Wakefield's Road To 200 Wins Full of Detours, Homers
by Marc Normandin on Aug 15, 2011 9:21 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintYet again, for the fourth start in a row, Tim Wakefield failed to pick up win number 200 in his career. He has picked up six wins on the season, but, considering the offensive support that the Red Sox are capable of, it's disappointing he hasn't picked up more decisions, especially on the W side of things.
Wakefield has long been known for being dependable and average, but that just hasn't been the case since 2010 started. In his last 253-1/3 innings with Boston (dating back to the start of last season), Wakefield has a 5.15 ERA -- 18 percent worse than the league average according to ERA+ -- has given up 9.5 hits per nine despite the Red Sox having a well above-average offense during that stretch, and has allowed 1.3 homers per nine thanks to 37 long balls.
In his starts since this season, Wakefield has a 5.75 Run Average, 25 percent worse than the league average. He is giving up 9.1 hits per nine despite a .265 batting average on balls in play; while the Red Sox are converting nearly 72 percent of balls in play into outs, they haven't been able to catch the 18 balls that have gone over the fence.
Wakefield has given up a home run in every start he has made since July 18, when he gave up two to the Orioles (and then two to the Mariners, including a grand slam to Brendan Ryan, in his next start). He has given up at least one home run in all but four of his 17 starts. Out of his six wins, just one has come with fewer than six runs of support, and he has a 5.51 ERA in those contests.
Wakefield's problem has been the middle innings, as he has a 6.08 ERA in the fourth through sixth frames -- 14 of his 18 homers have occurred from the fourth onward, and opponents are hitting .304/.360/.554 against him the third time they see him (127 batters out of 428 seen in starts). From pitch 76 through 100, Wakefield is allowing a .343/.408/.687 line to opponents. You may think, "Well sure, most pitchers struggle as they tire later in games." While true, Wakefield has struggled 91 percent more than your average pitcher, according to split OPS+. (Someone please post this on the wall in Terry Francona's office.)
It's not surprising that this would be the case: he's in his age-44 season and already had his 45th birthday. He has nearly 3,200 innings on his arm in his career, and he just isn't able to go deep into games very often anymore. Yes, he threw a complete game last night against the Mariners, but let's remember that's one game, and the ridiculous line for pitches 76-100 for the season includes his work last night, when he tossed 94 pitches in a very efficient start.
Wakefield has never been the star that others he has played with have been, but he's always been someone special in Boston for what he has accomplished in his long career here. That's one reason it's been painful to watch him go for career win #200 and struggle so much in the process, but we're just going to have to accept that Wakefield, while occasionally capable of quality starts like that of last night's, just doesn't have it as consistently as he used to, especially the deeper into a game he has to go. His fifth attempt at #200 will come this weekend against the Royals, in Kansas City. While Tim Wakefield and the Red Sox need the win, it's safe to say that we all need it, too, if only to remember the Wakefield that pitched well enough to get to that point, rather than the one we have been watching the last two years.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's pretty disingenuous to say that Wakefield's wins have only come with fewer than six runs of support
While that’s true, he’s hardly been getting pounded, despite the large cushion. His ERA is not doubt skewed due to the famous Brendan Ryan grand slam game, but in only one of his other wins did he give up even 5 runs. Everything else was 3 runs or less.
Really, the obsession with the win has tainted a lot of the data coming in lately, because people seem to be actually treating the win as a prize or worse, an accurate measure of pitcher performance. This article mainly relies on ERA, which we can also see the problem with.
What we SHOULD be focusing on is that Wakfield has been pitching WELL, despite his lack of wins. He pitched 8 innings of 5 run (4 ER) ball behind some sloppy defense in his last outing. He gave up 3 ER in, at worst, 6.2 innings in every one of his starts since his last win. He has also given up exactly ONE home run in each of those starts. Looking at his career, we can see he has always been more homer prone than usual – 1.2 HR/9. This makes sense when one considers a flat knuckleball will likely be hit a long, long way.
The use of conventional stats for a pitcher throwing mainly knuckleballs runs into many, many pitfalls, among them a tendency to generalize, such as “old man Wakefield can’t go past the 80 pitch mark” or “he’s just giving up too many hits.” But you know what you’re going to get with the knuckleball – a lot of weak contact, and a lot of sharp contact when it fails to knuckle. That’s been getting the job done for the Sox – win or no win. It’s the offense that’s to blame.
Disingenuous?
His Run Average as a starter prior to the “grand slam game” was 5.52. From grand slam game onward, it’s 5.91. Take out the grand slam game, and his RA is 5.38. With it, it’s 5.64. He hasn’t been very good, regardless of how much worse that game was than others.
He has been 25 worse than the league average in terms of runs allowed. That’s getting pounded.
I love Wakefield, I really do, but to say that this is just how it goes with the knuckleball is to ignore all of the quality work he has actually done in the past. What stands out about the 2010-2011 seasons are how very not Wakefield-esque they are. No excuses need to be made for him, he just has not pitched well over the past two seasons.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Aug 15, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I assume the reason you're including 2010 is because it hurts his stats
But it’s irrelevant to the current discussion of 2011. He’s been just fine as a starter this year.
I'm including 2010...
…because it’s a larger sample of him pitching poorly. I’m not sure how he is “just fine” in 2011, when the numbers I just cited above to you — the awful ones — are from 2011 only.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Aug 15, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
5.38 runs per game allowed on average?
I assume this is RA/9 innings – but what’s the point of that? Tito is never going to leave Wake in 9 innings unless he’s pitching very well.
Wakefield in starts this year has allowed:
1 ER in 5.2 IP
6 ER in 4.1 IP
1 ER in 6.2IP
2 ER in 7 IP
4 ER in 6 IP
5 ER in 5.1 IP
1 ER in 7 IP
3 ER in 8 IP
5 ER in 6 IP
5 ER in 6.1 IP
3 ER in 7 IP
3 ER in 4.2 IP
7 ER in 6.1 IP
3 ER in 7 IP
3 ER in 6.2 IP
3 ER in 7 IP
4 ER in 8 IP
He’s no ace, but he’s given them innings and kept in them in the game on almost all occasions. He has a 4.67 xFIP and his career BABIP is low, so I doubt he’ll suffer from that regression. Wakefield in 2011 is the same Wakefield or even a bit better than we’ve had since 2004. He is not a problem for this team going forward.
Well, some pitchers pitch longer than others. We use their RA per 9 innings to make things fair. By your logic using RA/9 wouldn’t make sense for any pitcher other than Halladay or Lee.
Is a guy who is consistently average – below average better than a guy with the same RA who has more variability? That’s a valid question. My first thought is that with a great offense like the Sox’s offense you want a guy who you can expect to be solid, but would be surprised if he pitches a gem, more than the guy who less consistent. But I’m not sure I’ve seen that question answered in a satisfactory manner.
@bumpasaurus
I don't think RA/9 IP is a very good stat, no. I wouldn't use it period.
In any case, I would prefer someone like Daisuke to Wakefield in the rotation, but at this point Wakefield is performing admirably as the backup plan.
Part of it is that I think there aren’t many pitchers who truly are apt to be almost completely random in their results. Ironically, Tim Wakefield may be one of the few pitchers who actually is, as he’s capable of throwing gems or clunkers at seeming random. Yet even he isn’t as random as he might appear.
Someone on this site (maybe Rogue Nine?) posted a good post debunking the whole “Daisuke as crapshoot” truism that seems to be prevalent. I’d imagine it applies to many pitchers.
There are lots of problems with RA / 9, and I agree that something like FIP is better, or Ks, BBs, HR rate, etc. basically due to the effect of defense.
But you’re saying its invalid because Wake isn’t going to go 9 IP, when the point is to prorate whatever he’s doing to 9 IP. This doesn’t make any sense. RA/9 has its limits but as a crude device to compare Wakefield to the rest of the league, which is how it was used in the article, it works pretty well.
@bumpasaurus
You know, I didn't really put it together until now
But isn’t RA/9 basically just ERA but not accounting for errors? That would definitely hurt Wakefield, who has given up a fair number of unearned runs. Also, it has the same pitfalls as normal ERA when being used as a predictive statistic.
Okay then
He’s also 19 percent below-average this year according to FIP.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Aug 15, 2011 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
As a starter or for the whole year?
I really have a hard time believing Wakefield has been 20 percent below league average as the starter
That's for the season
But he has just 13-1/3 innings in relief out of 121-1/3 total, so it’s not like those are swaying his numbers too much in either direction. Real small sample.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Aug 15, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
FIP penalizes Wakefield
His BABIP is much lower than an average pitcher, so FIP’s reliance on three true outcomes punishes him more than your usual hurler.
The problem being you've now eliminate DIPS and ERA
So what are we to judge him on?
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 15, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Peripherals and his past performance, I suppose
Wakefield is fascinating because you know what you’re getting out of him thanks to the fact that he’s older than dirt. He’s been basically the same pitcher since at least 2004.
Though I should say that while ERA isn't predictive
It may be fairly accurate in this case, if you cut out his relief, that Wake has about a 4.6 ERA or so – and I would expect him to give up 3-5 runs every time out, with the standard outliers of 0-2 and 6+ runs coming every so often.
Facial hair;
Feats of strength;
Shimmering sequined jackets;
Dance moves
"Laser show. So relax."
Francona is to McDonald and Jenks as Infant is to Plastic Bags and Matches
by nuthinboutnuthin on Aug 15, 2011 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
it doesn't really
if you look at his career, his ERA is usually surprisingly close to his FIP.
But, if you want to look at ERA, fine. His ERA as a starter is 4.92. Fro the record, as a reliever, it was 4.73.
And, as for 2010 making him look "worse"
His ERA+ in 2010 was 81. It’s 84 this year. 4.90 ERA vs. 5.34 ERA seems like a bigger change than it is, but since the run environment is much lower this year, it’s basically the same thing.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Aug 15, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
25 percent worse than the league average*
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Aug 15, 2011 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, he's a 5th starter.
If league average is a third starter, wouldn’t #1 starters be about 25% better than league average and 5th starters be 25% worse?
Not really the way it should ever be viewed, if you ask me.
25% worse than league average means his position is one that’s easily upgraded. Much in the way that you wouldn’t cut a #1 starter who is 10% better than average just because he’s not doing what you would hope your best starter would do.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 15, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah
just because he’s a 5th starter doesn’t mean that a wealthy playoff-level team should necessarily be throwing out an essentially replacement-level pitcher there.
That doesn't make any sense.
If my #1 starter was 25% worse than the rest of the #1 starters, then you should upgrade that position. I’m not sure what “cutting” a “10% better” pitcher even means. That’s just useless hyperbole.
This isn’t about replacing anyone, it’s putting his performance in context. Should the Sox #5 starter be on par with other teams #3 starter? Sure, that would be great. But, keep in mind, Wake is effectively the 7th starter, maybe 8th depending on how much “hope” there was at one point in Miller.
Sure it does.
The idea of a #1, #2, etc. starter is basically a fabrication. You have SP, and that’s by-and-large it. The only time this should really come into account is thinking about playoffs, wherein it’s OK to say “Yeah, he’s just a #5, who cares?”
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 15, 2011 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
He's received 6.25 runs of run support per 27 outs in his starts
The offense hasn’t gotten it done in 3 of his last 4 starts, but they’ve been giving him plenty of support.
@bumpasaurus
by Toe Nash on Aug 15, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
