[Eric Van]

In the last two weeks the Sox have signed an established replacement for Buchholz an established replacement for Lowrie and an established replacement for Ellsbury. With the latter two the replacements are a bridge to Iglesias and Kalish while Lackey is a 5 year contact replacement for the German. Methinks Theo has something cooking in the crockpot.

Except that Lackey was signed to replace the combination of Tim Wakefield, Michael Bowden, and Junichi Tazawa, over whom he represents a titanic upgrade worth every penny of the contract. Signing him to replace Buchholz means paying $16.5M instead of $0.5M to get the exact same performance*, and makes no sense at all.

Mike Cameron was signed to replace Jeremy Hermida as the replacement for Jason Bay, again a titanic upgrade worth every penny (and in fact, a minimal downgrade from Bay). Signing him to replace Ellsbury instead doesn't make any sense, either.

*Lackey, 176.1 IP, 3.83 ERA
Buchholz including MLE, 185.1 IP, 3.79 ERA

[Dogman2]

Except that Lackey was signed to replace the combination of Tim Wakefield, Michael Bowden, and Junichi Tazawa, over whom he represents a titanic upgrade worth every penny of the contract. Signing him to replace Buchholz means paying $16.5M instead of $0.5M to get the exact same performance*, and makes no sense at all.



*Lackey, 176.1 IP, 3.83 ERA
Buchholz including MLE, 185.1 IP, 3.79 ERA

I can be very obtuse at times. This is one of those times.

Can you explain how Lackey and his numbers and Buchholz and his numbers are the exact same performance given the fact that Buchholz has never compiled these numbers in the majors? Are you surmising that Buchholz will put up these numbers given his ml accomplishments? Did I miss the analysis that supports this notion using his Red Sox numbers of 168 IP, 5.51 ERA from 2008/09 or using his ml numbers of 142.2 IP, 2.42 ERA from the same time period? Which one doesn't wash?

[bosockboy]

I can be very obtuse at times. This is one of those times.

Can you explain how Lackey and his numbers and Buchholz and his numbers are the exact same performance given the fact that Buchholz has never compiled these numbers in the majors? Are you surmising that Buchholz will put up these numbers given his ml accomplishments? Did I miss the analysis that supports this notion using his Red Sox numbers of 168 IP, 5.51 ERA from 2008/09 or using his ml numbers of 142.2 IP, 2.42 ERA from the same time period? Which one doesn't wash?

Agreed. Until Clay does this for a full season at the major league level, he's not John Lackey. He has John Lackey potential.

[j44thor]

Except that Lackey was signed to replace the combination of Tim Wakefield, Michael Bowden, and Junichi Tazawa, over whom he represents a titanic upgrade worth every penny of the contract. Signing him to replace Buchholz means paying $16.5M instead of $0.5M to get the exact same performance*, and makes no sense at all.

Mike Cameron was signed to replace Jeremy Hermida as the replacement for Jason Bay, again a titanic upgrade worth every penny (and in fact, a minimal downgrade from Bay). Signing him to replace Ellsbury instead doesn't make any sense, either.

*Lackey, 176.1 IP, 3.83 ERA
Buchholz including MLE, 185.1 IP, 3.79 ERA

What were Tazawa's and Bowden's MLE's last year?

I tend to think MLE's are a bit rosier than they should be. That said I won't disagree that Buchholz can give the Sox 85% of Lackey for 25% of the cost.

[E5 Yaz]

This isn't an original concept here. Before Lackey and Cameron were done with their press conferences, talk started that they Sox had flexibility with Ellbury and Buchholz. Unnamed Sox officials have been quoted as saying a trade involving both isn't going to happen.

But as we saw in the Santana trade talks, Theo & Co are extremely reluctant to package the top talent in one deal ... regardless of what player that deal would fetch.

Lackey's had injury bumps each of the last two years, and the "sixth starter" right now is Wake. Things happen in a rotation where Wake, Dice-K and, to a lesser extent, Lackey and Beckett haven't always been 100%.

Cameron is 37 and if Ellsbury is traded, the backup CF is TBA. You would basically need to patch and fill LF, as well as trading for the "big bat" at 1B.

Ellsbury and Buchholz are not "very expendable." They could trade one in the right deal, but there's a substantial risk in the idea of trading both.

[Eric Van]

What were Tazawa's and Bowden's MLE's last year?

I tend to think MLE's are a bit rosier than they should be. That said I won't disagree that Buchholz can give the Sox 85% of Lackey for 25% of the cost.

By definition, MLEs, if they are done correctly, are not too rosy or too dark; the entire point is that the group of all players, when translated, becomes predictive. The MLEs of all players, as a group, matches their MLB performance. That's what the E stands for. You can't try to demonstrate that they're wrong with two guys.

Buchholz was way better (2.37) than his MLE in the 10 starts from August 8 to September 24. The concept behind MLEs is that guys blow hot and cold all year long and when a guy disappoints in MLB, or exceeds expectations, it is usually because the cold patches happened to come in MLB or AAA, rather than because he was particularly illl- or well-suited to get MLB batters out as opposed to AAA ones. And anyone who has watched Clay Buchholz knows his stuff translates to getting MLB hitters out (actually a massive understatement). So the most parsimonious explanation is that Clay's rough stretches (2 bad outings in a 3 game stretch in late July / early August, and 2 in a row at the end of the year) happened to come in the second half.* Plenty of MLB pitchers had first-half / second-half splits his size.

I used Clay Davenport's MLEs because they're the only ones I trust.

*That he hit his first rough patch soon after callup seems suspicious -- but it was his 2nd and 4th MLB starts. Why was he so good in his first outing and quite decent in his 3rd if this were nerves, or a need to adapt to MLB hitters? And, of course, if it were either of those things, we'd toss his first four starts out "EV style" and get an even rosier number for his season. But there's no justification for doing that. He just hit a rough stretch. Ditto for his last two starts.

Until Clay does this for a full season at the major league level, he's not John Lackey. He has John Lackey potential.

Not the way Theo Epstein sees it:

"My thoughts about Clay Buchholz haven't changed over the years. He started to show it last year, in a six-start stretch in August and September when he was one of the best pitchers in baseball. We think that's what he is. He went out in an elimination playoff game and threw a really good ballgame. We still think he's a top-of-the-rotation guy, he's under our control for five years and he has the makeup to succeed in Boston."

He had two opportunities to use the word "potentially" or "potential" there and he opted not to.

Now, that is either Theo hyping Buchholz in preparation for a trade -- as if other GMs would even know or care about a comment to Gordon Edes for the ESPN Boston Sox blog, after the Lackey press conference -- or Theo seeing no problem in throwing a classy guy and beat reporter a little hint on the true odds of a Buchholz trade (i.e., the mean of nada, zero, zilch, and bupkes) so that he doesn't waste time speculating about it. And ditto to the fan base.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Now, that is either Theo hyping Buchholz in preparation for a trade -- as if other GMs would even know or care about a comment to Gordon Edes for the ESPN Boston Sox blog, after the Lackey press conference -- or Theo seeing no problem in throwing a classy guy and beat reporter a little hint on the true odds of a Buchholz trade (i.e., the mean of nada, zero, zilch, and bupkes) so that he doesn't waste time speculating about it. And ditto to the fan base.

Or he sees no downside in trying to give Buchholz some positive reinforcement in a public forum.

[phragle]

And anyone who has watched Clay Buchholz knows his stuff translates to getting MLB hitters out (actually a massive understatement).

To add to this point. He throws five plus pitches (fastball, sinker, change, slider, curve) any of which can be un-hittable on a given night. What other young studs throw five plus pitches in the AL? Greinke, Verlander and Hernandez, they all throw fastball, sinker, slider, curve, change. Would if I told you Buch's stuff is as dangerous as theirs, would you believe me? I hope so, because it is. Out of all the qualified AL starters, Jon Lester (2010 CYA winner, callin' it right now) generates less contact than any one, followed by Verlander, Sabathia, Hernandez and Greinke. Point? Clay's contact percentage is in between Hernandez and Greinke. Thats filthy, filthy stuff. Add that to his ground ball percentage and you have bona fide stud on your hands.

[Dogman2]

To add to this point. He throws five plus pitches (fastball, sinker, change, slider, curve) any of which can be un-hittable on a given night. What other young studs throw five plus pitches in the AL? Greinke, Verlander and Hernandez, they all throw fastball, sinker, slider, curve, change. Would if I told you Buch's stuff is as dangerous as theirs, would you believe me? I hope so, because it is. Out of all the qualified AL starters, Jon Lester (2010 CYA winner, callin' it right now) generates less contact than any one, followed by Verlander, Sabathia, Hernandez and Greinke. Point? Clay's contact percentage is in between Hernandez and Greinke. Thats filthy, filthy stuff. Add that to his ground ball percentage and you have bona fide stud on your hands.

To subtract from this point. He does throw 5 pitches that can work and be un-hittable, but adding the others that do this is completely insane. Buchholz is not in the same class as those other established pitchers as his ML numbers don't in anyway compare to these elites. Saying he is comparable to Lackey and then, by your extension, Greinke, Verlander, hernandez, is completely silly given the number of variables that affect projections be it from James, Davenport or anyone else.

Clay has not done this in the Majors. There is no comparison.

[phragle]

To subtract from this point. He does throw 5 pitches that can work and be un-hittable, but adding the others that do this is completely insane. Buchholz is not in the same class as those other established pitchers as his ML numbers don't in anyway compare to these elites. Saying he is comparable to Lackey and then, by your extension, Greinke, Verlander, hernandez, is completely silly given the number of variables that affect projections be it from James, Davenport or anyone else.

Clay has not done this in the Majors. There is no comparison.

Did you quote the wrong person? I'm referring to his stuff alone, that is in fact by the numbers as nasty as anyones else's in baseball.

[bombdiggz]

Clay has not done this in the Majors. There is no comparison.

He absolutely has done this in the majors (8/8-9/24), just not for a full season. Of course, he hasn't played a full season. I believe Phragle was talking about his stuff, and sure he is not as established or has had as much ML success as the group mentioned. But if you are looking at stuff, Clay absolutely belongs with those guys.

This is no longer a case of a prospect with potential. Clay has showed dominance over short periods (no-no) and sustained periods (late summer 2009). I mean his stuff really can't be questioned. He has taken huge leaps forward on the MLB stage. Those guys have all started a lot more games than Clay, so of course he doesn't have the track record of results. But his stuff is just as filthy as the aforementioned.

[Eric Van]

To subtract from this point. He does throw 5 pitches that can work and be un-hittable, but adding the others that do this is completely insane. Buchholz is not in the same class as those other established pitchers as his ML numbers don't in anyway compare to these elites. Saying he is comparable to Lackey and then, by your extension, Greinke, Verlander, hernandez, is completely silly given the number of variables that affect projections be it from James, Davenport or anyone else.

Clay has not done this in the Majors. There is no comparison.

Let's compare Clay to Sabathia.

At the exact same age, Sabathia had established himself as an MLB workhorse starter. He already had five full years of MLB pitching under his belt and had a career 106 ERA+ and was coming off a 104 season. Folks looking at his stuff thought he'd get better, sooner than later, and they were right. He had a 139 ERA+ the next year and has been 140 starting then.

Clay Buchholz's age 24 half-season is probably more impressive than Sabathia's full year. Under any other circumstances he would have been recalled after just a few starts in Pawtucket, and from what we know about MLE's he could have been expected to put up excellent numbers had he made those AAA starts for the Sox. When he was recalled, he put up a 111 ERA+ in his half-year.

But wait, you say ... Sabathia had been doing this forever! How can you compare the two?

Exactly.

C. C. Sabathia graduated HS at age 17. Who knows how many innings he pitched in HS? Presumably quite a few.

By the time he was 19 plus a few months, C.C. had thrown 234 additional innings in the minors.

What was Clay Buchholz doing at the same age? Mostly playing the OF. The guy is faster than Jacoby and apparently a pretty good hitter. While (as amarshal points out) he did pitch in HS, it wasn't his sole focus and apparently not even his emphasis, since it hasn't been widely reported. And he didn't pitch an inning his freshman year in college.

During the summer he turned 20, C.C. threw 180 innings in the majors. Clay Buchholz went back to the mound as a JuCo sophomore -- still splitting time in the OF, though -- and threw 86 insane innings, got drafted by the Sox, and threw another 41 IP.

By the time they were both 24, C.C. had been pitching full-time since he was, what, 14? And had all his HS innings and 234 in the minors and 776 in the big leagues. Clay Buchholz had been pitching full-time since he was 20 and had fewer HS innings (in all likelihood), 86 college, 344 in the minors, and 99 in the majors. That's 1010 versus 529 plus a likely edge in HS. And six more years of concentrating full-time on his craft.

Given the incredible advantage Sabathia had in experience, what do you make of the fact that Buchholz was better at age 24?

Jon Lester had 474 professional innings when he was derailed briefly by cancer, very close to the 529 Clay had in college and pro ball coming into this year. In this comparison Lester's a year younger than Clay but he again has the advantage of having been dedicated to pitching since high school. His 2007, like Clay's 2009, was split between Pawtucket and Boston, but Clay was better at both levels. You know what happened to Lester starting in 2008.

Tim Lincecum had a ton of HS and 342 college innings under his belt when he split his first pro season between the minors and the show -- and put up a 112 ERA+ for the Giants. Admittedly, again, he was almost two years younger, but again, he'd been focusing on pitching (rather famously in his intensity) years longer than Clay.

Felix Hernandez had 581 pro innings coming into his second full season with the M's. And he then had, you guessed it, a 112 ERA+. People were starting to get impatient with him, but the next year (after another 200 IP) he went to 122 and then this year he skyrocketed. Granted, he did all this at ages 3 years younger than Clay at a comparable point in post-HS experience -- but, again, Felix became a full-time pitcher at a much younger age than Clay.

Verlander is the only guy that phragle mentioned who was better than a 112 ERA+ with a significantly fewer amount of post-HS innings (and sustained it; Greinke had a 120 his rookie season but that's a more complicated story, of course).

Buchholz has been unbelievably good given his lack of experience.

If you care to, find us a prospect who was just as heralded in terms of stuff, and who had as much success at a comparable point in post-HS experience, and didn't get hurt, but stalled and never got much better. Only if there are a bunch of guys like that can you argue that Clay is not an excellent bet to become an elite pitcher. Because there are certainly a whole bunch of guys like that who did get much better.

Edit: Clay did pitch in HS but was a 2-way player like he was as a sophomore in college when he returned to the mound ...

This post has been edited by Eric Van: 21 December 2009 - 04:21 PM

[amarshal2]

Buchholz pitched in high school (according to his family/friends who have pm'ed me on the matter in the past). He just took a year off at McNeese St. when the coach didn't play him.

edit: added source, since it just looks like I'm blindly stating facts without one.

This post has been edited by amarshal2: 21 December 2009 - 04:15 PM

[Eric Van]

Buchholz pitched in high school. He just took a year off at McNeese St. when the coach didn't play him.

And here I re-read all the BA writeups about him, all of which imply that he didn't.

Of course, a lot of guys pitch in HS even when they are primarily position players. I should have realized that ... but as a two-way player who was good enough that his first college coach thought he should just play the OF, I'm still pretty sure he spent less time in HS learning how to pitch than all these comps ... which was what BA was stressing in their writeups, I think.

[Dogman2]

Phragle and Bombdiggz. I didn't quote the wrong person or say anything about Clay being a prospect. You guys are now saying because Clay has 5 pitches he should be compared to elite pitchers like Verlander, Greinke and Hernandez. That's crazy given the fact that Clay used those same 5 pitches to the tune of approximately 180 IP's and 5.5 ERA in the majors. Because Clay had a no hitter and 6 weeks of decent pitching and very good ml numbers in no way supports a projection that EV threw out when he said Clay and Lackey are comparable.

EV, now we are using HS aged and college aged kids numbers for comparative purposes in support? Why am I so surprised by this? Did I miss Jeff Juden's induction into the Hall of Fame?

This post has been edited by Dogman2: 21 December 2009 - 05:12 PM

[Eric Van]

Because Clay had a no hitter and 6 weeks of decent pitching and very good ml numbers in no way supports a projection that EV threw out when he said Clay and Lackey are comparable.

Oh, so minor league numbers are meaningless after all? You should publish that study and maybe they'll fire Bill James (who proved the opposite) and hire you.

Really, if you don't understand that ml numbers, when properly translated, are just as predictive as MLB numbers, what are you doing on this message board?

I'm going to put you ignore, although I'll try to keep you in mind in case I need to know how flat the Earth is.

Edit: good shot with the Jeff Juden comp, but unfortunately it hit your foot. He had a very good 479 IP in the minors, including a nice 10 starts in AAA (nothing as good as Clay, because he was always wild) ... and then went backwards. Two rough years in AAA, a trade, then an injury. He never had anything like the success Clay has had at AA and AAA, let alone MLB.

This post has been edited by Eric Van: 21 December 2009 - 05:26 PM

[Dogman2]

Oh, so minor league numbers are meaningless after all? You should publish that study and maybe they'll fire Bill James (who proved the opposite) and hire you.

Really, if you don't understand that ml numbers, when properly translated, are just as predictive as MLB numbers, what are you doing on this message board?

I'm going to put you ignore, although I'll try to keep you in mind in case I need to know how flat the Earth is.

The flip side is that now his ML numbers are completely meaningless and we should only use his ml numbers for projections. If you don't understand how the projection you threw out is more then questionable then what are you doing not working for the Red Sox?

I'd put you on ignore but carrying around a salt shaker is much more fun, besides, your posts in this thread should ruminate to the masses. Pay it forward and all that holiday cheer.

This post has been edited by Dogman2: 21 December 2009 - 05:36 PM

[Eric Van]

The flip side is that now his ML numbers are completely meaningless and we should only use his ml numbers for projections. If you don't understand how the projection you threw out is more then questionable then what are you doing not working for the Red Sox?

I have no freaking idea what you are talking about.

First you ask me if I'm "using HS aged and college aged kids numbers for comparative purposes in support" when what I was simply doing was comparing Buchholz's MLB performance to other pitchers at the same points in their careers, using the total number of college and pro innings rather than (as is usually done) age. I found that a lot of the the guys who phragle thought had comparable stuff had careers exactly like Clay's -- about 500 IP of experience leading to a 111, 112 ERA+ in the show. And then they became aces.

I couldn't make less sense of your last post if it were written in Urdu. I didn't make any kind of "projection." I just added Clay's minor league numbers, translated to their MLB equivalent, added them to his MLB numbers, and discovered that he had the same year as Lackey.

Bill James and John Dewan project Lackey at 3.81 in Anaheim which is 3.96 in Fenway. They project Buchholz at 3.91.

The fan community at FanGraphs projects Lackey at 3.76 which is 3.91 at Fenway* -- and Buchholz at 3.96.

*OK, some of those projections were made after he signed here, so maybe it's 3.85.

[snowmanny]

Of course, while an ERA in the mid to high 3's turns out to be worth 17 million dollars a year, and while that would be a terrific outcome for any pitcher, what we really are hoping for with Buchholz is something better than that. And while he has had a few lousy stretches in the majors, we have seen enough from his repertoire of pitches, his minor league stats, his health, his progression, and some short stretches in the majors to indicate that there is some meaningful chance that he could be a BETTER pitcher than John Lackey. So in his case, while the projections are nice, they aren't the point: it would be surprising if Lackey'e ERA this year, and the next couple of years, wasn't between 3.50 and 4.20, and it would be totally unsurprising if Lackey was better than Buchholz next year,BUT if you told me one of these guys was going to have an ERA of 3.10 in the next three years, I'd put my money on Buchholz. Which is also why I wouldn't trade him..

[Dogman2]

Eric,
Here are my thoughts on how you reach your conclusions.

You look at what someone could project to, then automatically assume it will happen, which becomes your key assumption. You then use the data to find out where in the range of the upside the guy will be. In this case you used Lackey, Verlander, Sabathia and Hernandez, which are very lofty upsides ,where you look and see projections that Buch could be very good based on your original assumption. Then you makes the quiet assumption that he WILL be good based on that upside. Further, you manipulate tons of metrics to compare Buch to other guys who became good who were similar in age to Buchholz--given that key assumption that he will pan out.

It all makes sense and is quite complciated and coherent and yes, it makes sense--provided you accept that key assumption that Buchholz definitely will succeed like the other guys you mention.

But that key assumption is where all the most important action is and I don't buy this assumption. I will only use his ML numbers as a key basis for judging Buchholz simply because he has 180 IP in the majors. Taken as a whole rather then an 8 start stretch, I'm far more likely to believe what he has done, not what I hope he can do.

Hat tip to Rev.

This post has been edited by Dogman2: 21 December 2009 - 06:50 PM