-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 3 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 7 comments
-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Boston Red Sox knuckleballer Tim Wakefield won his 200th big league game tonight with a 18-6 victory over the Toronto Blue Jays.
In his eighth attempt to win number 200, the 45-year old Wakefield gave up five runs on six hits over a workman like six innings. He did strike out six while walking only two. Homeruns accounted for the five runs Wakefield surrendered. He gave up a three run homerun to rookie catcher J.P. Arencibia in the second inning and then served up Jose Bautista’s league leading 42nd homerun in the third.
But the Red Sox took the lead for good in the fourth on back to back homeruns by Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia. Ellsbury and Pedroia each had four hits. Pedroia hit another homerun in the sixth and drove in five runs. But the Red Sox left nothing to chance scoring seven runs in the eighth inning.
Wakefield wasn’t the only member of the Red Sox who achieved a career milestone. Shortstop Marco Scutaro collected his 1,000th career hit.
But this was Tim Wakefield’s night. He addressed the Fenway Park crowd after the game which gave him a well deserved standing ovation. Jonathan Papelbon then doused him with a little bubbly.
Wakefield has been in a Red Sox uniform since the middle of the 1995 season. He is a team player through and through whether as a starter or a reliever. He has never wanted to pitch anywhere else. Wakefield is not only one of the most popular members of the Red Sox, he has become a pillar of the community here in Boston with his involvement in charitable endeavors.
Earlier this summer, I read Tony Massaroti’s biography of Wakefield titled Knuckler. Wakefield would probably have won his 200th game much sooner if he wasn’t called upon to take one for the team. But he’s never complained. In 1989, Wakefield was a minor league first baseman who couldn’t hit. More than two decades later, he has made a very nice big league career. And perhaps there is more to come. Wakefield needs seven more wins to become the Red Sox all-time leader in victories. Cy Young and Roger Clemens each won 192 big league games with the Bosox.
After a much needed day off, the Red Sox snapped a five game losing streak. For good measure, the Tampa Bay Rays lost 4-2 to the Baltimore Orioles allowing the Red Sox to pick up a game in the AL Wild Card standings. The Red Sox now lead the Rays by four games in the AL Wild Card. Wakefield’s triumph gave the Red Sox a lift. Perhaps they have now turned the corner.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/13/wakefield-wins-number-200
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The End of the Castros?
- Her Unrequited Letter
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
rightasrain| 9.14.11 @ 6:39AM
And Mariano Rivera got his 600th career save. Go Yanks.
astorian| 9.14.11 @ 7:26AM
I mean NO disrespect to Mr. Wakefield, but games like this show clearly why sabremetrician are now so dismissive of "wins" as a way of judging pitchers. By any standard, Wakefield pitched a lousy game. His ERA for this game is 7.50, which is TERRIBLE. He got a "win" solely because his team scored 18 runs!
Wins are a silly concept, and even old school sportswriters are starting to see that (hence, the recent Cy Young awards for Zach Greinke and Felix Hernandez).
Aaron Goldstein| 9.14.11 @ 8:29AM
Wakefield left the game with a 6-5 lead after six innings. The Red Sox scored twelve of their runs after he was taken out of the game. In his pursuit of 200 wins, Wakefield has left other starts with the lead only to have the bullpen be unable to hold it for him. Besides how many times has Wakefield given up one or two runs only to either lose the game or leave with a no-decision.
The reason you see Hernandez and Greinke (and for that matter Tim Lincecum) win Cy Youngs with fewer than 20 wins is because starting pitchers are lucky to start 30 games a season. They also rarely finish what they start.
That said, Justin Verlander has 22 wins and has a chance to finish the seasons with 25 victories. The last pitcher to get to that level was Bob Welch who won 27 games for the Oakland Athletics in 1990. Do you honestly think Verlander won't win the AL Cy Young?
As for sabremetricians, they suck the life out of baseball.
Ricco| 9.14.11 @ 9:26AM
Regarding Wakefield's being a pillar of the community in Boston with his involvement in charitable endeavors, I commend to you his support of the Red Sox's HomeBase Program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFB2lybPIXs
astorian| 9.14.11 @ 10:06AM
Justin Verlander would be a worthy Cy Young winner, even a worthy MV candidate. That changes nothing. "Wins" are a silly way to judge pitchers. Pitchers can't control how many runs their teams own teams score, which means they have precious little control over their wins and losses.
In 1970, Jim Merritt "won" 20 games with a pitiful 5.04 ERA. Was he a great pitcher? Obviously not- he "won" a lot of games because the Big Red Machine scored even more runs than the hapless Merritt gave up.
If Tim Lincecum throws 8 innings against the Phillies and "loses" by a score of 2-1 while C.C. Sabathia pitches 7 innings against the Royals and "wins" 8-5, are you really going to tell me Sabathia pitched better?
Teams win and lose games. Pitchers don't.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.14.11 @ 10:34AM
Wins are by no means is it the only measure by which a pitcher should be judged. But it is hardly a silly measure as you suggest.
BTW, a correction is in order. When Jim Merritt won 20 games for the Cincinnati Reds in 1970 his ERA was 4.08 not 5.04. Even so, Merritt is the exception rather than the rule.
Yes, C.C. Sabathia could "win" an 8-5 game and Tim Lincecum can "lose" a 2-1 game. But Sabathia's 2.93 ERA would tend to suggest that he doesn't typically win 8-5 games.
It's not entirely true that pitchers can't control how many runs their team scores. NL pitchers bat and so do AL pitchers during interleague games. Granted most of them aren't great hitters but every once in a great while you'll see a hurler drive in a run or belt one out of the park to help his own cause.
There are certainly some things beyond the control of a pitcher. But to suggest that pitchers have no control over the outcome of the game is just plain silly. If that is the case then you are essentially saying that it doesn't matter who you put out on the mound. One pitcher is no better than the other. BTW, Justin Verlander won his 23rd game of the season last night. Surely there is a difference between Justin Verlander and Jo Jo Reyes?
Steve A| 9.14.11 @ 10:13AM
Hey Astorian,
Let's test your brilliant theory; Go ahead & name for me the top 5 starting pitchers in The American & National League (in your sabretheory). We will wait patiently while you do so. Now, let's just take a look at the W / L records. Duh........
Now, of course, there are exceptions, but in the big scheme of things it's a pretty good measure.
Joe R| 9.14.11 @ 10:49AM
I sure would love to see Tampa Bay pass the Red Sawks for the AL Wild Card slot. That way we won't have to listen to the shills at ESPN and other networks babble on endlessly about the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry while ignoring other playoff teams. Screw the Yankees and screw the Red Sawks even more.
Quin| 9.14.11 @ 11:01AM
Wake deserves all the cheers he gets. He's a class act, through and through. And Aaron is right: In about five of those seven games in which he started but failed to notch win number 200, he pitched well enough to win. Three times he left with a lead only to have the bullpen blow it; two other times he pitched even better and gave up few runs, only to have his teammates fail to provide any offensive support.
Hail to Wake, and Go Sox!
astorian| 9.14.11 @ 11:28AM
I generally don't have the time or the interest to do a lot of statistical analysis (I'm NOIT a sabremetrician, even if I sound like one, and I think Bill James is a first rate sphincter), but I'll give you a little more food for thought.
For many years, poor Brian Kingman of the 1980 Oakland A's was referred to as "the last man to lose 20 games." Luckily for him, that burden has been lifted.
Kingman did indeed go 8-20, so he must have been one of the worst pitchers of all time, right? WRONG! His ERA was 3.83, which isn't great but was only SLIGHTLY below average in the American League that year. His teammate Steve McCatty actually had an ERA of 3.86 (slightly HIGHER) and ended up with a record of 14-14.
So, two pitchers of equal quality,with almost identical ERAs, ended up with completely different records. Was Steve McCatty way better than Brian Kingman? NO! He was just a lot luckier. Heck, Dennis Leonard of the Royals won 20 games that year with an ERA of 3.79. Ws Leonard REALLY significantly better than Kingman or McCatty? Nope. He was just luckier , and played for a much better team.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.14.11 @ 3:01PM
So who was the last pitcher to lose 20 games in a season? That would be Mike Maroth who lost 21 games for the Detroit Tigers in 2003. He recorded an ERA of 5.73 for a team that lost 119 games.
Brian Kingman was a statistical anomaly. Out of the 105 runs, he gave up 15 of them were unearned. Not only did the A's not score many runs for Kingman their gloves mysteriously developed holes when he pitched.
It is worth noting that Kingman was part of a an Oakland A's starting rotation which included Mike Norris, Rick Langford, Matt Keough and as you noted Steve McCatty (who is now the pitching coach for the Washington Nationals.) The 1980 A's were manaaged by Billy Martin and he blew out their arms. Between the five of them they completed 93 games. Although McCatty would finish runner up in the Cy Young balloting the following year, the rest of them were never the same after 1980.
As for Dennis Leonard, although he was a 20 game winner in 1980, he did not receive a single vote from the BBWAA for the AL Cy Young Award. He gave up a league leading 118 earned runs. But what he did give the Royals was innings. He threw 280 and one third innings in 38 starts. Leonard was a horse who kept his team in the game.
Steve Stone, now a broadcaster for the Chicago White Sox, would win the AL Cy Young with a 25-7 record for the Baltimore Orioles. You could make the case that the award should have gone to the aforementioned Mike Norris. While Norris went 22-9, his ERA was lower (2.53 vs. 3.23), he struck out more batters (180 to 149), pitched more innings (284 and one third to 250 and two thirds) and completed more than three times as many games (24 to 9). So you could make an argument that the BBWAA overvalued wins when it came to voting for the AL Cy Young that season.
Still, a starting pitcher does have a role in determining whether his team wins a game or doesn't. He sets everything into motion. So wins do matter.
Steve A| 9.14.11 @ 12:25PM
In Baseball, the stats are used to attempt to measure performance. The ultimate stat is if the game is Won or Lost. This is what matters most. Occasionally, a hitter rolls out a swinging bunt & gets credit for a hit. Occasionally, a pitcher puts in a sub par performance & gets a W. A hitter lines out, a fielder gets called for an error on a bad hop etc. Wins vs. Losses may not be the ultimate pitching stat to measure effectiveness at getting hitters out (the pitchers main job). I would have to say perhaps WHIP is the most effective tool to measure a pitchers ability to limit baserunners & the possibility of runs scoring. It just so happens, that often, the Wins follow the most effective pitchers over a career. Must be a coincidence.
astorian| 9.14.11 @ 12:37PM
Actually, i could make a plausible case that carer LOSSES are a great sign of a quality pitcher. Don't believe me? Look at the all-time LOSS leaders, and you'll see a lot of EXCELLENT pitchers. Cy Young, Pud Galvin, Nolan, Ryan, Walter Johnson, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton... get the idea?
Yes, over the very long run, the best pitchers will record a LOT of wins. They'll ALSO record a lot of losses. After all, no team would keep a guy around long enough to lose 200 games unless he was very, very good!
Steve A| 9.14.11 @ 1:10PM
True enough. Nolan was always my favorite to watch & he hardly won many more than he lost. Good discussion. I need a break from thinking about politics anyway. I appreciate Aaron rolling out these articles to keep it sane.