Tim Wakefield

[Williamsburg2599]

Tim currently has 164 wins and a 4.31 ERA. This year he has already passed his career average and ESPN projection (both 12 wins) and could reach 20 wins for the first time in his career. He is a knuckleballer, so It's unknown when his career could end. It could be next off-season or 7 years down the road. But, if he pitches for the same amount of time as Niekro, and if he wins his career average each year (I didn't factor in a decline because he is a knuckleballer and Niekro himself didn't decline too much towards the end of his career) he'll finish with 248 wins. So, if his final numbers look like this:
250 wins
4.50 ERA
2500+ Ks
Most wins of any Red Sox player (ahead of Clemens and Cy)

Is he a HoFer?

[Baseball Guru]

Even if Wake gets to 170 wins this year, he's still 80 wins away from 250...

He's now 41 and even if he averaged 15 wins a season and pitched till he was 46, he'd still be 5 wins short...

IMO, he is NOT a HOF'er....I honestly think he's finish with 200-210 wins...

[Westlake]

No way. Not gonna happen. Not even really worth debating. He probably wont get anywhere near 250 wins.

[Williamsburg2599]

No way. Not gonna happen. Not even really worth debating. He probably wont get anywhere near 250 wins.

Not even worth debating? He's the third closest active player to the top 100 wins list and is 13th in active wins. I think we can at least discuss it.

[Westlake]

Not even worth debating? He's the third closest active player to the top 100 wins list and is 13th in active wins. I think we can at least discuss it.

13th in active wins is pretty much going to get you no where near the HOF for a starter at his age. He's a pretty average pitcher with good run support, and doesn't have the "fame" to help push him in.

Well, you got me debating with you about it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Tim Wakefield is the new Charlie Hough. He's a memorable pitcher, and he may well win 200 games, but he won't go to the HOF. He's just not that good.

If he wins 300 games, he'll go to the HOF. If he wins 300 games, cows will fly.

[dgarza]

T So, if his final numbers look like this:
250 wins
4.50 ERA
2500+ Ks
Most wins of any Red Sox player (ahead of Clemens and Cy)

Is he a HoFer?
4.50 ERA! No

[1905 Giants]

Maybe if he won 30 games three + seasons in a row...

[iPod]

Come on, Tim Wakefield? Are you kidding me?

Scott Sanderson, though? That's an entirely different story.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No offense, Williamsburg, but Wakefield's name belongs nowhere near this forum. There are dozens of pitchers with better numbers.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Wake is still a serviceable pitcher, and I recall seeing a replay of a knuckleball of his during the 1992 NLCS. That thing had no rotation on it whatsoever. Wow.

I like him, but he's not a Hall of Famer with his current stats. He'll have to pull a Julio Franco to get them. However, not even Phil Niekro pitched past 48.

[KCGHOST]

Wakefield is simply a slightly above average pitcher who has been very durable. Not a chance unless he can some how stagger to 300 wins.

[Williamsburg2599]

No offense, Williamsburg, but Wakefield's name belongs nowhere near this forum. There are dozens of pitchers with better numbers.


I'm not trying to campaign to get him in, I was just throwing his name out there because he said he feels younger than 41 and may pitch a long time into the future.

[philipthegreat]

Though he is my favorite player sadly he doesn't have the amount of wins needed to have a real shot.

[jalbright]

Basically, even through age 40, Wakefield isn't even on the radar screen yet. If he wants to make it, he'll have to at least mimic the finishing acts of fellow knuckler, Phil Niekro, and there's precious little evidence that he's good enough to do that.

Jim Albright

[Brad Harris]

Not even worth debating? He's the third closest active player to the top 100 wins list and is 13th in active wins. I think we can at least discuss it.

He'd be worth debating if he was ten years younger. Unless you can make that happen, I'm not interested.

[Brad Harris]

(I didn't factor in a decline because he is a knuckleballer and Niekro himself didn't decline too much towards the end of his career)

How much "towards the end" are you talking about? From what I can see, Niekro was not much better than an average pitcher after he turned 40. He had one or two seasons where he was slightly better than average, but the rest of his forties were spent as an, at best, league average pitcher. That he won 121 games during that span is an incredible testament to how much of a role his team's offenses played in keeping his win totals high when Niekro could not longer pitch like he once did. While the same thing could happen for Wakefield, it's highly unlikely.

Nevermind that the knuckleball is about the only thing Niekro and Wakefield have in common. Niekro was one of the top pitchers in the game for most of his career prior to his forties. Wakefield? He's had one season as a starting pitcher where he was significantly better than average (and that was in 1995.) While Niekro's career was full of dominance followed by a prolonged period of average play before the end, Wakefield's has been full of averageness from the beginning. What difference does a prolonged tail to his career make if the comet never shone brightly to begin with?

Reading through this very post, I'm ashamed I've wasted this many words on the Hall of Fame case of Timothy Stephen Wakefield.

[Williamsburg2599]

He'd be worth debating if he was ten years younger. Unless you can make that happen, I'm not interested.

Then why bother to post? Seriously, if you don't think it's worth discussing, then don't discuss it.

To put it simply, I saw that he says that he still feels young and doesn't know how long he'll keep pitching, and I was wondering if he won his 162 game average (12 games) for as long as Niekro pitched (age 48) he could have 225-250 wins, and if that maybe, just maybe that could get him into the hall. As I said before, I'm not campaigning for him to get into the hall nor am I claiming he should be, I was simply trying to get a discussion going.

I apologize for trying to bring a new player into the discussion around these parts of BBF, I guess some people would rather discuss Pete Rose's eligibility for the billionth time or making crap shoot guesses about some guy who's been in the league for 3 years.

[Brad Harris]

Then why bother to post? Seriously, if you don't think it's worth discussing, then don't discuss it.

To put it simply, I saw that he says that he still feels young and doesn't know how long he'll keep pitching, and I was wondering if he won his 162 game average (12 games) for as long as Niekro pitched (age 48) he could have 225-250 wins, and if that maybe, just maybe that could get him into the hall. As I said before, I'm not campaigning for him to get into the hall nor am I claiming he should be, I was simply trying to get a discussion going.

I apologize for trying to bring a new player into the discussion around these parts of BBF, I guess some people would rather discuss Pete Rose's eligibility for the billionth time or making crap shoot guesses about some guy who's been in the league for 3 years.

Get off your high horse. No one is opposed to having a conversation about new or interesting candidates. I suppose the point is that Wakefield's not much more of a candidate than say Tom Candiotti was. Nor will he be, whether he pitches to 48 or not. I've already tried to humor you by engaging in a serious discussion of why Wakefield doesn't merit consideration as a candidate, but perhaps you missed that given you were too busy getting your panties in a twist over the general lack of enthusiasm for this dud.

Wakefield has averaged 24 games started per season through his career, though he's only reached or surpassed that number 3 times in the past 8 seasons. Wakefield's career average is 11 wins per 24 starts. That means his career "average" is 11 wins per season, not 12. Let's say that Wakefield wins 5 more games between now and the end of the season, giving him a career high 18 victories this season. That's 169 wins through his age-40 season. Throw in 8 more years of 11 wins per season and you're looking at 257 career victories.

The guy is still, at best, a league average pitcher who pitched forever. Tommy John was better than that and he's not in. Jim Kaat was better than that and he's not in. Bert Blyleven was a lot better than that and he's not in. Tim Wakefield wouldn't sniff a single vote from the BBWAA if this happened, nor should he, unless some sentimental Boston writer or two decided to cast a throw-away vote for old time's sake.

And knuckleball or not, the odds of Wakefield sustaining his career performance are extremely poor. What you're looking at above is a best case scenario...and he's still not much of a candidate!

It's tough enough to talk about players who are on a Hall of Fame "path" 10 or 15 years before their career is over. But for a guy like Wakefield, he's not even on a Hall of Fame path.

[Williamsburg2599]

257 Wins would put him in the top 40, within 10 spots of such HOFers such as Al Spalding, Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Vic Willis, Joe McGinnity, Eppa Rixey, and Bob Feller. Of course, this is best case scenario, but this is what I've been talking about since the beginning of the thread. But please, I've already wasted too much of your time...

[ColbyPants]

I'm not trying to campaign to get him in, I was just throwing his name out there because he said he feels younger than 41 and may pitch a long time into the future.

Anybody with a Doug Mirabelli avatar has to campaign for Wakefield, as he pretty much guarantees Dougie a job. that said, and as much as I love Wake, and hope he does pitch till he is 48, barring a late career run of epic proportions, it des not look good. That said as I type this, he is leading tonight, so ya never know. . . .

TomC

[Williamsburg2599]

Anybody with a Doug Mirabelli avatar has to campaign for Wakefield, as he pretty much guarantees Dougie a job. that said, and as much as I love Wake, and hope he does pitch till he is 48, barring a late career run of epic proportions, it des not look good. That said as I type this, he is leading tonight, so ya never know. . . .

TomC

Hey, dougie's batting .800 and slugging 3.000 with 2HRs and 4RBIs in August....;)

[Matt1901]

Even if Wake gets to 170 wins this year, he's still 80 wins away from 250...

He's now 41 and even if he averaged 15 wins a season and pitched till he was 46, he'd still be 5 wins short...But then he would probably come back for another season just to get those five wins.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I wonder just how Wakefield would be regarded if he won 160 games between ages 40-49. I mean, it won't happen, barring a miracle, but what if it did? Would Wakefield then get the nod for the Hall?

[jalbright]

I wonder just how Wakefield would be regarded if he won 160 games between ages 40-49. I mean, it won't happen, barring a miracle, but what if it did? Would Wakefield then get the nod for the Hall?

Sure he would, because he'd get extreme notoriety for his age and doing something unprecedented. The thing is, he's not even on the radar yet, so unless he rings up two 20 win seasons or can finish at least as well as Phil Niekro (without coming close to that level before age 40), he's not going to get there. Guys his age who aren't on the radar are a poor bet to even make the radar, much less the Hall.
Jim Albright

[Brad Harris]

Let's say a guy pitches 30 years and wins exactly 10 games - no more, no less - each season. Does the fact that he finishes his career with 300 wins make him a Hall-of-Famer?

Wakefield could finish with 260 wins and still not be half the pitcher guys like Feller, Gibson or Hubbell were.

Although I'd like to see a show of hands here about the Hall-worthiness of the above hypothetical.

Were Wakefield to pitch into his 50's, no better than he has so far, and amass 300 wins before hanging it up, how many of you would think he deserved the Hall of Fame then?

[Baseball Guru]

But then he would probably come back for another season just to get those five wins.

lol.. Very true, but that was assuming he'd pitch 5 more years and averaged 15 wins and that is stretching it as he has only won 15 or more 3 times (4 if you assume he will win at least 2 more this year) :)

[SoxFan345818]

I am a HUGE Wakefield fan and I think that he has NO SHOT to make it to the Hall. He just simply isnt good enough.

[rdonahue]

Let's say a guy pitches 30 years and wins exactly 10 games - no more, no less - each season. Does the fact that he finishes his career with 300 wins make him a Hall-of-Famer?


Exactly. Counting numbers are great, but when you're nothing but mediocre, who cares?

Even more extreme:
A 21 year old goes 8-5 with 100 Ks (injuries cost him part of the season) and does that every year for 40 seasons (until he's 60). He'd be the oldest guy ever and end up with 320 wins and only 200 losses and 4000Ks. Does the fact he played way longer than anyone and wasn't bad when healthy make him a HOFer?

The HOF is about being great and sustaining greatness (or be really great for a while and good for a long time). If a guy pitched poorly (i.e. 10-13) but was able to do it until he's 80 (these examples keep getting crazier) the fact that he won 600 games shouldn't make him a HOFer.

[ElHalo]

Let's say a guy pitches 30 years and wins exactly 10 games - no more, no less - each season. Does the fact that he finishes his career with 300 wins make him a Hall-of-Famer?

No. .

[TheKingofKings]

He might only get into the HOF because he is/will be one of the top 3 best knuckleballers of all-time.

[Erik Bedard]

Top three? I see Wood, Cicotte, Niekro, and others ahead of him. And only one is in the HoF (Niekro).

[catbox_9]

He might only get into the HOF because he is/will be one of the top 3 best knuckleballers of all-time.

Why should that matter? If a guy throws nothing but softball-style pitches is he a HOFer regardless of how he does?

(As far as I know there aren't any pitchers who have done that so he'd therefore be the best)

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Wakefield really did ratchet it up to win 300, it would mean that he reached his peak in his forties.

I would not deny Wakefield the HOF if he made it to 300. It would be an unprecedented accomplishment, and an accomplishment that would require him to exceed the peak value he has displayed so far. Exceed it by a lot, I might add. If he did that, we would then be talking about, for all practical purposes, a different player than the guy we're talking about now. Every other HOF candidate Wakefield's age had either established his HOF credentials or he hadn't (and that includes, by the way, Julio Franco, who's been proposed for the HOF by some here, as well).

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Wakefield's best season was probably 1995:

16-8, 2.95 ERA, 1.183 WHIP, 163 ERA+

He'd have to pitch at level for the next eight seasons, when he would be 49 years old, to get to 300 wins. What are the odds of that happening?

[Brad Harris]

If he did that, we would then be talking about, for all practical purposes, a different player than the guy we're talking about now.

Which is precisely the point of how futile such a discussion is at this point in time. There's really nothing here to discuss.

We might as well discuss the likelihood of my 5-year old son making the Hall of Fame, or my 60-year old father.

[1905 Giants]

Which is precisely the point of how futile such a discussion is at this point in time. There's really nothing here to discuss.

We might as well discuss the likelihood of my 5-year old son making the Hall of Fame, or my 60-year old father.

The five-year-old has a chance, he's not in the majors yet.

[jalbright]

While I don't want to demean Classic's five year old (or my six year old), neither are very likely to make the HOF--but they may have slightly superior chances to Wakefield at this point, particularly if we take the two youngsters together. ;) Seriously, though, the chances of all three are very near zero at this point: the youngsters because they haven't even demonstrated they can be MLB pitchers, and Wakefield because he's 40 and to this point hasn't demonstrated he's a HOFer.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

Which is precisely the point of how futile such a discussion is at this point in time. There's really nothing here to discuss.

We might as well discuss the likelihood of my 5-year old son making the Hall of Fame, or my 60-year old father.

Wakefield IS a knuckleballer. The age progression of a knuckleballer is different than that of a stuff pitcher.

Could he last until age 50, period?

I tend to doubt it. No one has to date. The only 50-plus athlete in any team sport, save for Satchel Paige (and only for a stunt) and Minnie Minoso (again, a stunt) is Gordie Howe, at age 51.

[Brad Harris]

Wakefield has an 18-2 record against the Devil Rays. For the record here are some facts.

1. The Devil Rays have consistently been the worst team in the league since entering it in 1998.

2. Wakefield's 18 wins are the most by any pitcher against the Devil Rays.

3. Since the Devil Rays entered the league, Wakefield has gone 109-96 (.531) overall.

4. Removing Wakefield's 18-2 record against Tampa Bay leaves his with just a 91-94 (.492) record against other teams over the past 10 seasons.

Just found that interesting.

[Brad Harris]

Wakefield IS a knuckleballer. The age progression of a knuckleballer is different than that of a stuff pitcher.

Could he last until age 50, period?

I tend to doubt it. No one has to date. The only 50-plus athlete in any team sport, save for Satchel Paige (and only for a stunt) and Minnie Minoso (again, a stunt) is Gordie Howe, at age 51.

As coincidence would have it, I was doing some research on 20+ year career pitchers this morning and stumbled over this interesting tidbit: Jack Quinn (who retired in 1933) pitched his final game 6 days after his 50th birthday. If you're ever looking for an example of a guy who "pitched past his 50th birthday", you might save that one for an office bet or something. ;)

[MadHatter]

As much as I love Wakefield (or "Cracker" as he's known in my house) I just don't see him as a true HOFer.

[ReignInBlood]

Just because he carried a no hitter into the 6th doesn't make him worthy of being in this forum.

[digglahhh]

Let's say a guy pitches 30 years and wins exactly 10 games - no more, no less - each season. Does the fact that he finishes his career with 300 wins make him a Hall-of-Famer?

Wakefield could finish with 260 wins and still not be half the pitcher guys like Feller, Gibson or Hubbell were.

Although I'd like to see a show of hands here about the Hall-worthiness of the above hypothetical.

Were Wakefield to pitch into his 50's, no better than he has so far, and amass 300 wins before hanging it up, how many of you would think he deserved the Hall of Fame then?

If Wakefield was to do that, he would have a case - but a different one. His case would be one of unique accomplishment. His case would be a mixture of accomplishment and novelty.

[digglahhh]

Exactly. Counting numbers are great, but when you're nothing but mediocre, who cares?

Even more extreme:
A 21 year old goes 8-5 with 100 Ks (injuries cost him part of the season) and does that every year for 40 seasons (until he's 60). He'd be the oldest guy ever and end up with 320 wins and only 200 losses and 4000Ks. Does the fact he played way longer than anyone and wasn't bad when healthy make him a HOFer?

The HOF is about being great and sustaining greatness (or be really great for a while and good for a long time). If a guy pitched poorly (i.e. 10-13) but was able to do it until he's 80 (these examples keep getting crazier) the fact that he won 600 games shouldn't make him a HOFer.

Those hypotheticals are meaningless. These guys don't exist. There is no precedent for those career arcs to be brought up.

And, BTW, I'd vote for anybody who won a Major League game at 80.

[Brad Harris]

Those hypotheticals are meaningless. These guys don't exist. There is no precedent for those career arcs to be brought up.

Nor is there any precedent for the scenario suggested about Wakefield. Niekro was a great pitcher who had a sustained decline phase as an average pitcher in his forties. Wakefield was an average pitcher, at best, and a sustained decline in his case would mean significantly less than Niekro's. Never mind that Wakefield doesn't have a case to add to, as Niekro did at this point in his career.