Jered Weaver: Dealin' Against The Aces

by WeaverMania on Aug 20, 2007 5:28 AM PDT

So I was looking at the probable starters for the next five games while the Angels are playing the Yankees and Blue Jays at home. I see that they're throwing Moseley against Hughes, Escobar against Mussina, and Lackey against Pettitte. Some very good matchups. Then I see Santana against Litsch, another good matchup for us. I then see the fifth game, Jered Weaver against Roy Halladay. So, it got me thinking and looking into the books.

Of his 21 starts this season, they've broken down like this when going against the opposition: Chad Gaudin, Mike Maroth, Jon Garland, Gil Meche, Paul Byrd, Kevin Millwood, Mark Hendrickson, Tyler Clippard, Felix Hernandez [x2], Boof Bonser [x2], Todd Wellemeyer, Jason Schmidt, Jorge de la Rosa, Jamey Wright, Brandon McCarthy, Nate Robertson, and Curt Schilling [x2].

In the five games where he's faced true ace's (Felix, Curt, Meche), Weaver has gone 0-2 with a 7.33 ERA and 1.92 WHIP while he's struckout 22 batters in 27 innings pitched. Ironically, he's also allowed 22 earned runs in those 27 innings pitched. Problem is, he's never gone more than six innings in any of those five starts. So it looks like that we'll either see the solid Weaver against a staff ace [6.0 IP, 7 H, 3 R, 3 ER, 3 BB, 9 K, 0 HR] or the horrible Weaver against a staff ace [6.0 IP, 12 H, 6 R, 6 ER, 1 BB, 1 K, 0 HR].

On a side note, Weaver is 1-0 with a 4.76 ERA and 1.59 WHIP in his career against the Blue Jays with eight strikeouts in 5.2 innings pitched. Add that into his 9-3 with a 3.00 ERA and 1.21 WHIP at Angel Stadium, and it looks like that maybe Weaver can outlast Halladay. Hopefully, for our sakes, Napoli [.225/.288/.364] is back in time to catch for Weaver because he's shit with Mathis [.311/.343/.466] back there. Generally August has been the worst month in Weaver's career, sporting a 3-3 record while posting a 4.58 ERA and 1.32 WHIP over his career.

Should be interesting, one way or another.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Worst month of his career?

You mean for the one whole season in which he's played an entire August month?

Curt isn't the Sox ace anymore. Not even the second best starter on the staff.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 20, 2007 9:08 AM PDT reply actions

pitcher rank disparity

Ive been thinking alot lately about pitcher rank disparity. That is, we often rank pitching staffs from 1 - 5. Things change over the course of a season due to performance, and big name stars whose performance declines but reputation maintains #1 status.

Anyway, Im wondering if there is a stat in the gigantic universe of baseball stats that measures correlation between the disparity in pitcher rank with team wins.

Due to the luck of the draw, how often does our number 1 face their number 5? Or vice versa, when Santana faced Becket in Fenway?

A team that does well despite pitcher rank disparity is probably a very good team. And Im sure the "stat" would not be that predictive because better teams are going to have better #5 pitchers than bad teams, etc. But, I do think it might have some correlation.

by ValisJason on Aug 20, 2007 9:53 AM PDT reply actions

I once sawa breakdown

that showed the 2002 Angels had inordinate luck in skipping teams' #1 and #2 starters consistently throughout the season - the deviation from chance bordered on divine intervention.

by Rev Halofan on Aug 20, 2007 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Questionable use of the word irony.

by ZiK on Aug 20, 2007 11:55 AM PDT reply actions

I blame Alanis Morissette

for this generation's obsession with the misappropriation of "ironic".

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 20, 2007 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions

But she's such

a great wordsmith!

(Was that ironic, or sardonic?)

by Stirrups on Aug 20, 2007 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions

How about moronic?

Not you of course, just the assertion.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 20, 2007 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions

I support

its usage. One wouldn't think that a pitcher with so many strikeouts over a given time would have that many runs. Though I do think words such as "unfortunately," "yet," or "however" would have also sufficed.

by BruinHalo on Aug 20, 2007 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmmm....

I guess I read it differently than you did.

I didn't see the word "ironically" as pointing out the fact that he has so many strikeouts and yet so many runs. I thought it was referring to the coincidence (and coincidence alone, not irony) that the number of strikeouts and the number of earned runs was the same. It's when people use irony for coincidence that I get irked.

by ZiK on Aug 20, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions