The unprojectable Clay Buchholz
- Thread starter iayork
- Start date
They probably aren't even running a very good fantasy team. It's May. I haven't even planted my tomatoes yet.czar said:
I will never be mistaken for a member of the Buchholz Fan Club, but I think he is just really unlucky. I was at the Baltimore game and he only gave up 2 runs, but it seemed like every ground ball he gave up found a hole. On another day he throws another 7-8 IP 1 R game and his overall numbers look that much better. He's getting lots of whiffs (14th in MLB in SwStr%, tied with Matt Harvey) and avoiding the walks.
His performance could turn on a dime, but if he continues what he's been doing so far, he should see much better results.
His performance could turn on a dime, but if he continues what he's been doing so far, he should see much better results.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
He's striking out an insane number of batters.
K/9:
2013: 8.0 (injury caveat applies)
2014: 7.0
Career: 7.0
2015: 11.5
Same goes for the other stats recently posted; his BB rate is good (2.9, equalling his career best in 2014), his HR rate is fine (0.9, same as career avg), but his K rate has spiked up. As far as I'm concerned, he's doing a great job, and should continue doing just as he has been. With average luck going forward, he still might have the best season of his career.
K/9:
2013: 8.0 (injury caveat applies)
2014: 7.0
Career: 7.0
2015: 11.5
Same goes for the other stats recently posted; his BB rate is good (2.9, equalling his career best in 2014), his HR rate is fine (0.9, same as career avg), but his K rate has spiked up. As far as I'm concerned, he's doing a great job, and should continue doing just as he has been. With average luck going forward, he still might have the best season of his career.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Good points. I have noticed looking at the splits he has beeen getting hammered with RISP (1023 OPS vs 587 with nobody on). This could be fluky due to some extended bad innings but maybe there is something else going on. He is also having issues early on, and sometimes settles down but the damage is done by then. RHB'ers have an incredibly 515 BABIP so unless his LD rate is through the stratosphere (cant find LD rate by hand), then he has been particularly unlucky against them.
FIP says he should be better, lets see if he is. The revolving door with Catchers since Salty left can't be helping him, he has always been a bit picky there. He seemed to be working well with Vazquez until he got hurt.
Interesting that he's giving up a 346 / .424 / .490 line (59 batters) to righties, which makes me wonder if his new change-up is easy to pick up by righties.
But if one digs a little deeper, this is split into 389 / .463 / .543 (41 batters) at home versus 250 / .333 / .375 (18 batters) on the road so unless there's a reason why Buchholz (or the way he potches) would be adversely affected by Fenway, it's probably just bad luck.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
I doubt this is the problem, since he throws fewer than 10% changeups to righties (this number has fallen steadily across his career--remember when he was notable for throwing his change more to righties than lefties?).
Basically righties are hitting more line drives against all his pitches so far this year compared to last, but the uptick is sharpest for the cutter and sinker. The cutter is also the pitch he's throwing most vs. righties this year--over a third of the time, more than double his percentage back in 2010-11. Maybe he needs to rethink that.
It seemed two nights ago that he was fine until the Hanley fly ball turned into a double, unexpectedly. It was not well hit, Hanley makes, and then doesn't make, the catch. It takes a few minutes to work everything out, then Buchholz loses it for 2 or 3 batters immediately afterward, leading to 2 runs. Two more runs the next inning, then works out of a bases loaded jam (which seemed to bend his confidence back to ,"I'm better than you", from "Can't I catch a break?") then he settles in beautifully. I wonder, if Hanley doesn't injure himself and completes that catch, does Buchholz give up any runs that game?
I hate his cutter. It seems to float in there nicely for the batter as often or more than it breaks sharply and fools anyone. I think he does need to rethink it.Savin Hillbilly said:
luckysox said:
"Loses it" is a bit strong, at least in this particular instance.
Buchholz gave up a fairly hard hit ball to Longoria (driving in Loney), but one that was off the end of the bat (dropped near LF line at ~280 feet). He then gave up a two-hopper right at Pedroia that ate him up, allowing the 2nd run to come in the back door.
Honestly, depending on how you feel about the Longoria hit, the only ball that was truly off Buchholz early was the HR on the flat changeup up to Butler.
You're totally right. I'm remembering what makes me feel better, not the bad-luck reality that happened, which, for some reason, is more frustrating. It feels like there are no answers - and I think I said it in that game thread - it makes me feel like I'm going crazy watching Clay, and the others at given times. They should't be this bad.
Didn't get to watch today, but 13 GO to just one fly ball is a great sign. Hard to get beat too badly if you keep the ball on the ground.
Just 3 Ks, so maybe he pitched a bit more to contact down in the zone?
Just 3 Ks, so maybe he pitched a bit more to contact down in the zone?
While the offense (or lackthereof) will (rightfully) get most of the attention tomorrow, Clay Buchholz's 83 game score tonight puts his start as the 6th best in baseball this season.
Had he not given up the solo homer to Smith, it would have ranked 2nd behind Corey Kluber's 18 K performance against the Cardinals the other night.
Had he not given up the solo homer to Smith, it would have ranked 2nd behind Corey Kluber's 18 K performance against the Cardinals the other night.
One of the fascinating/maddening things about Clay is that just when you think you've figured out what his problem is, he throws a start that totally contradicts your theory. I've been thinking that one of Clay's issues was over-reliance on the cutter. So what does he do last night? Throw a gem where the cutter was his mainstay. And a magnificent cutter it was: 73% for strikes, with a 30% whiff rate.
But really, he had all five pitches working (he threw none of them fewer than 16 or more than 30 times), and his velocity continues to show encouraging recovery. He didn't keep the ball down as much as he sometimes does, and the result was a 5/11 GB/FB ratio. But at Safeco (which remains a poor power park even with the fences moved in) that could pass for strateegery.
But really, he had all five pitches working (he threw none of them fewer than 16 or more than 30 times), and his velocity continues to show encouraging recovery. He didn't keep the ball down as much as he sometimes does, and the result was a 5/11 GB/FB ratio. But at Safeco (which remains a poor power park even with the fences moved in) that could pass for strateegery.
Over his last 5 starts (or, more aptly, the last time people were running around screaming "peripherals mean nothing with Clay!!!11"), Buchholz has a 1.95 ERA in 37 IP with a 30/8 K/BB.
His FIP over that same stretch is 2.83. His FIP in April was 2.58.
I know things like the meltdown narrative are more fun, but sometimes pitching well and getting unlucky with results is *actually* a thing.
His FIP over that same stretch is 2.83. His FIP in April was 2.58.
I know things like the meltdown narrative are more fun, but sometimes pitching well and getting unlucky with results is *actually* a thing.
Another typical Buchholz start. Eight hits in six innings -- all singles -- but all eight hits bunched into two of the six innings, leading to four runs.
I have no idea if there's a way to measure how much a pitcher bunches up his hits allowed, vs, spreading them out, but Buchholz has got to be off the charts.
I have no idea if there's a way to measure how much a pitcher bunches up his hits allowed, vs, spreading them out, but Buchholz has got to be off the charts.
twibnotes said:
You could argue that for any pitcher, though. I get that Clay can be a bit of an enigma sometimes, but any pitcher can "turn bad fast". For all we know, EdRod could fall apart in today's start and never be good again. I wouldn't argue for trading him now to "get something for him while you can".
Also, the assumption that the best thing to do with Buchholz is to trade him now while his value is supposedly high is a dangerous one. There's no guarantee that whatever that "something" is that you could get for him may not be any more valuable or productive than Clay will be for the next 2.5 years.
I'm also not saying that they keep Clay at all costs, but they aren't about to shop him actively to the highest bidder nor should they.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
You could argue that about any pitcher, but it wouldn't be as accurate as it is about Clay. He is accruing a strong track record of being consistently inconsistent. His upside (which he is showing right now) means you don't dump him for nothing, but you also have to consider that the 2016+ rotation only has 5 spots. I wouldn't blame the Red Sox if they decided that they don't want to gamble on Clay to fill one (likely top of the rotation) spot, even at a very reasonable price. I think the chances of him being traded at the deadline or in the offseason is high and not a bad decision while he is pitching well. Of course, the FO would have to be ready to pay up for a better pitcher to have that make sense.
Jack Rabbit Slim said:
Unless it's a guarantee he's not returning in 2016 (which since the team holds the option, it isn't), I can't see how trading him while he's pitching well is anything but a bad decision. It defies logic to me to trade a young affordable pitcher while he's one of the few bright spots on the team. Unless a team bowls them over with an offer, I wouldn't do it.
I think people saying "trade him while his stock is high" are envisioning getting another Rodriguez (or an offensive equivalent) for him. I think that's a pipedream.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
This is kind of the whole issue, since we are not privy to the FO's thoughts. With Porcello, Kelly, Miley, Eddy, and Brian Johnson, the 2016 rotation has plenty of options for the mid to back end of the rotation, but could use help at the top. While $13m is a more than reasonable price for Clay, the opportunity cost of locking him into perhaps the last remaining rotation spot might be too much. If the FO has decided they don't want to keep him (again, we don't know), then trading him while he is going good is the correct move imo.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
If Clay clearly holds enough value to warrant the stance of keeping him, why wouldn't it be more of a possibility then pipedream?
(And of course there is going to be some risk involved in the return value not measuring up btw. That's simply a core reality in any MLB trade)
MikeM said:
Because the EdRod acquisition was a heist that might rank amongst the greats of all time if he lives up to what we've seen in his first three outings. Getting a repeat of that is the pipedream.
Can they get something that will be of more value to the 2015-2017 Red Sox than Buchholz will be? If so, pull the trigger. If not, you don't. I'm going on the premise that they aren't going to be offered something that can have such an immediate impact.
Jack Rabbit Slim said:
I think it likely boils down to that opportunity cost, and how they feel keeping him matches up with what else they plan on doing this winter.
Hypothetically speaking, if my own hunch that ownership goes the way of buying an ace this winter proves correct it would change the perception of this surrounding landscape quite a bit. Not to mention leave us pretty top heavy from a financial standpoint with both that player and Porcello pulling in $20m/per contracts.
At which point trading down from Clay's mid level risk cost in favor of either a cheaper upside option (which might already be in-house), or simply somebody who offers a higher level of dependability (god knows we likely project to have enough big question marks already), would make some sense imo.
I still don't get why they would trade him unless they are blown away. Not that he's a stellar pitcher, but he's average to above average and is on a pretty team friendly contract.
I suppose a team at the deadline could get pretty stupid, but unless it's a steal, I don't think there should be much appetite to trade him
I suppose a team at the deadline could get pretty stupid, but unless it's a steal, I don't think there should be much appetite to trade him
NDame616 said:
Because his durability has been a question mark that has dogged him throughout his career. Has he ever fully recovered from the shoulder issues? His shoulder was a factor that got him shut down in 2007 and later flared up again in 2013. I don't want him traded away for the next Joe Kelly, but if someone offers a serious prospect for Buchholz, the Sox should sell high and not look back.
He's AL top-10 among 55 qualifiers in SIERA, FIP- and xFIP-. He has the 15th best K/BB and the 7th best HR/9. While his ERA is only league average-ish, this is skewed by one terrible start. If you leave aside that April 12 train wreck, he has a 3.06 ERA with 80 Ks, 20 walks and just 3 HR in 82-plus innings over 13 starts.
Some team will have to bowl the Sox over with a Godfather offer (one they can't refuse) to pry Buchholz out at this point. If he didn't have two more years of team friendly team options, maybe this would be an ideal time to move him. But he's still in his prime and affordable for the next 2+ years, on a team with deep pockets so it's not as though his salary would be prohibitive anyway. He's not going anywhere.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
And also trading him, just creates a huge hole in the starting rotation for next year. If EdRod doesn't experience the straight line upward trajectory that we expect from every prospect, the problem is of course exacerbated.
In my lifetime said:
Whenever Clay is going good, and his trade value increases, people (you in this case but I'm not really picking on you….a lot of people say this) say that we can't afford to deal him because it would leave a hole in the rotation.
But when Clay is going bad, and he's a black hole in the rotation, people want him moved, but he has no trade value then.
We know at this point what Clay is - a tremendously talented but maddeningly and woefully inconsistent starter. When he's good Clay, he's dynamite, and if we knew he'd stay good Clay (including good health), of course we wouldn't want him dealt, especially because of his contract. But when he's bad Clay, he is just awful awful awful.
Unfortunately, good and bad Clay seem to take turns. Look at his career numbers:
2008 - 76.0 ip, 6.75 era, 4.82 fip
2009 - 92.0 ip, 4.21 era, 4.69 fip
2010 - 173.2 ip, 2.33 era, 3.61 fip
2011 - 82.2 ip, 3.48 era, 4.34 fip
2012 - 189.1 ip, 4.56 era, 4.65 fip
2013 - 108.1 ip, 1.74 era, 2.78 fip
2014 - 170.1 ip, 5.34 era, 4.01 fip
2015 - 93.0 ip, 3.68 era, 2.72 fip
I mean, he is ALL over the place. The only thing that's consistent about him is his inconsistency (and hence the title of this thread). I love having him at the back end of the rotation, where you can live with the ups and downs. But at the top of the rotation? He's no ace. No way, no how, even though he has ace-level talent.
If the Sox could get a really good return on him in a year where he's been good Clay, that's the time to move him.
I know its an imperfect stat, but fwiw Clay is currently sitting at 9th in WAR among starting pitchers. Also 18th in xFIP and 9th in FIP.ivanvamp said:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0
ivanvamp said:
Perhaps you're understating the effect of his injuries. http://www.prosportstransactions.com/baseball/Search/SearchResults.php?Player=clay+buchholz&Team=&BeginDate=&EndDate=&DLChkBx=yes&MinorsChkBx=yes&InjuriesChkBx=yes&PersonalChkBx=yes&submit=Search
Although it's more fun to imagine him as some kind of headcase, he is what he is - a somewhat fragile top notch starting pitcher who will occasionally get off track for a few starts. Designate him as an ace or quasi-ace, or a 1 or a 1.5 or a 2, or whatever - he's worth his contract and is a valuable member of the rotation.
As much as selling high on a wildly inconsistent pitcher does make sense, this year really is a different Clay. He's traded four-seamers for more sinkers and changeups, which is a great move considering the four-seamer is his worst pitch for whiffs and also his worst for groundballs. The change, cutter, and curve are his best whiff pitches, and the sinker, change, and curve are his best groundball pitches. He's throwing those 4 pitches over 90% of the time now, and the results speak for themselves. I'd like to see him reduce the usage of the four-seamer even more, and use it almost exclusively at the top of the zone to see if it can become an effective pitch for whiffs and popups, but in any case, 2015 Clay is quite awesome. His control is getting better and better as he moves from his late 20s into his early 30s, and his major league results are finally starting to resemble what we all dreamed about when he was rocketing through the minors some 8 years ago.
Two shit starts and we'll all hate him again.
That said, I don't know how you move Clay without getting killed by the media and fans after the Lackey deal. Should Ben stop making deals for the future because previous deals didn't work out? Of course not. Besides, the Miller trade (today's start from EdRo notwithstanding) seems like a great one. And I still think the Lackey deal will prove to be solid.
But after the sturm and drang of the Lester contract negotiations, the generally shit results thus far from Craig, Kelly (to say nothing of Porcello), and some of the concerns about their scouting and development operations, I'd be surprised if they move on from the one guy in the rotation who has been largely dependable this year for an unknown quantity in Boston. If we've learned nothing else these past few years it's that there is real value to the Red Sox in being able to play in Boston.
Clay may not be an ace in the traditional sense. And he may collapse at times in the most frustrating manner possible. But the one thing you can project with him is that his enormous inconsistency will result in him showing long flashes of success that the team can ride for extended stretches ... and that after the inexplicable periods of suck he will pull it together again. And so on.
That said, I don't know how you move Clay without getting killed by the media and fans after the Lackey deal. Should Ben stop making deals for the future because previous deals didn't work out? Of course not. Besides, the Miller trade (today's start from EdRo notwithstanding) seems like a great one. And I still think the Lackey deal will prove to be solid.
But after the sturm and drang of the Lester contract negotiations, the generally shit results thus far from Craig, Kelly (to say nothing of Porcello), and some of the concerns about their scouting and development operations, I'd be surprised if they move on from the one guy in the rotation who has been largely dependable this year for an unknown quantity in Boston. If we've learned nothing else these past few years it's that there is real value to the Red Sox in being able to play in Boston.
Clay may not be an ace in the traditional sense. And he may collapse at times in the most frustrating manner possible. But the one thing you can project with him is that his enormous inconsistency will result in him showing long flashes of success that the team can ride for extended stretches ... and that after the inexplicable periods of suck he will pull it together again. And so on.
Here's a quick and superficial look Clay's season so far (gotta run so I don't have time for any insightful commentary even if I had any).
He's using a new grip on his change this year -- or at least he was early in the season -- and it seems to be helping.
He's using a new grip on his change this year -- or at least he was early in the season -- and it seems to be helping.
iayork said:Here's a quick and superficial look Clay's season so far (gotta run so I don't have time for any insightful commentary even if I had any).
He's using a new grip on his change this year -- or at least he was early in the season -- and it seems to be helping.
One thing I had noticed was that his changeup seems to have more arm-side lateral and sinking movement than in the past.
ivanvamp said:
Since the end of 2009, his fWAR/180 IP is 2.5-2.6 (2.4 if you use his entire career).
So even if you assume the peripheral gains he has made this year are completely unsustainable (the improved K%, SwStr%, BB%, etc.) AND you assume that the shoulder issues he had at the end of 2013 and beginning of 2014 are still hidden there somewhere, he's still been about a $15-16m/year pitcher assuming he can throw ~180 IP. That is pretty good given the fact that it includes both "good" and "bad" Clay.
I'd strongly argue that a lot of this evidence points to the fact that "good Clay" is good enough that you don't move him unless you get absolutely bowled over with a Godfather-type offer.
Yes, he's gone to a two-seam like grip and he pitch now had two-seam-like movement, just 10 mph slower than his actual two-seam. I did a detailed look, with animations and stuff, at http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/clay-buchholz-and-the-new-old-changeup/ (on mobile so the link is all I can do)BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
He has been inconsistent throughout his career. I'm not sold on his durability or ability to consistently pitch at a high level. As such, I'm in the camp that would like to see the Red Sox sell high on Buchholz. I wouldn't give him away for a B prospect, of course, but I would move him if the Pirates offered me Josh Bell or Austin Meadows. The Pirates won't trade Glasnow. Despite having Tommy John surgery, I would consider trading him for Kingham, but would probably need something else thrown in. The Pirates have some pretty good prospects. I'm not sure how open they are to moving Bell or Meadows, but if they are desperate enough, e.g. like the Orioles in the the E.Rodriguez trade, the Red Sox can't hold on to Buchholz as if he is an untouchable, elite commodity. He has been excellent this year, but 3 months of baseball doesn't define a pitcher.