer.
by Mister Snitch on Sep 1, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Who is the MFY catcher in 2 years?
BTW I expect that Mauer will stay in Minnesota.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Sep 1, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont
There is no way Minnesota will put $20 million offer out to Mauer, does not make a difference what the stadium does.
Mauer must take a huge discount to stay in Minnesota bc the Red Sox will be offering $20 million + /year for 7+ years and Mauer’s agent knows this. So unless Minnesota is competitive, Mauer walks.
No way in hell do they offer him that much for 7 years.
You’re just asking for him to break down.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
Not true
Red Sox make a helluva lot now after the 2 WS titles and being the #1 team in Japan. Red Sox as a franchise is moving up. Can the Yankees out bid if money was just the only factor? Sure maybe, but that ball park is killing the Yankees $$$$ right now, an albatross the Red Sox do not have to deal with.
Its a lot closer than you think.
Manchester U. – 1.8 billion
D. Cowboys – 1.6 billion
Redskins – 1.5 billion
Patriots – 1.35 billion
Yankees – 1.3 billion
Red Sox – 853 million, bought in 2002 for 380 million with an revenue of 279 million a year. Yankees make 370 million.
So to say that the Red Sox are not in their league is not really true, they are, and after you figure in the hit the Yankees take in 09 for that park, it will even out more.
I think people are being a little bit too emotional here
While I will give ample credit to Buchholz and how he has pitched since the first couple starts, putting him in as the 3rd rotation spot in the playoffs is crazy talk. Remember he is a rookie with NO playoff experience whatsoever and he will have to win. This is far different than Jon Lester in 07 WS. The Red Sox had Beckett sitting in the wings if they went to a game 5.
Wakefield is the obvious and smart choice. He has pitched well this year, far better than Buchholz and he has an enormous amount of playoff experience. Wake will pitch Wake’s game regardless of the situation, while nobody here has any idea how Buchholz will pitch when there is massive amounts of pressure. Sure he probably gets game 3 at Fenway v. the Tigers or the Angels and that helps, but Wake is the better choice. IF the Sox go down 0-2 to LAA, you really want to run Clay Buchholz out to save the series? Seriously?
This is not a slight to Buchholz, he has done well this season, but not pitching Wake in game three against Joe Saunders or Scott Kasmir – Edwin Jackson or Rick Porcello is just crazy.
who would you want?
Masterson and Smoltz and Penny are gone. Wakefield would be fine – if he were healthy. I hope you’re not suggesting we put Tazawa ahead of Buchholz! So it comes down to Buch vs. Wake, right?
Buch is much healthier right now and his upside is much higher. And Wake would profit more by being the fourth starter than Buch would – he has a greater need for extra rest.
Wake
Beckett, Lester, Wake, Buchholz if needed, Byrd as insurance. Dice-K if he is healthy.
I would pitch Beckett and Lester any time I could, depending on rest and type of game. I would not be happy putting a rookie in a potential elimination game even at home. If scheduling worked out, I would much rather have Beckett, Lester, Wake, Beckett, and Lester.
Playoffs are a different beast, every pitch has an insane amount of pressure. I would much rather put a vet in the game than a rookie taking the hill for the first time. Wake wont crack under pressure.
I think it all depends on the situation
Closer to or in the playoffs if Wake is healthy and back to early season form i say its a no brainer Wake as #3. If he is not then it has to be Buch all the way. Playoff experience or not outside of Beckett and Lester obvious #1 #2 he gives the Sox the best chance to win. If the Sox’s wouldn’t trade this kid for Halladay the he better be serviceable in the playoff’s as a #3 or better scenario #4. This kid is dynamite and also sometimes you wish to use dynamite on him.
plan a: wake
wake will be the starter of game 3 if healthy…but i’m not so sure that’s going to happen. back issues can be quite troublesome as a lot of us know- plan b will be decided by buch. he has, by my estimation, 6 starts remaining, so his performance will determine his role in the playoffs. in fact, i think now is the time to see if he can produce. i’m not a big fan of the “joba” technique and buch is 25 after all.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
- Lance Berkman’s knee injury creates a lot of questions for Cards but also his career
- Next generation: Scott Van Slyke, son of Andy Van Slyke, hits first career homer
- The Juice: Stephen Strasburg homers to cool off Orioles, Aroldis Chapman closes out Yanks
- Babe Ruth jersey auctioned for $4.4 million, becomes most expensive sports memorabilia ever
