I'm more concerned about Bard than Wakefield. He looked lost back there yesterday, thank god there's a backstop behind home.
Wakefield goes up and down and then locks in, I'm not concerned...

A response to the question posed:

ERA can be deceiving, like any average. I am taking my lunch to check this out, and my theory has proved true: Wakefield's ERA is higher, but the incidence of what we could call "very competitive outings" (for fun, let's call them VCOs), defined as allowing 4 or fewer runs in a start, is actually very close to Beckett's. That is to say, you have nearly the same chance of getting a very low number of runs allowed by Beckett as you do Wakefield. The difference in ERA is this:when Wakefield has a bad outting, it tends to be very bad. This is important in figuring out where to pitch each guy in the rotation. Here are the numbers from last year:
Beckett, 29 starts, 181 IP, and 25 VCOs: times he gave up 4 or fewer earned runs. Wakefield, 33 starts, 225 IP, and 23 VCOs.

However, how many times do these pitchers blow up? Beckett gave up 5 plus runs just 4 times all season. Wakefield did so TEN times.

Why does this matter? It is a Bill Jamesian analysis: Wakefield's pitching will give you a very good chance to win almost as often as Beckett, but when he's bad, he will likely give up more than the opponent pitcher's career ERA whether it's their ace or their #5. Beckett, on the other hand, will very rarely give up so many runs that you are actually likely to lose. Because the VCOs between Beckett and Wakefield are actually extremely close, you are best utilizing Wakefield against better pitchers than Beckett, because non VCOs are very different: Wakefield is likely to outright lose 10 games a season no matter who the opposing pitcher is, and Beckett will rarely do so.

So how did this translate to wins and losses last year? Beckett, the ace, was 15-8 for a competetive Marlins club. Wakefield, in the 3 and 4 slot throughout the year, was 16-12 for an also-competitive Sox club. The difference is that Wakefield likely would have had most of those wins against aces, just like Beckett did. But he would have lost most of those games no matter what. Beckett almost certainly lost some of those games he lost in close contests. Move him back two slots and his win total would have almost certainly been significantly higher, where as for Wakefield that's not so: it almost certainly would have been the same. Net result should be more wins for the team overall.

Hat, you must have a very long lunch period. While I can appreciate your analysis the fact is Beckett is the better pitcher. His overall ERA is lower. His overall WHIP is lower. His quality starts is higher. The majority of the opposition has not seen his stuff.
One more thing: I would dare say that last year was Wakefield's career year. He was thre team's best pitcher. But history would suggest that he is at best a 12 game winner, while the ceiling is high for Beckett. We'll see how he does tonight, but I'd bet considerably better than the 17.18 ERA and 2.73 WHIP that Wakefield posted.
One more thing please do not compare Florida to Boston. Boston scored more runs than any team in baseball, while the Marlins were 19th, almost 200 runs behind. They were 8th in the NL alone.

I agree with Ed. Wake has a terrible record in Texas. Match him in a lineup with 3 guys hitting .350 against him versus tonight's pitcher, not Padilla.
Bard was lost but he it is his first game. Remy had it right, his approach is not typical of a knuckleball catcher, up close and reaching towards the ball rather than being patient and let it come to you.
Coco Crisp is a true leadoff hitter. Johnny who?

I'm more concerned with the Yanks. Man their lineup is good.

A note about Bonds......it was not syrigne it was a halloween prop. the LA dodgers have thrown worse things at him I hear.