169 replies to this topic

[absintheofmalaise]

I decided to go game by game and by all pitches thrown and look at his results based on BABIP and slugging and also included pitch usage/effectiveness data from Brooks Baseball just to see what kind of relationship there was between % of pitch types, V and H break on pitches etc. and the results he got. FYI, SNIP is Strikes Not In Play.

The first games

Buchholz BABIP/SLG	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
2012
4/8/2012	18	8	2	0	0	2	1	0.471	0.667
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Whiffs / %	SNIPs / %	Linear Weights
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	91.8	93.5	-5.52	9.61	28	19 / 67.86%	1 / 3.57%	15 / 62.50%	0.866
CH (Changeup)	78.94	80.2	-2.84	6.83	9	5 / 55.56%	0 / 0.00%	2 / 33.33%	2.396
CU (Curveball)	75.38	78.1	7.09	-9.76	13	8 / 61.54%	4 / 30.77%	5 / 50.00%	0.250
FC (Cutter)	88.62	89.7	0.08	6.95	18	14 / 77.78%	1 / 5.56%	9 / 69.23%	-1.017
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	91.07	93	-8.88	7.88	10	4 / 40.00%	0 / 0.00%	2 / 25.00%	-0.457
	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
4/14/2012	26	6	2	0	1	5	0	0.250	0.538
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Whiffs / %	SNIPs / %	Linear Weights
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	91.33	93.3	-5.06	8.31	44	32 / 72.73%	0 / 0.00%	18 / 60.00%	1.507
CH (Changeup)	78.65	87.2	-0.48	5.59	15	7 / 46.67%	2 / 13.33%	6 / 42.86%	0.661
CU (Curveball)	75.37	77.3	9.34	-8.99	16	9 / 56.25%	3 / 18.75%	7 / 50.00%	-0.990
FC (Cutter)	88.84	91.1	1.92	6.47	27	17 / 62.96%	2 / 7.41%	12 / 54.55%	-1.283
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	92.4	92.4	-7.64	8.7	1	1 / 100.00%	0 / 0.00%	1 / 100.00%	-0.050
	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
4/20/2012	27	9	0	0	5	2	0	0.200	1.074
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Whiffs / %	SNIPs / %	Linear Weights
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	92.16	95.2	-4.6	8.8	45	37 / 82.22%	1 / 2.22%	24 / 75.00%	1.606
CH (Changeup)	78.03	81.4	0.87	4.83	14	7 / 50.00%	1 / 7.14%	2 / 22.22%	1.031
CU (Curveball)	75.72	77.2	9.7	-8.61	19	11 / 57.89%	1 / 5.26%	10 / 55.56%	-0.656
FC (Cutter)	89.49	93.4	1.91	7.39	25	14 / 56.00%	0 / 0.00%	8 / 42.11%	3.126

.

• Back to top

[absintheofmalaise]

The last games.

	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
4/25/2012	26	10	2	0	0	2	0	0.417	0.538
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Whiffs / %	SNIPs / %	Linear Weights
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	92.11	94.4	-4.99	7.49	47	32 / 68.09%	1 / 2.13%	22 / 59.46%	0.041
CH (Changeup)	78.92	79.9	-0.25	3.73	6	3 / 50.00%	0 / 0.00%	1 / 25.00%	0.687
CU (Curveball)	76.8	79.6	9.23	-8.53	30	17 / 56.67%	3 / 10.00%	12 / 48.00%	-0.515
FC (Cutter)	89.71	91.1	2.56	5.58	24	17 / 70.83%	2 / 8.33%	10 / 58.82%	1.904
	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
4/30/2012	24	7	0	0	1	5	0	0.333	0.458
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Whiffs / %	SNIPs / %	Linear Weights
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	92.38	94.3	-4.54	9.54	47	28 / 59.57%	1 / 2.13%	20 / 51.28%	-0.526
CH (Changeup)	79.8	80.8	-0.71	5.8	13	8 / 61.54%	3 / 23.08%	5 / 50.00%	-0.658
CU (Curveball)	76.44	78	9.45	-8.76	18	14 / 77.78%	2 / 11.11%	10 / 71.43%	2.080
FC (Cutter)	89.44	91.2	2	7.95	19	12 / 63.16%	1 / 5.26%	8 / 53.33%	-0.333
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	90.6	90.6	-7.4	7.29	1	1 / 100.00%	1 / 100.00%	1 / 100.00%	-0.043
	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
5/6/2012	16	7	1	0	3	4	0	0.444	1.313
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Whiffs / %	SNIPs / %	Linear Weights
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	91.7	94	-4.98	9.01	31	20 / 64.52%	1 / 3.23%	15 / 57.69%	1.339
CH (Changeup)	78.36	80.5	-1.19	5.23	14	8 / 57.14%	2 / 14.29%	7 / 53.85%	0.609
CU (Curveball)	76.01	78.2	8.9	-6.22	15	9 / 60.00%	3 / 20.00%	6 / 50.00%	2.295
FC (Cutter)	89.36	90.5	2	7.49	19	9 / 47.37%	0 / 0.00%	6 / 37.50%	0.544
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	90.25	91.1	-9.16	10.24	2	0 / 0.00%	0 / 0.00%	0 / 0.00%	0.072
	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
5/11/2012	26	8	2	0	0	0	0	0.308	0.462
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Whiffs / %	SNIPs / %	Linear Weights
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	92.13	94.5	-5.01	9.16	61	38 / 62.30%	2 / 3.28%	25 / 52.08%	0.435
CH (Changeup)	79.04	80.8	-0.92	4.44	11	4 / 36.36%	0 / 0.00%	2 / 22.22%	-0.215
CU (Curveball)	77.24	80.2	10.35	-6.93	23	15 / 65.22%	1 / 4.35%	11 / 57.89%	-0.183
FC (Cutter)	90.43	93	0.9	8.22	12	8 / 66.67%	0 / 0.00%	3 / 42.86%	0.455
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	91.43	92.3	-8.3	8.53	4	3 / 75.00%	0 / 0.00%	1 / 50.00%	0.447

• Back to top

[absintheofmalaise]

2011 and 2010 data. I'm not posting all the info from Brooks Baseball here. It's pretty easy to look up. You'll see that there are some interesting trends in 2011 and 2012 that are not there in 2012.

2011	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
4/3/2011	21	5	0	0	4	3	0	0.071	1.000
4/9/2011	19	8	3	0	1	2	0	0.438	0.947
4/15/2011	18	3	0	1	0	3	0	0.200	0.333
4/20/2011	22	6	2	0	1	2	0	0.263	0.636
4/26/2011	29	12	2	0	0	5	3	0.444	0.552
5/2/2011	26	8	2	0	0	2	0	0.333	0.462
5/7/2011	17	2	0	0	0	6	0	0.182	0.118
5/13/2011	27	5	1	0	1	7	0	0.211	0.407
5/18/2011	24	4	3	0	0	7	0	0.235	0.417
5/23/2011	24	4	1	0	1	4	0	0.158	0.417
5/29/2011	24	6	1	0	2	3	0	0.211	0.667
6/3/2011	22	8	1	0	0	5	0	0.471	0.455
6/10/2011	25	3	0	0	0	6	1	0.150	0.120
6/19/2011	17	2	1	0	0	5	0	0.167	0.235
Totals	315	76	17	1	10	60	4	0.265	0.486
2010	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	K	SF	BABIP	SLG
4/11/2010	21	7	1	0	1	1	0	0.316	0.619
4/17/2010	19	3	2	0	0	7	0	0.250	0.368
4/22/2010	25	6	2	0	0	10	0	0.400	0.400
4/27/2010	31	7	1	0	0	4	0	0.259	0.290
5/3/2010	23	8	1	0	0	2	1	0.364	0.435
5/8/2010	20	9	1	0	1	1	0	0.444	0.750
5/13/2014	21	3	0	0	0	3	0	0.167	0.143
5/19/2010	27	5	2	0	0	7	0	0.250	0.333
5/24/2010	23	6	1	0	1	8	0	0.357	0.522
5/29/2010	22	4	1	0	0	4	0	0.222	0.273
6/4/2010	29	5	0	0	0	2	0	0.185	0.172
6/9/2010	22	3	0	1	0	1	1	0.136	0.273
6/15/2010	25	7	2	0	0	8	0	0.412	0.440
6/20/2010	21	3	1	0	0	4	0	0.176	0.238
6/26/2010	4	1	0	0	0	2	0	0.500	0.250
7/21/2010	19	6	0	0	2	2	0	0.267	0.737
7/26/2010	26	5	0	0	1	7	0	0.222	0.346
8/1/2010	26	2	1	0	0	5	0	0.095	0.154
8/6/2010	31	9	1	0	1	4	0	0.308	0.484
8/11/2010	26	5	0	0	0	4	0	0.227	0.192
8/17/2010	25	5	1	0	0	3	1	0.217	0.280
8/22/2010	22	5	0	0	0	7	0	0.333	0.227
8/28/2010	24	4	0	0	1	5	1	0.158	0.333
9/4/2010	18	6	2	0	0	2	0	0.375	0.556
9/10/2010	7	5	1	0	0	1	0	0.833	1.000
9/15/2010	23	4	1	0	1	6	0	0.188	0.435
9/21/2010	22	4	1	1	0	5	0	0.235	0.409
9/27/2010	27	5	0	0	0	5	1	0.217	0.185
Totals	629	142	23	2	9	120	5	0.263	0.366

• Back to top

[Reverend]

Abs is, I think, engaging in understatement, as per his norm. The trends, it seems, include things like: "Has never before gone more than than 2 games with a BABIP of .300 or more" (He's currently at 4 consecutive games, and that's only because the 5 home runs he threw in that one game don't count against BABP); has only once before (three games in 2011) gone more than 2 consecutive games with an opposing team slugging .440 or better against him (all 6 of this years starts have been greater than .440); and "Every game this season would have been in the top quartile of games slugging-against in 2010."

"Trends" he calls them. "Interesting."

Does anybody know where to find league average slugging opposed (aggregate or per start)? I'm not sure he has a better than average start this season based on that.

Edited by Reverend, 13 May 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[Kull]

Deducing plant foot location from those compressed centerfield shots is not optimal, to put it mildly, so I hunted around for some better images. The tricky part was finding good angles that were also dateable, but eventually I came up with these:

1) 3/23/12 - Buchholz vs. Orioles (spring) 5.0 IP, 7 hits, 5 Runs (2 HR): Although its from a spring training game, it was a miserable outing all the way around and very much a precursor of the Buchholz we've been treated to for most of of this season. My initial thoughts were that he seemed to be pretty far from the rubber this early in the windup. And the plant foot is way down the hill. Need a contrast though, and the 2010 version seems to the consensus "guy we'd like to see pitching now".



2) 8/21/2010 - Buchholz vs. Blue Jays 6.0 IP, 5 hits, 0 Runs: A great game for Buchholz. This shot is taken a microsecond earlier in the windup, but there does seem to be less distance between the plant foot and and the push foot - and the latter is much closer to the rubber. Still, it's hard to say that wouldn't change as the motion develops.



3) 6/20/2010 - Buchholz vs. Dodgers 6.2 IP, 3 hits, 0 Runs: Another superb outing by the 2010 vintage Clay. This is the wrong angle for comparisons but it's worth looking at if only because the shot appears to have been taken at the exact same moment in the windup as the previous pic. So if you're looking for something not visible from behind, here it is.


4) 9/27/2010 - Buchholz vs. White Sox 8.0 IP, 5 hits, 1 Run: This little video gem is a perfect side angle view of a single pitch from a 2010 late season game. It's shows exactly where the feet start and finish. Play around with the controls at the 14 second mark (practically all the video we're interested in happens in that one second), and you get a much better feel for what Clay's mechanics looked like when everything was working.


Unfortunately the limited evidence I've been able to dredge up isn't enough to prove that he's planting too far forward this year. There's hints, but nothing conclusive. If anything, the pictures seem to show that Buchholz might be dropping his left shoulder a bit too early in the pitching motion (although perhaps that's because he's throwing different pitches in the 2010 vs. 2012 stills - check the grip). Plus the head angle looks different. It would be nice if somebody could post a link to a similarly angled video showing his 2012 motion in full. A Zapruder-like comparison of the two vids might be instructive.

Edit: typos

Edited by Kull, 14 May 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[Reverend]

So another start for the team leader in wins, and the narrative was that maybe Buchholz was getting back on track. Only three earned runs (although I like to think he doesn't take much consolation that the fourth was uncredited because of an error) and maybe a couple of those are on Bobby for leaving him in?

On the other hand, 8 H, 3 BB with 0 Ks. Glad for the win, but it seems like he was getting hit alot--and even byond the 8 hits he gave up--in ways that would not be consistent with the "return to form" so many of us are looking for.

Buchholz Pitch Outcome Comps

Date	Type	Selection	Velocity	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	FF	53.4%	94.1	2,389	63.7%	45.0%	4.5%	19.7%	20.8%	90.0%	46.2%
2011	FF	41.5%	92.3	1,993	61.2%	42.2%	4.8%	15.0%	22.4%	88.6%	53.1%
2012	FF	44.5%	92.0	2,023	68.0%	45.2%	2.3%	20.8%	22.1%	94.9%	48.9%
May 11	FF	55.0%	92.1	2,090	62.3%	42.6%	3.3%	18.0%	21.3%	92.3%	50.0%
Date	Type	Selection	Velocity	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	CH	18.6%	82.0	1,410	63.0%	49.5%	23.1%	12.3%	14.1%	53.3%	28.5%
2011	CH	18.5%	80.7	1,181	63.1%	49.4%	19.7%	15.7%	14.1%	60.3%	28.5%
2012	CH	12.0%	78.8	969	51.2%	40.2%	9.8%	8.5%	20.7%	72.6%	51.5%
May 11 (CLE)	CH	9.9%	79.0	863	36.4%	36.4%	0.0%	18.2%	18.2%	100.0%	50.0%
Date	Type	Selection	Velocity	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	CU	8.4%	78.3	1,685	48.1%	31.1%	8.1%	11.5%	11.5%	74.0%	37.0%
2011	CU	12.7%	77.2	1,914	56.7%	33.9%	5.8%	14.6%	13.5%	82.9%	39.8%
2012	CU	19.7%	76.3	2,021	61.9%	41.0%	12.7%	11.9%	16.4%	69.0%	40.0%
May 11 (CLE)	CU	20.7%	77.2	2,058	65.2%	43.5%	4.3%	21.7%	17.4%	89.9%	40.0%
Date	Type	Selection	Velocity	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	SL	19.6%	89.9	1,240	61.4%	51.2%	10.8%	21.4%	14.1%	69.3%	27.5%
2010	SL	4.1%	90.7	1,745	65.5%	50.9%	10.9%	16.4%	23.6%	78.6%	46.4%
2011	FC	13.5%	90.9	1,405	65.9%	54.4%	8.2%	24.2%	22.0%	84.9%	40.4%
2012	FC	21.1%	89.4	1,452	63.2%	54.9%	4.2%	26.4%	24.3%	92.3%	44.3%
May 11 (CLE)	FC	10.8%	90.4	1,665	66.7%	66.7%	0.0%	25.0%	41.7%	100.0%	62.5%

Looks like he was.

It appears all of his change of pace stuff was getting hit to some degree and he doesn't have the plus fastball (-1.99 lnwt per 100 on FanGraphs) to make that ok.

The hope remains that he gets his curveball going; I'm not going through them on a play-by-play basis to see how well they were hit (i.e. were fol balls almost knocked into play, we the ones knocked into play weak grounders are was BABIP protecting him, etc.) but here's the a game chart from BrooksBaseball with outcome notation where it's pretty easy to spot the curves:

• Back to top

[absintheofmalaise]

Good article by Brian MacPherson after the game last night. It looks like Buchholz found his change up again and put it to good use last night.

While he was warming up in the outfield on Wednesday, Buchholz finally, found his changeup -- the knee-buckling, hitter-baffling changeup that made him one of the top prospects in the game and a Cy Young contender two years ago.
"It was right before the game when I started warming up, throwing it," he said. It was probably a mental thing going on with it, thinking about it too much. I just started throwing it and thinking of it as a fastball just with a different group. It came out well a couple of times."

Funny what happens when you throw the pitch the way you're supposed to. According to the charts on Brooks Baseball, except for a couple of the changes, there was good separation between the change and his fastball along with good vertical movement again.

[Reverend]

Check out his spin and movement by pitch last night compared to the averages for the rest of the season up until March 16th:

Buchholz: Mar 16 v. The Rest of 2012

Date	Type	Selection	Velocity	Vertical	Horizontal	Spin Rate
2012 Pre-Mar 16	FF	44.5%	92.0	8.81	-4.92	2,023
Mar 16	FF	40.2%	92.0	10.77	-4.61	2,324
2012 Pre-Mar 16	CH	12.0%	78.8	5.28	-0.71	969
Mar 16	CH	12.6%	80.4	6.33	-0.67	1,199
2012 Pre-Mar 16	CU	19.7%	76.3	-8.21	9.29	2,021
Mar 16	CU	19.5%	76.9	-7.24	12.78	2,387
2012 Pre-Mar 16	FC	21.1%	89.4	7.02	1.73	1,452
Mar 16	FC	25.3%	89.3	8.32	2.87	1,713

Much greater spin, greater movement, and greater effectiveness (see below)--the circle is now complete.

He looks like a different pitcher. And you know who else it looks like thought so? Tampa Bay:

Buchholz: Mar 16 v. The Rest of 2012

Date	Type	Strike	Swing	Whiff	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2012 Pre-Mar 16	FF	68.0%	45.2%	2.3%	22.1%	94.9%	48.9%
Mar 16	FF	65.7%	48.6%	5.7%	17.1%	88.1%	35.2%
2012 Pre-Mar 16	CH	51.2%	40.2%	9.8%	20.7%	72.6%	51.5%
Mar 16	CH	54.5%	45.5%	18.2%	0.0%	60.0%	0.0%
2012 Pre-Mar 16	CU	61.9%	41.0%	12.7%	16.4%	69.0%	40.0%
Mar 16	CU	82.4%	52.9%	23.5%	23.5%	55.6%	44.4%
2012 Pre-Mar 16	FC	63.2%	54.9%	4.2%	24.3%	92.3%	44.3%
Mar 16	FC	63.6%	59.1%	18.2%	13.6%	69.2%	23.0%

Huge differences in keeping the bats off the balls and keeping the ball out of play when they swung.

I welcome Good Clay back with open arms, but if his problem really was not throwing his pitches like his fastball, someone should hit him on the head with a tack hammer.

Of course, it's interesting to see that his spin was up on his fastball without any increase in velocity (and it was much more effective by some measures than it has been). I wonder what happened.

• Back to top

[redsoxstiff]

Given all of the concrete data here I am more than arrogant to give a 'gut' reaction from last night and a comment from Herr Buchholz...

After the first two innings a masterful pitcher went off from a massive loss of motor skills.
Is he easily defocused ...?

He will not look at his film...He says it will somehow hurt his delivery...

From here I say any tool which could be properly utilized to correct his Jeckyl and Hyde outings

is to be welcomed...He went on my SL upon reading his remark...

I am so bummed out with his up and down performances that it would take a year or more for me to trust him...

[lexrageorge]

ERA after tossing out each pitcher's best and worst start:

Lester: 3.33 (-0.62)
Beckett: 3.69 (-0.69)
Bard: 4.94 (+0.09)
Doubront: 3.71 (-0.38)

and finally:

Buchholz: 7.58 (-0.25)

Lot of talk in the other thread about Bard's future in the rotation, which is perfectly understandable. But I'm curious why Buchholz is still getting a free pass.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Clay's ERA is 7.84, which is 5.51 runs higher than his 2010 ERA.

Hell, his ERA is 1.43 higher than John Lackey '11.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Lot of talk in the other thread about Bard's future in the rotation, which is perfectly understandable. But I'm curious why Buchholz is still getting a free pass.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "free pass." But if you're asking why Bard, and not Buchholz, is being discussed as a candidate to be moved to the bullpen, the answer is pretty obvious: Bard is the guy with a strong record of success as a reliever. There's no reason, on the face of it, to assume that moving Buchholz to the bullpen will make him more valuable (except perhaps in the negative sense of making his continued suck less damaging).

If there is any chance he could clear waivers, I'd send him to the minors and see if he can get his head straight away from the spotlight. Assuming it's his head and not his body that's the problem, of course.

[Reverend]

Buchholz: May 22 and Context

Date	Type	Count	Selection	Velocity	Vertical	Horizontal	Spin Angle	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	FF	1492	53.4%	94.1	9.38	-6.90	217	2,389	63.7%	45.0%	4.5%	19.7%	20.8%	90.0%	46.2%
2011	FF	559	41.5%	92.3	8.23	-5.36	213	1,993	61.2%	42.2%	4.8%	15.0%	22.4%	88.6%	53.1%
2012	FF	373	43.3%	92.0	9.21	-4.84	208	2,084	66.8%	44.2%	2.4%	20.6%	21.2%	94.6%	48.0%
May 21	FF	35	37.2%	91.9	11.06	-4.37	202	2,375	57.1%	31.4%	0.0%	14.3%	17.1%	100.0%	54.5%
Date	Type	Count	Selection	Velocity	Vertical	Horizontal	Spin Angle	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	CH	519	18.6%	82.0	7.08	-3.26	205	1,410	63.0%	49.5%	23.1%	12.3%	14.1%	53.3%	28.5%
2011	CH	249	18.5%	80.7	6.07	-2.21	200	1,181	63.1%	49.4%	19.7%	15.7%	14.1%	60.3%	28.5%
2012	CH	82	12.0%	78.8	5.28	-0.71	185	969	51.2%	40.2%	9.8%	8.5%	20.7%	72.6%	51.5%
May 21	CH	13	13.8%	81.0	7.29	-1.61	190	1,374	53.8%	53.8%	15.4%	7.7%	30.8%	71.6%	57.2%
Date	Type	Count	Selection	Velocity	Vertical	Horizontal	Spin Angle	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	CU	235	8.4%	78.3	-8.45	5.57	34	1,685	48.1%	31.1%	8.1%	11.5%	11.5%	74.0%	37.0%
2011	CU	171	12.7%	77.2	-8.64	7.82	42	1,914	56.7%	33.9%	5.8%	14.6%	13.5%	82.9%	39.8%
2012	CU	134	19.7%	76.3	-8.21	9.29	49	2,021	61.9%	41.0%	12.7%	11.9%	16.4%	69.0%	40.0%
May 21	CU	24	25.5%	77.4	-2.72	10.73	76	1,852	75.0%	45.8%	12.5%	16.7%	16.7%	72.9%	36.5%
Date	Type	Count	Selection	Velocity	Vertical	Horizontal	Spin Angle	Spin Rate	Strike	Swing	Whiff	Foul	In Play	%(Con|Sw)	%(Play|Sw)
2010	SL	547	19.6%	89.9	5.86	1.25	165	1,240	61.4%	51.2%	10.8%	21.4%	14.1%	69.3%	27.5%
2010	SL	55	4.1%	90.7	8.41	1.57	171	1,745	65.5%	50.9%	10.9%	16.4%	23.6%	78.6%	46.4%
2011	FC	182	13.5%	90.9	6.93	0.53	175	1,405	65.9%	54.4%	8.2%	24.2%	22.0%	84.9%	40.4%
2012	FC	144	21.1%	89.4	7.02	1.73	165	1,452	63.2%	54.9%	4.2%	26.4%	24.3%	92.3%	44.3%
May 21	FC	17	18.1%	89.0	8.82	2.18	165	1,857	64.7%	58.8%	11.8%	23.5%	23.5%	79.9%	40.0%

In aggregate, he kept the spin up on his fastball like last game and had the most spin on his change he's had all year and the velocity was up a bit. However, his location on the fastball plummeted (strike%) and whatever's different with the change didn't keep them from putting it into play. I don't really know what's going on with the curve but it was different yesterday and he leaned on it a bit more, but as Sprowl pointed out in the gamethread, it doesn't work in a deception kind of way for him the way the old fastball-change combo did. I don't really know what I think of the cutter as of now.

Lot of talk in the other thread about Bard's future in the rotation, which is perfectly understandable. But I'm curious why Buchholz is still getting a free pass.

If you think this thread is a free pass, I'd hate to see your idea of tough love.

[TomRicardo]

There is no question that Clay is broken. The real question is why the Red Sox solution is pulling Sgt. Schultz and parading him out to get bashed in every five games.

[Jnai]

I haven't seen it in the thread so far, so I'll throw it out there: Buchholz has been trying a split in addition to his regular change.

[Plympton91]

I realize this is sort of self fulfilling, but it seems to me that Buchholz problems are when he's pitching from the stretch. Is there any way to break out his spin rates and other high tech whatnot you folks are posting with men on vs. with no men on, and compare that to previous seasons?

[Nomar813]

I haven't seen it in the thread so far, so I'll throw it out there: Buchholz has been trying a split in addition to his regular change.

I believe Remy commented on it last night after the home run to Davis. They zoomed in on Clay's grip and it was indeed that of a splitter. It came in at 86 mph. PitchFX doesn't appear to have picked up on it yet.

[Reverend]

I realize this is sort of self fulfilling, but it seems to me that Buchholz problems are when he's pitching from the stretch. Is there any way to break out his spin rates and other high tech whatnot you folks are posting with men on vs. with no men on, and compare that to previous seasons?

At this point, I think it would have to be done by hand, but you're right, that could be a really useful tool for breaking down what's going on with a pitcher.

What would still be difficult to disaggregate is whether or not it's a mechanical problem in his motion from the stretch or the fact that Buchholz appears to be even more of a head case with runners on; I think quite a few of us have taken to screaming "Ignore the runner and pitch the ball!!" whenever a runner gets on first. Something about him screamed "meltdown" when the first runner got on that inning, and we've seen lots of agitated throws, plus the balks...

From FanGraphs:

Buchholz 2012 per men on base:

BASE SIT	AVG	OBP	SLG	wOBA
Bases Empty	0.304	0.381	0.554	0.404
Men on Base	0.355	0.459	0.516	0.432
Men In Scoring	0.286	0.394	0.491	0.386

Jeez, maybe they should just give the runner second.

Edited by Reverend, 22 May 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[maufman]

If there is any chance he could clear waivers, I'd send him to the minors and see if he can get his head straight away from the spotlight. Assuming it's his head and not his body that's the problem, of course.

Of course there is a "chance" he would clear waivers. There is a gentlemen's agreement among GMs not to claim players on special assignment waivers; a GM who claimed Buchholz could forget about ever slipping one of his players through special assignment waivers in the future. Perhaps a divisional foe would be willing to burn that bridge to mess with the Red Sox, but with $27mm or so left on Buchholz's contract ($7.5mm AAV through 2015, for clubs that care about luxury tax), that's a high-stakes game of chicken.

So yes, I absolutely think the Sox should try to send Buchholz to Pawtucket when it's time to activate Dice-K. And if someone stakes a claim, I think they should think very hard about letting him go.

Edited by maufman, 22 May 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[RetractableRoof]

--snip--
What would still be difficult to disaggregate is whether or not it's a mechanical problem in his motion from the stretch or the fact that Buchholz appears to be even more of a head case with runners on; I think quite a few of us have taken to screaming "Ignore the runner and pitch the ball!!" whenever a runner gets on first. Something about him screamed "meltdown" when the first runner got on that inning, and we've seen lots of agitated throws, plus the balks...
--snip--

While it did on occasion (including the playoffs) drive me crazy, this seems to have been a strength of the previous manager/pitching coach - convincing the pitchers to simply ignore the runners and focus on the batter as a means of limiting the large inning. I think this is a specific change in BV5's approach - which in this regard seems very old school in terms of asking the pitchers to focus on keeping the runners close, etc. - to what seems the point of distraction for Buchholz . To give him credit, once they reach second he seems to be able to then refocus on the batter.

I'm with the "focus on the batter" crowd...

Edit: Completing my thought...

Edited by RetractableRoof, 22 May 2012 - 07:23 PM.

[czar]

I believe Remy commented on it last night after the home run to Davis. They zoomed in on Clay's grip and it was indeed that of a splitter. It came in at 86 mph. PitchFX doesn't appear to have picked up on it yet.

The auto-algorithm hasn't picked up on it, but he threw three last night (they are the three pitches classified as changeups (yellow) ~85-87 mph).



He also threw 2 in the previous start vs. TB



-------

EDIT: Here's a link to the Davis homerun where Buchholz threw the splitter (actually didn't look like a terrible pitch, honestly).

And a screengrab of the grip of that pitch (hattip @DBITLefty and @harrypav)

Edited by czar, 22 May 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[deconstruction]

The auto-algorithm hasn't picked up on it, but he threw three last night (they are the three pitches classified as changeups (yellow) ~85-87 mph).

He also threw 2 in the previous start vs. TB

-------

EDIT: Here's a link to the Davis homerun where Buchholz threw the splitter (actually didn't look like a terrible pitch, honestly).

And a screengrab of the grip of that pitch (hattip @DBITLefty and @harrypav)

Thanks. It was only terrible because it ended up in Davis's wheelhouse! Seriously though, he was trying to go down-and-away with it and badly missed.

Do you know how pitchFX determines whether a pitch is a splitter or change? Pitchers who throw both (e.g., Jimenez, Haren, Pavano, Pelfrey) seem to throw the FS either at the same velo as the CH or a bit more, and get more X-movement with the CH. I guess Clay's change is so different (slow and with very little X-movement), that the splitter seems odd in comparison (more X-movement and much greater velocity).

[czar]

Thanks. It was only terrible because it ended up in Davis's wheelhouse! Seriously though, he was trying to go down-and-away with it and badly missed.

Do you know how pitchFX determines whether a pitch is a splitter or change? Pitchers who throw both (e.g., Jimenez, Haren, Pavano, Pelfrey) seem to throw the FS either at the same velo as the CH or a bit more, and get more X-movement with the CH. I guess Clay's change is so different (slow and with very little X-movement), that the splitter seems odd in comparison (more X-movement and much greater velocity).

Agree it was crushed, but in Buchholz's defense, the pitch was 3" below the bottom of the strike zone. The majority of the time he throws that pitch, it's not golfed for a HR. Obviously, his biggest problem last night wasn't splitter location, though...

The latter is a good question. I do know there is a list of criteria tagged to each pitch type but I'm not sure which criteria are set at what thresholds. Probably a call for jnai or alannathan.

Edited by czar, 22 May 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[deconstruction]

In Buchholz's defense, the pitch was 3" below the bottom of the strike zone. The majority of the time he throws that pitch, it's not golfed for a HR.

Of course. I was just commenting on the poor command, but that's to be expected with a new pitch.

The other two splitters last night were to Weiters--one in the 3rd that also missed down-and-in for a ball, and one in the 6th on a 3-1 count that was high-and-outside, not dropping at all.

Against TB, he threw a nasty one (down-and-away, likely where he wanted that one to Davis), which Johnson just fouled off. That's what I'd love to see out of it. He also floated one to Joyce in the 5th.

I'll keep an eye on it.

[alannathan]

Do you know how pitchFX determines whether a pitch is a splitter or change? \

The algorithm used by MLBAM is a so-called neural network, which needs to be "trained". If a pitcher starts throwing a new type of pitch, it will take a while for the algorithm to recognize it and classify it correctly. I would rather trust the algorithm used by Dan Brooks (jnai) and Harry Pavlidis, which is partly automatic but with some intervention when necessary. Dan should post here to tell us more.

[Reverend]

The algorithm used by MLBAM is a so-called neural network, which needs to be "trained". If a pitcher starts throwing a new type of pitch, it will take a while for the algorithm to recognize it and classify it correctly. I would rather trust the algorithm used by Dan Brooks (jnai) and Harry Pavlidis, which is partly automatic but with some intervention when necessary. Dan should post here to tell us more.

Nerd.

[deconstruction]

The algorithm used by MLBAM is a so-called neural network, which needs to be "trained". If a pitcher starts throwing a new type of pitch, it will take a while for the algorithm to recognize it and classify it correctly. I would rather trust the algorithm used by Dan Brooks (jnai) and Harry Pavlidis, which is partly automatic but with some intervention when necessary. Dan should post here to tell us more.

Thanks, Alan. I'd love to hear from Dan.

[Kull]

I haven't seen it in the thread so far, so I'll throw it out there: Buchholz has been trying a split in addition to his regular change.

Isn't that the grip he's using in photos 2 & 3 from my earlier post? Both of those were taken in 2010.

[czar]

Isn't that the grip he's using in photos 2 & 3 from my earlier post? Both of those were taken in 2010.

Definitely a 2-seam fastball in #3, probably the cutter or maybe curve in #2-- tough to tell. Neither are a splitfinger grip and none of his PitchF/X player cards show any real clustering in 2011 or earlier which would indicate he was surreptitiously using it either.

Second-hand Twitter commentary implied Brian MacPherson (ProJo) confirmed with him it was a split and that it was a new pitch he was playing around with, but I don't see confirmation of that. Maybe someone can dig it up.

[redsoxstiff]

Let's say that the club has expended 50 times the effort displayed here on very talented (?) pitcher...yet the boy smells...

Say "good night" clay...

He will likely find himself for another team...Once again I sigh...

[mauidano]

Gonna give a shout out to Clay for a job well done Sunday. He was a couple outs away from a well deserved win. for a guy who has been the beneficiary of 7+ runs per start, he really held the game tight. I'm sure the numbers will bear him out. We've over analyzed ad nauseum but let's give some credit to the guy too.

[Nomar813]

Buchholz's release point looks to be gaining some consistency. This is his previous Fenway start on 5/11 against Cleveland:



Here's his chart from Sunday's start against Tampa:



It looks like less scatter and fewer major hiccups. That combined with the improved results is encouraging.

[Soxfan in Fla]

Two very nice starts in a row.

[Sprowl]

Buchholz hung a changeup to Escobar, but his location on the fastball was probably his best of the season. It's not quite a donut, but the fastballs are largely on the edges. When Buchholz threw fastballs above the belt, it was intentional (as it was to strike out Bautista both times), so he's not grooving pitches at the same rate that he was in early in the season.



Buchholz's velocity on the 4-seamer is also climbing. He hit 94 mph numerous times. Five whiffs came on the changeup, three of them by notorious fastball hacker Kelly Johnson.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

He's doing a good job of creating deception with his change up in his last two games.

5/27


You can see the separation he's getting in velocity from his fastballs to his change up here while remaining consistent with his horizontal movement.



And here you can see how the vertical movement and horizontal movement are both consistent with the fastballs.



And finally we can see that the spin is similar to both fastballs while the velocity is much lower.

So the change was looking and acting like the fastball, it was just coming in much slower.


6/1

We see more of the same with a bit more overlap.







If he can keep this up he's going to be very good for the rest of the year. In his last two starts he's looked like a nice combination of the guy who was really efficient in 2010 and the guy who struck out a ton of hitters prior to that.

This is the Clay that was advertised. Now we just need to wait and see if he can be this consistent while staying healthy.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 03 June 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[Nomar813]

Add those five swings and misses on 21 changeups to the six whiffs he got on 25 changeups in his previous start. He appears to be commanding it better as well, keeping it away from the middle of the plate.

[czar]

Two more splitfingers, both for foul balls. Would be interesting to see him keep developing pitch #5, but the need is less pressing with his performance the last two outings.

[AB in DC]

Buchholz now has an ERA of 3.10 in his last six starts.

[absintheofmalaise]

I hadn't noticed this before, but in the fifth out of the stretch he changed his starting point on the rubber against different hitters. Has anyone else noticed him doing this before?

Betemit LH he started off on the 1B side of the rubber.
Flaherty LH he started off on the 3B side of the rubber.
Andino RH he started on the 1B side of the rubber.

To start the 6th, all out of the wind up he started off against all the hitters from the middle-1B side of the rubber.

[Sprowl]

Against the Orioles, Buchholz threw five splitters, two of them for swinging strikes; he also got four swinging strikes on the changeup and three on the curve. Maybe most important, he had better and more consistent movement on the fastball, and he kept it low. LuckySox commented in the game thread on Buchholz standing straighter on the mound. It also looks to me like his delivery is less coiled and more extended than earlier in the season. When the fastball has to be respected, every other pitch becomes more effective.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Third start in a row with that outstanding change up.






If you're a batter in the box right now, I don't see how you could consistently spot the change up being thrown. Even the release points are overlapping incredibly well.



He's in a groove right now that just isn't fair to hitters. Still a ways to go before we can get too excited about this being a permanent shift, but it's getting hard to avoid considering it. He's been absolutely dominant his last three times out. Five swings and misses on the change up tonight (23.73%), four on the curveball (17.39%), 2 on the four seam fastball and 1 on the two seamer.

Edit: Sprowl beat me to the splitter comment. And it looks like the pitchfx break down of strikes includes two splitters that were misclassified, so one less of each.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 07 June 2012 - 09:20 PM.

[teddywingman]

Third start in a row with that outstanding change up.






If you're a batter in the box right now, I don't see how you could consistently spot the change up being thrown. Even the release points are overlapping incredibly well.



He's in a groove right now that just isn't fair to hitters. Still a ways to go before we can get too excited about this being a permanent shift, but it's getting hard to avoid considering it. He's been absolutely dominant his last three times out.

I would be more excited about his next start if he had been pulled after 111 pitches (8 complete innings). Instead he throws 125--like it's a no hitter or something.

I think all of us have seen, and know how often a pitcher has a disaster start after pitching more than 120 pitches.

Sending him out to start the 9th is one of the dumbest moves of the year.

At 111 pitches; what are the odds that he completes the inning at 125? Somebody like EV can maybe roll the numbers on this. But what I think is that starting the 9th invites 3 outcomes.

One is that he throws more than 130 pitches to finish a game that is lead by 7, and that's not good.
Two is that he gets pulled after a hit or a walk, and what the hell is the point of that? Leave a hint of failure in the mind of a pitcher who wouldn't have even considered the idea if you patted him on the shoulder at the end of the 8th.
Three--he comes out in five days without the same stuff he had tonight, and has a 3 inning start.

I feel like the people running this team are too concerned about media play--"Buchholz complete game shutout!"

But yeah--maybe he was feeling great and too good to stop... maybe it's a big confidence builder... maybe throwing 125 is just what he needed... but they were up by 7 damn runs.

[teddywingman]

There is no question that Clay is broken. The real question is why the Red Sox solution is pulling Sgt. Schultz and parading him out to get bashed in every five games.

This is funny.

[czar]

Buchholz's SwStr% (highly correlated with K/9) is 9.9% his last 5 starts. It was 5.7% in the 7 starts prior. His K/BB during his first 7 starts was 0.9, has jumped to 2.9 over his last 5. FIP has dropped by half from 7.20 to 3.61.

Another interesting fact... Clay Buchholz has thrown a first-pitch strike to 64.9% of the batters he has faced. He is 21st out of 115 qualified pitchers. He highest F-Strike% was 63.6% in limited time during 2007. It's gone steadily downhill since, bottoming out at 55.8 last year.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

I think all of us have seen, and know how often a pitcher has a disaster start after pitching more than 120 pitches.

Anecdotally, sure we can all recall times when this has happened. I wonder if the numbers back it up though. Unfortunately my weak google skills didn't produce an answer. So is anyone able to compile the stats for the start following a 120+ pitch game for all pitchers? It would be particularly interesting (to me at least) to see how those numbers compare the start immediately preceding the 120+ pitch effort.

[czar]

Anecdotally, sure we can all recall times when this has happened. I wonder if the numbers back it up though. Unfortunately my weak google skills didn't produce an answer. So is anyone able to compile the stats for the start following a 120+ pitch game for all pitchers? It would be particularly interesting (to me at least) to see how those numbers compare the start immediately preceding the 120+ pitch effort.

You can probably do this fairly easily on B-Ref, although I don't have a sub right now to get into the player database.

Anecdotally, a lot of talk about pitch counts/fatigue/injury also ends up including high-stress/low-stress innings. The prevailing theory is higher pitch counts (115+, let's say) are worse for pitchers who have endured long, stressful innings (multiple baserunners, deep counts, etc.). Therefore, rather than count each pitch as equal (1), you can think of them as having different weights (0.5 if bases are empty and weak hitter is up vs. 2 if bases-loaded, 1 out, and Jones at the plate). It's possible BobbyV prescribes to this train of thought more than Francona did.

That said, I would have rather seen him pulled after 8, as well...

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

That's a very good point. 125 relatively low-stress pitches over 9 innings is probably less taxing on the arm than 100 higher stress pitches over 6 innings.

[JMDurron]

Anecdotally, sure we can all recall times when this has happened. I wonder if the numbers back it up though. Unfortunately my weak google skills didn't produce an answer. So is anyone able to compile the stats for the start following a 120+ pitch game for all pitchers? It would be particularly interesting (to me at least) to see how those numbers compare the start immediately preceding the 120+ pitch effort.

I'm not going to that level, but I did take a look at Buchholz's career game logs. There is only one other game in his career where he threw 120+ pitches, on 5/18/11 against Detroit. In his next start, on 5/23/11 he only threw 94 pitches, but went 7.1 IP with 4 H, 2 R, 2 BB, and 1 K against Cleveland. So, there is a lone data point indicating that Buchholz has handled that pitch count in the past without negative consequences, without extra rest.

The others among the "Top 3" Red Sox pitchers:

Format is standard IP-H-R (ER if different)-BB-K for the following start.

Jon Lester
- Following a 130 pitch effort on 5/19/08 against KC (no-hitter), had a 5.0-7-4(3)-2-3 performance against Oakland on 5/25/08 (5 days rest)

- Following 122 pitches on 7/5/09 against Seattle, went 8.0-4-0-2-8 against Kansas City on 7/10/09 (regular rest)
- Following 122 pitches on 9/6/09 against the White Sox, went 8.0-2-0-3-7 against Tampa Bay on 9/13/09 (6 days rest)

- Following 120 pitches on 5/4/10 against LAA, went 7.0-4-2-2-7 against NYY on 5/9/10 (regular rest)
- Following 124 pitches on 7/24/10 against SEA, went 6.0-11-4-2-7 against DET on 7/30/10 (5 days rest)
- Following 120 pitches on 9/1/10 against BAL, 6.0-4-2-3-10 against TBR on 9/6/10 (regular rest)

- Following 127 pitches 5/30/11 against CHW, went 6.0-8-3-1-5 against NYY on 6/7/11 (7 days rest)
- Following 120 pitches on 6/30/11 against PHI, went 4.0-0-0-1-5 against TOR on 7/5/11 (regular rest - left with injury)

- Following 122 pitches on 4/28/12 against CHW, went 6.0-5-3-3-2 against BAL on 5/4/12 (5 days rest)
- Following 120 pitches on 5/30/12 against DET, went 6.0-8-4(2)-1-5 against BAL on 6/5/12 (5 days rest)

In Lester's case, at least, there's not much evidence that throwing 120+ pitches makes him a worse pitcher in the following start. He has 1 poor performance in 2008 after the no-no, 2 dominant performances in 2009, 1 poor and 2 respectable outings in 2010, 1 respectable and 1 injury outing in 2011, and 1 respectable and 1 poor (bad defense?) outing in 2012. I don't see much use in totalling up these numbers, as each individual year suffers from SSS, and a total combining 5 different years throws in too many varying factors (overall effectiveness that year, days of rest, opponent quality, etc.) to be useful. I think his 2011 injury time in July may be skewing our impression that 120+ pitches = doom.

Josh Beckett (Red Sox Years only)
- Following 121 pitches on 8/19/06 against NYY (he got destroyed), he went 6.0-4-1-2-3 against LAA on 8/24/06, but only threw 72 pitches in a 2-1 victory (regular rest)

- Following 120 pitches against SEA on 5/16/09, went 8.0-5-1(0)-1-5 against NYM on 5/23/09 (6 days rest)
- Following 120 pitches against NYY on 8/23/09 (got murdered against), went 5.0-5-5-5-9 against TOR on 8/28/09 (regular rest)

- Following 125 pitches on 5/21/11 against LAA, went 7.0-7-4-0-4 against BAL on 5/27/11 (5 days rest)

- Following 126 pitches on 4/29/12 against CHW, went 2.1-7-7-2-2 against CLE on 5/10/12 (10 days rest)

Beckett looks to be a more interesting case. He has one effective, but oddly short outing by pitches in 2006. He never hit 120 pitches in 2007 or 2008. He was awesome once on extra rest and sucked once on regular rest in 2009. He never hit 120 pitches in 2010, was mediocre in 1 start in 2011, and we know about the 2012 outing after his skipped start/golf outing.

Ultimately, at least for the pitchers that I (we?) are most concerned with, I don't see any really solid reason to say that 120+ pitches in a given start tells us anything about what the next start will look like. We have basically no data on Buchholz, data on Lester that can be read about 7 different ways depending on how you want to divide it up logically, and vaguely discomforting data on Beckett with wildly different levels of rest among the starts.

Edited by JMDurron, 08 June 2012 - 08:57 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

If you throw 120 pitches in a start, it's likely a good start. So, naturally, I'd suspect that the next start would probably be worse in terms of performance. But is it because of the previous peformance, and how do we make that connection? And why 120, as opposed to 110, or 125? I get the logic and I too don't really see the need for Buchholz to close the game out, but maybe there's a psychological benefit to letting him do it. i remember screaming about a game last year where Tito left Clay in way too long (I believe it was the 5/18 game, weren't those 120+ pitches in like 6 innings?) too.

Don't we also have to account for the stress level of those pitches? A lot of pitches last night, but 125 over 9 in a shutout is a lot different than 125 over 6-7 when you're pitching from the stretch all night.

[absintheofmalaise]

Bradbury and Forman have published a study on this subject. You can find the abstract at http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22344048. There was some discussion on it in one of the pitching threads here recently.