2007 ALCS Game 4: BOS at CLE
October 16th, 2007 by SBG
With the Rockies in, baseball has a small market upstart playing for its brass ring, which is great for the sport. Colorado (Colorado!) has captured the imagination of sports fans across the country. Imagine that -- the jersey doesn't have to say New York or Los Angeles or (hopefully) Boston.
Which gets us back to Game 4 of the ALCS. My desire to see Boston eliminated here is bordering on the irrational. The mere thought of Bostoners enjoying the World Series has me shuddering (metaphorically speaking, of course). Of course, if I were without a rooting interest in this game (or more, accurately, without a rooting against interest), I might be really looking forward to the pitching matchup for this game. The Red Sox, down 2-1, turn to old-time knuckler Tim Wakefield, while the Indians are going with Ed Harris, er, Paul Byrd.
Wakefield is 40 years old now and has had an interesting, if somewhat unremarkable career (then again, pitching in the major leagues for 15 seasons is somewhat remarkable). Wakefield began as an outfielder in the Pittsburgh Pirates organization. He was about to wash out, when his dalliance with the knuckleball convinced the Pirates to put him on the mound. Wakefield was an early success, finishing third in the rookie of the year balloting in 1992 behind Eric Karros and Moises Alou. Karros hit .257/.304/.426 (OPS+ 107) in 589 PAs to win the award, while Wakefield was 8-1 with a 2.15 ERA (ERA+ 160) in 92 innings. By 1994, Wakefield was out of the majors, spending the entire season at AAA (he spent part of 1993 in the minors, too). By 1995, he was out of the Pittsburgh organization, too, and wound up pitching in the minors for Boston. He was recalled in 1995 and has been part of the Red Sox ever since. He's started at least 15 games every season, even though he also made at least 30 relief appearances every season between 1999 and 2002. He also started, and won, two games in the 2003 ALCS, but he'll always be remembered for his relief appearance in that series.
Wakefield's now been in the starting rotation for the Red Sox almost exclusively for last five years and probably can continue to pitch for at least another five if he chooses to do so. If he does, he'll be making $4 million per season, as he has granted the Red Sox a perpetual option (sub. req.). That's a heckuva gift to give your employer, especially in this day, when he probably could get almost double that on the open market. In any event, if there's one guy on the Red Sox that I can cheer for (other than Lucy's boyfriend, David Ortiz), Wakefield would be the guy.
Byrd, on the other hand, is the kind of guy that Twins fans might want to cheer against. Byrd was 4-0 with a 3.41 ERA against the Twins, and he threw a complete game 4-hit shutout at the local nine on August 6th, causing The Nation to erupt in a fit of angst. He was even better, though, against the White Sox, going 3-0 in four starts with a 2.30 ERA and he twirled a 4-hit shutout at them on Sept. 1. So there's that. Plus, the guy can't throw it over 85 MPH and relies on a funky delivery to deceive the opposing hitters. One has to wonder if he's got some of Ed Harris's vasoline, too. Anyway, he made his manager look like a genius when he kind of held off the Yankees in game 4 of the 2007 ALDS for a while as Chien-Ming Wang imploded. So, despite his dominance of our club this year, I'll be pulling for Byrd tonight in his matchup with Wakefield. But, I won't be cheering against Wakefield... just his team.
This entry was posted by SBG on Tuesday, October 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pm and is filed under 2007 Postseason Game Logs. It is one of 2466 entries by the author. We are no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this post.
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 6:37:27 pm
I forgot about Wakefield's beginnings as a position player. According to the Baseball Cube, he was an 8th round pick in 1988, played 1B in that first half-season, and he pretty much switched to pitching the next year at age 22. He became a starting pitcher the following year, and judging by his peripherals, he was a knuckleballer from the outset.
I remember following his great run in 1992 as a kid, and then his great collapse in '93, followed by a second great run in '95. And although he's flown under the radar for much of his career in Boston, he's certainly one of the more interesting pitchers of his generation!
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 6:42:41 pm
I wonder how Doug Mirabelli thanks Wakefield. being able to catch the knuckleball is the only reason, it seems, to even have him on this roster
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:03:30 pm
That's probably another reason for Red Sox fans to prefer Beckett make this start -- it would keep Mirabelli out of the lineup.
"Personal catchers" has always seemed strange to me -- Junior Ortiz starting a World Series game? -- but then again, the pitcher/catcher dynamic is strange to me, and quite important to the outcome of the game, I imagine.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:41:29 pm
Both pitchers got their personal catchers today, but the CLE downgrade is Shoppach replacing Garko.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:13:48 pm
which is more damaging than Mirabelli replacing Cap'n 'tek, I think.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:06:30 pm
I don't know why Cap'n Tek doesn't want to catch for Wake, but early last year, Josh Bard cuaght him for a game and had 4 passed balls. (Apr 26, 2006). Before Wake's next start, Bard had been traded to the Padres with Cla Meredith for Mirabelli. I believe he had a police escort to the stadium.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:06:27 pm
Wakefield is in trouble if the midges show up. As slowly as he throws, the weight of a passel of midges landing on the ball could cause his pitches to bounce off the turf on the way to the plate.
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:23:03 pm
Midgets?
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:23:59 pm
I should have said, Eddie Gaedel?
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:32:30 pm
Are knuckleballers similar to sinkerballers, in that a tired arm is said to be more effective than a strong arm for their chosen pitch? Wakefield's long layoff might be a bad sign if that's the case.
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:49:42 pm
Wake's had a bad back, that could effect his pitching more than a tires arm, which I dont think he gets
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:06:42 pm
I just thought his layoff from the injured back might mean his arm is too rested/strong to get proper "float" on the knuckler. From his long record, he seems fairly impervious to such minor things, but then again, he does appear to have more success in domes.
walt-o-meal replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:42:26 pm
Byrd's double wind-up is interesting. Anyone know if he uses that regularly?
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:44:33 pm
Yes, he does. He developed that as a way of distracting hitters.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:45:58 pm
It's not a balk if there are no baserunners.
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:50:35 pm
I think its a pretty sweet delivery
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:08:22 pm
Is it as sweet as Ben Weber's double-pump windup?
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:30:26 pm
Not even close. Plus, didn't Weber wear a yarmulke and side locks on the mound or something?
or mebbe it was thick glasses and a porn 'stache. I forget.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:36:08 pm
It was the scariest beard you'll ever see.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:45:27 pm
Regarding SBG's intro...
I had never realized that Wakefield was that guy. All I know is Boone. Despite my disdain for the Yankees, that homer is up there with Kirby's in my mind. It's almost too bad Aaron isn't on the Hafners this year. It'd be nice to see what he could do with a late-inning pinch-hit.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:47:09 pm
Coco Burnt-to-a-Crisp gets caught looking.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 7:51:21 pm
Good grief. Lofton was on the 2002 Giants, the 2003 Cubs, and the 2004 Yankees. The man is CURSED! I tell you!
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:02:18 pm
He was also on the '95 Indians, when they lost to the Braves in the WS--the only WS that Schuerholtz's Braves won. Still, I'd much prefer his career to, say, Mike Sweeney's career.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:07:59 pm
cos you'd hate getting hurt so often?
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:13:50 pm
Lofton has over 400 career PA in the postseason. Sweeney has zero. I have to imagine that hurts almost as much as the injuries.
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:14:13 pm
And most of the time, Sweeney hasn't even been in playoff contention.
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:15:41 pm
I wouldnt mind having Lofton on my team
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:03:20 pm
Where did they get all those homer hankies? Ebay?
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:16:26 pm
they are actually mislabeled 1999 Homer Hankies the StarTrib had in a garage somewhere. They sold them to keep to staff writers
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:04:10 pm
Ruh roh. Ortiz + RISP.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:06:07 pm
btw, I was driving home, listening to ATC on National People's Radio. Interview with jon heyman (sp?) of SI, talking about Rox fever. He says, and I closely paraphrase, "but they will likely be an underdog in the W.S. to the Red Sawks."
I almost crashed the car.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:10:23 pm
I think the Indians win game 2 (with Carmona, although it'll be in extra innings) but lose the series in 5.
I think the BoSox get swept.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:16:46 pm
Heyman sucks. Big time. And not because of that.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:09:13 pm
It would appear that even FOX is sick of Dane Cook.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:15:10 pm
This is OUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur country!
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:16:22 pm
Ugh, can you imagine if Mellencamp did the theme for FrankTV and Dane Cook was guest starring? I'd have to kill someone.
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:19:52 pm
But wouldn't you love to see Frank's impersonation of both?
Perhaps simulataneously?
bjhess replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:24:27 pm
That's hilarious. And scary.
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:11:59 pm
I half want Wakefield to pitch really well so that the "can't let the numbers dictate your strategy!" crowd that wanted Beckett tonight no matter what can eat some crow. Then I want Beckett to give up 9 runs in 0.1 IP of Game 5, and Schilling to give up approximately eleventy billion runs in -0.2 IP of Game 6.
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:17:15 pm
I can go along with this
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:17:43 pm
The Schilling runs need to be unearned so he has someone to blame.
Dread Pirate Will Young replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:21:19 pm
There's always the Democrats.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:20:53 pm
But if Schilling pitches negative innings and gives up positive runs, he'll have a very, very low ERA.
(For that appearance.)
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:17:28 pm
But you can't let those numbers dictate your strategy...
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:17:54 pm
Foggy memory - didn't Youkilis used to play 3rd?
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:23:20 pm
yah. 65 games in his rookie year (2004). and 24 in 2005.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:26:59 pm
Gracias
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:28:30 pm
I remember rumours of Mueller or Millar for Lohse. I think Gleeman said Twins should target Youk.
You know what would be great? If he were Ukranian and played the Ukulele.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:18:03 pm
I think Youkilis could play bass for a grunge band with that facial hair.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:19:42 pm
Cabrera's necklace would go nicely with a black cocktail dress. On a woman's neck...
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:20:15 pm
Baseball need to pick up on the NHL tradition of Playoff Beards
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:21:33 pm
Wedge is In.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:25:35 pm
Wedge bears more than a passing resemblance to Brett Favre, no?
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:24:55 pm
YES!!!
As a proud supporter of facial hair no matter how ridiculous, I think it should be required to receive your playoff share. Yanquis should push the clear-shaven rule as far as possible. (Playoff moustaches? Playoff sideburns? Playoff neck-beards?)
Rhubarb_Runner replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:10:29 pm
I only wear a beard during cold weather, but hey! the post season fits within that framework. I'm for it.
walt-o-meal replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:21:27 pm
I think houston did playoff beards last year, didn't they? Biggio was the oldest guy on the team, but couldn't grow anything...
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:33:21 pm
He gave his facial hair to Bagwell's chin.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:26:12 pm
JD DREW! JD DREW!
McCarver:"It's not Boo, it's Drew."
Me: "Huh?"
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:29:29 pm
Getting picked off there would have really added to the Drew aura.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:30:45 pm
Wakefield throws like he's having a game of catch with his son in the backyard.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:32:33 pm
Nice time for that interview.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:35:26 pm
Is there ever a good time for a Joe Buck interview?
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:36:14 pm
Fair. Balanced.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:34:45 pm
If the Indians make the World Series, that would make three consecutive trips by the AL Central; with three different teams; and none of them the Twins.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:35:13 pm
So we're due?
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:17:11 pm
Or the Royals.
Meche/Bannister will be the Sabathia/Carmona of 2008.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:39:30 pm
Byrd blows an 85 MPH fastball past Mirabelli.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:40:33 pm
One finger change up? When they work, aren't they all?
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:44:48 pm
Blake. We didn't need him.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:45:57 pm
Jeff Daniels comes up big.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:46:21 pm
lick it good
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:49:04 pm
I'm not a TV producer or director, but wouldn't this visit to the mound be a good time for that discussion on Byrd's windup instead of McCarver's inane blathering?
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:51:14 pm
I have the mute on and it's blissful.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:52:01 pm
I really should too. I don't know why I don't.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:51:03 pm
Oh, my. What a way to score a run.
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:52:05 pm
When was the last year a team would have been likely to ride a young guy like Clay Buchholz in the playoffs? I just realized he was completely shut down prior to the postseason.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:52:25 pm
aww, crap. right. foul ball. good luck for Youk.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:52:54 pm
Now I can refer back two comments of mine.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:54:27 pm
Well said.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:55:38 pm
Wakefield in danger of breaking a sweat.
spycake replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:56:23 pm
They should have pinch-hit for Wakefield in the fourth.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:12:31 pm
That's what Hurdle would have done.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:57:57 pm
Doug Mirabelli looks like the roller-skating transformer.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 8:58:21 pm
You can really hear the home plate umpire.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:03:01 pm
does Paul Byrd moonlight as the comic book guy on the Simpsons?
Rhubarb_Runner replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:16:34 pm
Worst. Windup. Ever.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:04:11 pm
Oh, my.
Joe Buck's Nightmare continues.
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:04:29 pm
You know, from what I've seen of the 5th inning, Wakefield was getting pretty good movement on his pitches, and was locating pretty well, too. (I didn't see the HR pitch, though.) Just one of those things.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 10:26:34 pm
Yup. Just one of those things in the life of a knuckleballer. As they say, it's a crapshoot.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:05:42 pm
Say Goodnight Gracie.
brianS replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:06:10 pm
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:06:41 pm
McCarver with his Eureka! moment.
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:07:41 pm
For those not listening, he just gave his "surprising" research. Lead off home runs lead to more multi-run innings than leadoff walks.
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:10:55 pm
Even for McCarver, that's stupid.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:15:42 pm
They did research!
At least for this season, it was true.
I betcha Leadoff Homers lead to more one-run innings than leadoff walks do too.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:07:37 pm
McCarver with the "surprise" again about lead-off homers leading to more runs than a lead-off walk.
Uffda.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:08:15 pm
"Lofton choosing the right pitch on which to run."
Say what you will about McCarver, but that's some good grammar right there.
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:16:59 pm
Updated totals:
238 -- intelligent things that Tim McCarver has said
1151798375928375935103 -- mind-numbingly stupid things that Tim McCarver has said
Rhubarb_Runner replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:19:49 pm
uh, that number looks amazingly close to eleventy billion
We're all grownups here; you can say 1.157e22 if you want, for instance.
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:23:13 pm
That's not as fun as mashing the keypad.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:24:28 pm
True. True.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 10:01:40 pm
Eleventy is beautiful word.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:26:30 pm
You mean 1.157E+22?
SBG replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:09:55 pm
Cleveland/Rox.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:10:26 pm
Browns 7
Pats 0
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:11:19 pm
sweet jebus. I turn away and is 7-0
looks like its going to be a Tribe/Rox WS
and I bet FOX is thrilled
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:13:16 pm
Having turned my Joe Buck arrogance filter up to full strength, I can tell his voice is dripping with disappointment.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:15:45 pm
I've muted him, and it's still red-lining.
Banjo replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:15:13 pm
Ah hell, what does he care, the checks are all the same.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:16:29 pm
Hey! Art Garfunkel?
Banjo replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:23:00 pm
Not quite. More obscure.
Andrew replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:24:01 pm
The glasses make me think of Roy Orbison a bit, but the hair looks more like Phil Spector.
Banjo replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:30:00 pm
I'll give you a hint..Might have been one of the inspirations for Ernie McCraken.
E-6 replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:40:30 pm
Bowling?
I fold...
New Britain Bo replied on October 16, 2007 at 10:22:05 pm
A nihilist? Genesis-machine whiz-kid on ST-TNG?
davidwatts replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:29:36 pm
looks like Gary Burghoff with a 'fro
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:18:24 pm
I feel like Joe Buck probably has a large enough ego that he's disappointed he'll be broadcasting to a smaller audience. (This is, of course, complete speculation on my part.)
Rhubarb_Runner replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:23:55 pm
Slama-lama-ding-*mute*
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:18:25 pm
It's possible that Hafner could make two consecutive outs this inning.
AMR replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:19:58 pm
Wait a minute. I think I misread the lineup.
And Shoppach gets the K.
ubelmann replied on October 16, 2007 at 9:22:25 pm
How A-Rodian of Youk.