SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Discussion of 2014 and 2015 pitching rotations
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 6, 2014 19:20:56 GMT -5
So you know something weird? Clay Buchholz set a career high in strikeouts this season. when he was on, he really threw the ball well. But then he would not finish on a pitch and bad things would happen. And then there were the days he was off. That was uglier than a Steinbrenner family reunion on Halloween.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 6, 2014 20:48:37 GMT -5
Another example at how off fWAR is for pitchers. Buchholz was worth 2.2 fWAR in 2014. 49th best in the majors. That's a solid #2. Well, if there are only 12 aces in a given year then what would be considered a '#2 pitcher' performance-wise should probably be limited to the top 42. Which would make him a #3. Then you have to account for superior pitchers who were injured. The number of qualified pitchers last year was '88' so this would place Buchholz into the 44th percentile of qualified pitchers, making him slightly below average. If you account for Buchholz having a very high BABIP and a very low LOB% (each the second worse of his career) then this label seems to fit as his 5.34 ERA seems a bit inflated (4.01 FIP /4.04 xFIP). He had a disappointing year, but the above seems fair to me. Expecting Buchholz to rebound next year to at least 'above average #3' status if not better. Why are you only using qualified pitchers?Buchholz was bad, and that's probably why his BABIP was high. He was getting nailed. John Lackey had 1.6 fWAR in 2011. Better question: why were YOU using qualified pitchers? It was the right choice since using non-qualified pitchers would pit him against relief pitchers and starters who barely pitched at all. If you include ALL pitchers, then he becomes the 71st best pitcher (62nd best starter) in the majors last season, which also defeats your argument. If your point is that 'fWAR is off for pitchers' then you should learn how to use Fangraphs website first to make a more articulate argument (I'm a big Fangraphs proponent/fan which is why I responded to your snarky post with another snarky post) If your point is that Buchholz was bad last year I would agree as his 5.34 ERA speaks for itself. But he also appeared to have very poor luck as well. Even if you think that his BABIP was skill based and not luck based, I have a hard time imagining his LOB% was anything but bad luck.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 6, 2014 22:15:36 GMT -5
I moved some DIPS-related posts to that thread in the off-topic subforum to avoid derailing this one.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 7, 2014 8:23:11 GMT -5
Another example at how off fWAR is for pitchers. Buchholz was worth 2.2 fWAR in 2014. 49th best in the majors. That's a solid #2. Why are you only using qualified pitchers?Buchholz was bad, and that's probably why his BABIP was high. He was getting nailed. John Lackey had 1.6 fWAR in 2011. Better question: why were YOU using qualified pitchers? It was the right choice since using non-qualified pitchers would pit him against relief pitchers and starters who barely pitched at all. If you include ALL pitchers, then he becomes the 71st best pitcher (62nd best starter) in the majors last season, which also defeats your argument. If your point is that 'fWAR is off for pitchers' then you should learn how to use Fangraphs website first to make a more articulate argument (I'm a big Fangraphs proponent/fan which is why I responded to your snarky post with another snarky post) If your point is that Buchholz was bad last year I would agree as his 5.34 ERA speaks for itself. But he also appeared to have very poor luck as well. Even if you think that his BABIP was skill based and not luck based, I have a hard time imagining his LOB% was anything but bad luck. A pitcher at replacement level or below should have a very low LOB%. Further some pitchers do pitch worse with runners on base. Not to derail anything but I always tell people when applying DIPS theory to imagine what would happen if they were suddenly granted a chance to pitch in the majors. Think your LOB% would be 70%? Think again.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 7, 2014 9:36:10 GMT -5
My bad on dragging us into DIPS again. It just makes no sense to me that Buchholz had 2.2 fWAR and -1.6 bWAR last season. You cannot believe both numbers. Everyone knows which number I believe more.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 7, 2014 9:50:57 GMT -5
Buchholz was terrible last year, during a year where offense was down across the league. The bWAR number is much more representative of his performance. You can try to defend numbers you like, but when a guy clearly stunk defending a number which says he was decent doesn't make sense. I believe his point was Clay stunk and fWAR indicated he didn't therefore fWAR is a poor statistic to use. I'm not sure, but that's what I took from it.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 7, 2014 10:32:22 GMT -5
A pitcher at replacement level or below should have a very low LOB%. Further some pitchers do pitch worse with runners on base. Not to derail anything but I always tell people when applying DIPS theory to imagine what would happen if they were suddenly granted a chance to pitch in the majors. Think your LOB% would be 70%? Think again. LOB% is usually luck driven unless its indicative of the player's true talent level. Buchholz has a career LOB% of 71.8% (72% being average), but in 2014 he had a 62.1% LOB% - the worst LOB% among qualified pitchers by 3.4%. Perhaps Buccholz has lost it and is no longer a major league caliber pitcher - because that would be the case if his low LOB% were actually skill-based from last year and we should replace him immediately with one of our AAA starters - but I don't think many here believe that to be the case. The big difference I see here between fWAR and bWAR is that fWAR is measuring the statistics which are usually luck driven and think that Buchholz had terrible luck while bWAR is measuring his performance based on results - which are likely to be less predictive of future success. Here are a couple of fun videos on luck dragons you should watch if only because they are ridiculous:
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 7, 2014 11:20:56 GMT -5
Or another more likely explanation is that Buchholz lost it completely for a decent part of the season and had to be phantom DL-ed to get his mechanics back, which were still not all the way back by the end of the season.
And yeah, it makes logical sense that you allow more baserunners to score when you can't control where most pitches are going to go so he'd have to pitch an 89 mph four seam fastball right down the middle to get a strike, like he did for several games before he was DL'ed. At that point, he deserved a slightly better BABIP or LOB% than a batting practice pitcher.
This is where you have to consider that Buchholz was not pitching like a MLB pitcher at all when he was bad so you can't just assume that he'd adjust to the league average for BABIP or LOB%. If he were pitching like always and simply had bad luck, then I'd completely agree. Sometimes, MLB pitchers don't pitch like they belong in the MLB though.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 7, 2014 12:51:39 GMT -5
Right but a guy who is constantly giving up rockets and walking guys is going to have a significantly lower LOB%. LOB% is only luck driven for groups of players where the variance in talent is very thin. Most major league pitchers over a period of time have a very high level of talent. But if you don't meet that bar even for a period of time, you won't have an LOB% that is even close to 70%. During many starts Buccholz was throwing flat fastballs at 89 down the middle and that's why he left so few on base, not luck. If he continues to do that, he's not going to have a an LOB% anywhere near his career average.
I don't see your logic here. A loss of skills can be temporary due to injury or other factors as was the case with John Lackey. But that doesn't mean that the lower performance is due to luck. In Buccholz's case, the reason to keep him is the reasonable belief is that his loss in skills was temporary and once they return, his BABIP and LOB% should return to normal levels.
A basic tenant of statistics is that not all deviations from the mean are due to random chance. And not all causes of that deviation going forward. I think that this is something that many on the board don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 7, 2014 13:06:57 GMT -5
The question is if his LOB is lower than someone would expect give his component stats - i.e., does he cluster more or less than normal. If he groves flat fastball at 89, why would you expect that to happen more often when mon on base than in situations when they are not? (Unless you believe it is mechanical, and the mechanical issues themselves cluster and take a few batters to fix themselves - but that isn't what you are really arguing here.)
A loss of skill should result in bad overall numbers - not just bad LOB%. He had a .270 BABIP with the bases empty, but a 100 point increase with men on.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 7, 2014 13:29:01 GMT -5
The question is if his LOB is lower than someone would expect give his component stats - i.e., does he cluster more or less than normal. If he groves flat fastball at 89, why would you expect that to happen more often when mon on base than in situations when they are not? (Unless you believe it is mechanical, and the mechanical issues themselves cluster and take a few batters to fix themselves - but that isn't what you are really arguing here.) A loss of skill should result in bad overall numbers - not just bad LOB%. He had a .270 BABIP with the bases empty, but a 100 point increase with men on. Pitching with runners on base is a skill though. It's just that most major league pitchers have that skill, else they don't stay in the majors very long.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 7, 2014 14:44:47 GMT -5
This is where you have to consider that Buchholz was not pitching like a MLB pitcher at all when he was bad so you can't just assume that he'd adjust to the league average for BABIP or LOB%. If he were pitching like always and simply had bad luck, then I'd completely agree. Sometimes, MLB pitchers don't pitch like they belong in the MLB though. It is instructive to look at his splits pre-DL trip (he missed roughly all of June) and post-DL trip: Pre-DL: 50 IP, 7.02 ERA, 15.7% K, 9.7% BB, .384 BABIP, 63.2% LOB, 4.89 FIP, 4.75 xFIP Post-DL: 120.1 IP, 4.64 ERA, 19.0% K, 6.1% BB, .280 BABIP, 61.4% LOB, 3.64 FIP, 3.75 xFIP You could make the argument that pre-DL trip, he was not pitching like an MLB-caliber starter and so his BABIP/LOB/etc. should not be regressed to league-average. But I find it pretty difficult to argue that this was still true in his post-DL stint, during which time he put up his second-highest K rate since 2008 and struck out three times more batters than he walked. During this later period, he still put up a pretty bad ERA because he couldn't strand runners, but his peripherals were excellent and his very low LOB% was likely due to bad luck more than anything else. So, yeah, considering he threw 120 innings of pretty good baseball to end the year, it doesn't seem implausible to say that overall, his season was only slightly below-average.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 7, 2014 18:26:22 GMT -5
Or another more likely explanation is that Buchholz lost it completely for a decent part of the season and had to be phantom DL-ed to get his mechanics back, which were still not all the way back by the end of the season. And yeah, it makes logical sense that you allow more baserunners to score when you can't control where most pitches are going to go so he'd have to pitch an 89 mph four seam fastball right down the middle to get a strike, like he did for several games before he was DL'ed. At that point, he deserved a slightly better BABIP or LOB% than a batting practice pitcher. This is where you have to consider that Buchholz was not pitching like a MLB pitcher at all when he was bad so you can't just assume that he'd adjust to the league average for BABIP or LOB%. If he were pitching like always and simply had bad luck, then I'd completely agree. Sometimes, MLB pitchers don't pitch like they belong in the MLB though. What about Buchholz surgery that he had right after the season that the sox said bothered him most of the season would that effect his performance this year. Probably not if we are still screaming about how bad he was this whole year. Seems to me for a guy that we all rag on we don't pay much attention to the medical issues this year. After all he has had quite a few medical issues in the past. wpri.com/2014/10/01/buchholz-undergoes-minor-knee-surgery/"The operation to repair a torn meniscus in his right knee took place Tuesday, two days after he started the team’s final game. General manager Ben Cherington said Buchholz pitched with the injury throughout the season."
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 7, 2014 20:50:41 GMT -5
The question is if his LOB is lower than someone would expect give his component stats - i.e., does he cluster more or less than normal. If he groves flat fastball at 89, why would you expect that to happen more often when mon on base than in situations when they are not? (Unless you believe it is mechanical, and the mechanical issues themselves cluster and take a few batters to fix themselves - but that isn't what you are really arguing here.) A loss of skill should result in bad overall numbers - not just bad LOB%. He had a .270 BABIP with the bases empty, but a 100 point increase with men on. Pitching with runners on base is a skill though. It's just that most major league pitchers have that skill, else they don't stay in the majors very long. Or maybe when pitching outbid the stretch he could not finish his pitches whether due to injury or some other issue.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 8, 2014 16:27:10 GMT -5
Cherington says the Red Sox’ previous relationship with Jon Lester might make him easier as a potential free agent target this offseason, mostly because they won’t have to do the due diligence with Lester that they might with another big-ticket free agent. In any case, Cherington likes the team’s chances of upgrading the rotation this offseason, either in the free agent market (where Lester, James Shields, Max Scherzer and others are available) or in trades.
Mlbtr
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 9, 2014 10:20:44 GMT -5
Curious what everyone would think about Liriano. Every year a guy who gets a QO sees his market take a hit and I think Liriano and Santana could be had on reasonable deals after the new year. With us having a protected pick do you think we sign multiple guys who would cost one?
I think Vazquez could continue this trend.
Buster Tweet
Liriano when pitching to Martin last two years: 2.92 ERA, 204 Ks/81 walks. Pitching to anybody else: 3.67 ERA, 134 Ks/63 walks.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2014 11:58:27 GMT -5
Curious what everyone would think about Liriano. Every year a guy who gets a QO sees his market take a hit and I think Liriano and Santana could be had on reasonable deals after the new year. With us having a protected pick do you think we sign multiple guys who would cost one? I think Vazquez could continue this trend. Buster Tweet Liriano when pitching to Martin last two years: 2.92 ERA, 204 Ks/81 walks. Pitching to anybody else: 3.67 ERA, 134 Ks/63 walks. What percentage is framing and what is game calling? He doesn't really excite me that much.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 9, 2014 12:57:07 GMT -5
Framing stats are above my head. I wouldn't want to give up our first unprotected pick for him but if we were to sign a higher rated FA or two that third rounder would be easier to swallow. Like most I'd prefer to sign the guys that don't cost picks but second teir FAs often find homes on pretty reasonable deals BC nobody is beating down the door to give up a first round pick to sign Loshe or Santana.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 9, 2014 13:34:12 GMT -5
Or another more likely explanation is that Buchholz lost it completely for a decent part of the season and had to be phantom DL-ed to get his mechanics back, which were still not all the way back by the end of the season. And yeah, it makes logical sense that you allow more baserunners to score when you can't control where most pitches are going to go so he'd have to pitch an 89 mph four seam fastball right down the middle to get a strike, like he did for several games before he was DL'ed. At that point, he deserved a slightly better BABIP or LOB% than a batting practice pitcher. This is where you have to consider that Buchholz was not pitching like a MLB pitcher at all when he was bad so you can't just assume that he'd adjust to the league average for BABIP or LOB%. If he were pitching like always and simply had bad luck, then I'd completely agree. Sometimes, MLB pitchers don't pitch like they belong in the MLB though. What about Buchholz surgery that he had right after the season that the sox said bothered him most of the season would that effect his performance this year. Probably not if we are still screaming about how bad he was this whole year. Seems to me for a guy that we all rag on we don't pay much attention to the medical issues this year. After all he has had quite a few medical issues in the past. wpri.com/2014/10/01/buchholz-undergoes-minor-knee-surgery/"The operation to repair a torn meniscus in his right knee took place Tuesday, two days after he started the team’s final game. General manager Ben Cherington said Buchholz pitched with the injury throughout the season." In general, a knee injury in theory could effect a pitcher's ability to pitch out of the stretch. However in Clay's case there always some excuse as to why his results never match his talent.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 9, 2014 23:39:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to give up our first unprotected pick for him but if we were to sign a higher rated FA or two that third rounder would be easier to swallow. Minor detail, but my understanding is that we lose the Oakland comp bal pick before our 3rd rounder.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 10, 2014 13:13:43 GMT -5
“@ken_Rosenthal: Sources: #RedSox one of 20 teams on Hamels’ no-trade list. He would need to give #Phillies approval to trade him to Boston.”
“@ken_Rosenthal: Hamels would not necessarily reject #RedSox, but likely would require any team on no-trade list to pick up his $20 million option for 2019.”
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 10, 2014 16:47:11 GMT -5
However in Clay's case there always some excuse as to why his results never match his talent. Wow, I hadn't realized that was the case. For some wacky reason, I was under the impression that Clay had put up two of the best four seasons, by ERA-, in all of MLB over the last five years (minimum 15 GS). And that as recently as 2013 he had the best season by ERA-, and the second best season by WPA/GS, in all of MLB, 2010-2014. Oh, wait, I checked, and that's correct. Damn -- I have an English degree and I thought I knew what "never" meant, too. Also, "results." F*ck. I checked those definitions, and I wasn't wrong there either. I'm puzzled, then, about the intent of your post. Is there some contest I'm unaware of to see who can demonstrate who is least in touch with reality? If so, I'm in! Your posts are always reasonable. [Seriously, it seems to me that people are actually thinking along such lines, and were in need of a little reminder.]
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 10, 2014 17:46:40 GMT -5
In all seriousness this is part of my frustration with him. In 2013 he easily could have been the best pitcher in all of baseball and put together a 7 or 8 WAR season. But in June he has a bump on the shoulder and suddenly he's never heard from again. Every year it seems there is an excuse as to why he can't pitch well, or can't pitch at all for an extended period of time.
Since 2009, Buchholz has averaged 2.2 BWAR per season, slightly above average. He's way more talented than that and you demonstrated that yourself.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 10, 2014 19:02:34 GMT -5
“@brianmacp: Source: Red Sox yet to check in on Ervin Santana, but they were scouting him "the whole year." In next tier behind Scherzer/Lester/Shields.”
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 11, 2014 19:13:59 GMT -5
Pete Abraham @peteabe · 9m 9 minutes ago Cherington mentioned he had not spoken to Lester’s agents this week. Didn’t know that he would. #redsox Pete Abraham @peteabe · 8m 8 minutes ago Asked Ben Cherington if signing Jon Lester was a priority for the #RedSox. This is what he said:
|
|
|