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.
Clay Buchholz's Last Days as a Red Sox?
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 23, 2016 11:20:04 GMT -5
“@alexspeier: Farrell on Buchholz’ role: ‘I don’t want to say purgatory, but it’s a difficult spot.’ Would have used Buchholz as long man if trailing.” "purgatory" Ok if this doesn't send red flags up about not only clay but also John Farrell's horrific judgement nothing will ...I would keep clay and kick John to the curb if I'm the owner and I read that today ....wouldn't talk to this clown in person just call him tell him to pack his shi$ and escort his inept as$ out of Fenway .
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 23, 2016 23:51:35 GMT -5
Not a chance my friend. The numbers don't lie, or should I bore you again with the numbers? The Redsox "great ones" never threw this bad. The great ones never had an average ERA over 5 in 7 of 9 seasons. The great ones would get hit but rebound and get better. Lester, Schilling, Pedro, Tiant, Hurst and the list goes on. WTF are you talking about? Buchholz was crappy this year. Nobody is debating that. But what is the bug up your butt about Buchholz in totality? Has he been a disappointment? Yes. Has he been awful or a "bust"? No way. We're do you get an average ERA of 5 over 7 of 9 seasons? Take out his two best seasons and his ERA is 4.64, but why would you do that? Are you Eric Van in reverse? Eric takes out worst performances to prop up a guy's stats to support his view that the player is excellent while you take out the best performances to make a guy's stats look worse than he is to support your view that the guy is crap. Either way, it's called cherry picking, and it's untruthful. You want truth? Here's his ERAs year by year, 2007: 1.59 in 22.2 IP, 2008: 6.75 in 76 IP, 2009: 4.21 in 92 IP, 2010: 2.33 in 173.2 IP, 2011: 3.48 in 82.2 IP, 2012: 4.56 in 189.1 IP, 2013: 1.74 in 108.1 IP, 2014: 5.36 in 170.1 IP, 2015: 3.26 ERA in 113.1 IP, and 2016: 5.84 ERA in 81.2 IP. That comes out to an ERA lifetime of 4, which during his time, pitching half his games in Fenway, comes out to an ERA+ of 108, or 8% better than average. That is hardly bad. You can say he's disappointing, unreliable, and injury prone, and that he stunk in 2008, was lousy in 2012, really bad in 2014, and awful this season. You can also say he was promising in 2007, hopeful in 2009 when he pitched well toward the end of the season, fantastic in 2011, good until he got hurt in both 2011 and 2015, and spectacular until he got hurt in 2013. That's how he was. Why you talk about him along with "the great ones" is beyond me. Nobody ever claimed he was great. Is it so black and white in your world where somebody is either great or awful and there's no in between? In totality Buchholz was above average but too injury prone and unreliable to really be anything special, but he was hardly some major catastrophe like you make him out to be. This is why everybody is quick to defend Buchholz and tell you that this opinion you have of his total career is stupid. The injury history alone was enough to warrant trading this player when the value was high. Picking up the option was absurd. Again, you could have retained Hill or taken the 13 beans and gone after a more durable pitcher. Fister is the guy who had a pretty good track record for DD in Detroit. Dombrowski listened to the wrong people about bucholz and it has cost the Redsox games. Same could be said about Kelly. As an organization you have to know when to dump players who are inconsistent perfomers to the point where they cost you games. That is why player personnel employees like Crockett Baird and Abraham must go!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 24, 2016 0:02:04 GMT -5
WTF are you talking about? Buchholz was crappy this year. Nobody is debating that. But what is the bug up your butt about Buchholz in totality? Has he been a disappointment? Yes. Has he been awful or a "bust"? No way. We're do you get an average ERA of 5 over 7 of 9 seasons? Take out his two best seasons and his ERA is 4.64, but why would you do that? Are you Eric Van in reverse? Eric takes out worst performances to prop up a guy's stats to support his view that the player is excellent while you take out the best performances to make a guy's stats look worse than he is to support your view that the guy is crap. Either way, it's called cherry picking, and it's untruthful. You want truth? Here's his ERAs year by year, 2007: 1.59 in 22.2 IP, 2008: 6.75 in 76 IP, 2009: 4.21 in 92 IP, 2010: 2.33 in 173.2 IP, 2011: 3.48 in 82.2 IP, 2012: 4.56 in 189.1 IP, 2013: 1.74 in 108.1 IP, 2014: 5.36 in 170.1 IP, 2015: 3.26 ERA in 113.1 IP, and 2016: 5.84 ERA in 81.2 IP. That comes out to an ERA lifetime of 4, which during his time, pitching half his games in Fenway, comes out to an ERA+ of 108, or 8% better than average. That is hardly bad. You can say he's disappointing, unreliable, and injury prone, and that he stunk in 2008, was lousy in 2012, really bad in 2014, and awful this season. You can also say he was promising in 2007, hopeful in 2009 when he pitched well toward the end of the season, fantastic in 2011, good until he got hurt in both 2011 and 2015, and spectacular until he got hurt in 2013. That's how he was. Why you talk about him along with "the great ones" is beyond me. Nobody ever claimed he was great. Is it so black and white in your world where somebody is either great or awful and there's no in between? In totality Buchholz was above average but too injury prone and unreliable to really be anything special, but he was hardly some major catastrophe like you make him out to be. This is why everybody is quick to defend Buchholz and tell you that this opinion you have of his total career is stupid. The injury history alone was enough to warrant trading this player when the value was high. Picking up the option was absurd. Again, you could have retained Hill or taken the 13 beans and gone after a more durable pitcher. Fister is the guy who had a pretty good track record for DD in Detroit. Dombrowski listened to the wrong people about bucholz and it has cost the Redsox games. Same could be said about Kelly. As an organization you have to know when to dump players who are inconsistent perfomers to the point where they cost you games. That is why player personnel employees like Crockett Baird and Abraham must go! Wait a minute. Buchholz pitched to a 3.26 ERA in 115 IP while the much older Hill dominated in 4 garbage time starts and hasn't seen 115 IP in many, many years. It was perfectly defensible for the Red Sox to make the decision to keep Buchholz and not guarantee Hill, a guy with zero track record who was much older. If you think Buchholz is brittle, then what the hell is Rich Hill? Oh yeah, he's injured again. Hey, I wish they had held onto Hill. Maybe Anderson Espinoza would still be in the organization. Maybe not, but I don't have a problem with the thinking that Buchholz was a better gamble than Hill was. I mean, are you really shocked that Rich Hill is hurt yet again? Look you hate Buchholz. That's very clear. By next week he should be gone. Fine, but at least get your facts straight.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 24, 2016 0:02:08 GMT -5
I was thinking of how Derek Lowe had an ERA over 5 all of 2004 (with lower FIP) but then became a post-season hero. Not as bad as Buchholz, but really bad. Hey, thanks for reminding me of something else I called in advance, right on the head, by so-called cherry-picking (in this case, identifying an obvious bimodal pattern; he was great for a stretch of a handful of starts, then awful for a stretch, so it was pretty clear how good he could be. At the time there were a lot of rumors about excess partying.) I know I pointed out at SoSH (and in a chat with Phil from the Yankees equivalent site, on ESPN) that the "good Lowe" had been better than Mussina, and IIRC I got mocked for that by Yankee fans. I'd forgotten about it completely. Other than this insightful point, though, this thread is the trainwreck I expected it to be ... I only checked it out tonight because I thought there might be some posters saying he'd looked good tonight (first thing I saw of his outing was the squeezed should-have-been inning-ending strikeout).
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 24, 2016 13:08:11 GMT -5
The injury history alone was enough to warrant trading this player when the value was high. Picking up the option was absurd. Again, you could have retained Hill or taken the 13 beans and gone after a more durable pitcher. Fister is the guy who had a pretty good track record for DD in Detroit. Dombrowski listened to the wrong people about bucholz and it has cost the Redsox games. Same could be said about Kelly. As an organization you have to know when to dump players who are inconsistent perfomers to the point where they cost you games. That is why player personnel employees like Crockett Baird and Abraham must go! Wait a minute. Buchholz pitched to a 3.26 ERA in 115 IP while the much older Hill dominated in 4 garbage time starts and hasn't seen 115 IP in many, many years. It was perfectly defensible for the Red Sox to make the decision to keep Buchholz and not guarantee Hill, a guy with zero track record who was much older. If you think Buchholz is brittle, then what the hell is Rich Hill? Oh yeah, he's injured again. Hey, I wish they had held onto Hill. Maybe Anderson Espinoza would still be in the organization. Maybe not, but I don't have a problem with the thinking that Buchholz was a better gamble than Hill was. I mean, are you really shocked that Rich Hill is hurt yet again? Look you hate Buchholz. That's very clear. By next week he should be gone. Fine, but at least get your facts straight. 18 Starts and you guessed it, Injured again.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2016 6:24:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 25, 2016 7:13:44 GMT -5
Considering the market for relievers, getting Hochevar for Buchholz or a Buchholz-centered package seems like more of Cafardo's implausible wishcasting rather than an actual thing that might happen.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jul 25, 2016 7:45:16 GMT -5
Clay was one of my favorite prospects coming through the minors -- had a devastating combo of pitches. I feel bad he couldn't stay healthy, but he's likely completely cooked at this point.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 25, 2016 11:11:40 GMT -5
Considering the market for relievers, getting Hochevar for Buchholz or a Buchholz-centered package seems like more of Cafardo's implausible wishcasting rather than an actual thing that might happen. Obviously it would depend on the prospect going to KC along with Buchholz. If they're serious about Hochevar, which prospect would you give up along with Buchholz? 10-15?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 25, 2016 16:32:30 GMT -5
EvanDrellich: Dombrowski on Buchholz: ”I thought his stuff was outstanding the other day. So he’s got a place to help us.“”
“@alexspeier: Dombrowski said that Buchholz showed his best stuff of the season in his last outing.”
“@peteabe: Dombrowski full of praise for how Buchholz threw on Saturday. Mentioned needing starter depth.”
“@peteabe: Nobody wants to hear it in the Twitter Hate Village. But Buchholz is the No. 6 starter. Pickings beyond that are slim.”
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2016 16:39:15 GMT -5
“@peteabe: Nobody wants to hear it in the Twitter Hate Village. But Buchholz is the No. 6 starter. Pickings beyond that are slim.” Just imagine what someone better than Buchholz would cost. To be the 6th starter... Also, thanks for copy/pasting the tweets for those using firefox.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 25, 2016 21:00:38 GMT -5
EvanDrellich: Dombrowski on Buchholz: ”I thought his stuff was outstanding the other day. So he’s got a place to help us.“” “@alexspeier: Dombrowski said that Buchholz showed his best stuff of the season in his last outing.” “@peteabe: Dombrowski full of praise for how Buchholz threw on Saturday. Mentioned needing starter depth.” “@peteabe: Nobody wants to hear it in the Twitter Hate Village. But Buchholz is the No. 6 starter. Pickings beyond that are slim.” What is Diamond Dave supposed to say, he sucks? Keeping the trade value high
|
|
|