Buchholz the next Halladay?

[NateGrey]

http://jayszone93.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/clay-buchholz.jpg

 

 

 

If you see Clay Buchholz smiling on the mound this spring, it's with good reason.

 

Buchholz appears poised for a breakout season after putting it all together late last summer. The 25-year-old enjoyed the most consistent stretch of his career in September, posting a 4-1 record and 2.87 ERA. Promising numbers, but that's not the only reason he should be happy.

 

If you see Buchholz smiling on the mound this spring, he's probably looking over his right shoulder.

 

No pitcher will benefit more from the retooled defense on the left side of the Red Sox infield. Adrian Beltre and Marco Scutaro arrive in Boston with stellar defensive reputations, looking to shore up a major deficiency of last year's squad. This should not be lost on Buchholz.

 

Among the 73 American League pitchers who threw at least 90 innings last season, Buchholz had the fifth-highest grounder-to-fly ball ratio. Defense at third base and shortstop is of particular importance. Of the grounders he induced, 42 percent were hit to the left side (compared to 23 percent up the middle and 35 percent to the right).

 

But realistically, just how big of an improvement could Beltre and Scutaro be? What's the impact on Buchholz and the rest of Boston's staff?

 

Common defensive statistics tend to fall into two categories: flawed or confusing. However, John Dewan's Fielding Bible Plus/Minus does a nice job of putting defensive performance into practical terms. Essentially, it shows the number of plays made above or below an average defensive player. So how do the Red Sox stack up?

 

Baseball Info Solutions tracked plus/minus for 2009. According to its data, Mike Lowell was a minus-23 on ground balls, meaning he made 23 fewer plays on grounders than an average third baseman would have. Showing just how much Lowell was limited by injuries, he was a startling minus-17 on grounders hit to his left. At shortstop, Nick Green, who started almost half of Boston's games, was essentially average (minus-one) on grounders.

 

Their replacements are a different story. Despite missing 51 games, Beltre was a plus-21 on grounders, third best in the majors at the hot corner. The same data shows Scutaro fielded 15 more grounders than an average shortstop, tied for third best in the majors.

 

So Beltre and Scutaro essentially got to 60 more grounders than Lowell and Green would have. That adds up, particularly for a ground ball pitcher like Buchholz. It also helps explain why Dewan believes the Red Sox could have improved defensively by 90 runs, as he stated at last week's MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. Those 90 runs are the equivalent of about nine wins.

 

Now back to Buchholz. How did the pitcher who looked so lost in 2008 re-emerge last season? One of the key developments came with men on base -- and it will bring us right back to ground balls.

 

In his disastrous 2008 season, opponents hit .348 off Buchholz with men on base. That placed him 182nd out of 185 pitchers with at least 75 innings. He essentially fell apart when faced with even slight adversity. Consider this: With only first base occupied, opponents hit .403 with a 1.276 OPS against Buchholz in 2008.

 

But after dominating minor league hitters for the first half of 2009, Buchholz earned another chance in Boston's rotation. The results were much better.

 

With the bases empty, he was more or less the same pitcher statistically. With no one on base against Buchholz, opponents hit .254 in 2009, just slightly down from .259 in 2008.

 

But with men on base, opponents hit just .259 in 2009, down .089 from the previous year. That trouble he had after giving up first base? He cut his opponents' OPS in half. With only first occupied, opponents hit .238 with a .626 OPS. No longer did Buchholz let innings get away from him at the first sign of trouble.

 

So what changed? Here's where the grounders come back into the equation. When he was struggling in 2008, Buchholz failed to induce grounders to get out of jams. According to data from Inside Edge, only 42 percent of balls put in play against Buchholz with men on base were grounders. Last season, that shot up to 56 percent.

 

Buchholz solved his woes by relying on the infield, even if the defense behind him wasn't particularly impressive. Beltre and Scutaro figure to make that work even better for him.

 

There clearly were other reasons for Buchholz's improvement. Much the way he no longer let a baserunner ruin an inning, Buchholz was much better after falling behind in the count. Consider that he had five fewer walks in 2009 despite pitching 16 more innings. The key was relying much more on his fastball. When behind in the count in 2008, he went to the fastball just 52 percent of the time, according to Inside Edge. Last season, that skyrocketed to 74 percent.

 

Cutting down on walks, inducing more grounders and escaping jams are all extremely positive trends as Buchholz heads into 2010. They also call to mind another pitcher with a remarkably similar early career arc.

 

Like Buchholz, Roy Halladay made a fast impression, dominating in his second career start. He was penciled into the Blue Jays' starting rotation by the time he turned 23, but things didn't go as planned. Halladay posted a 10.64 ERA in 2000, and his problems might sound familiar. Opponents hit .405 with men on base, and he averaged almost six walks per nine innings.

 

But, the similarities don't end there. Halladay regained his confidence in the minors in 2001, finishing the year as a key member of the Toronto rotation. The difference? Fewer walks, more grounders and opponents hitting just .268 with men on base.

 

That puts Buchholz where Halladay was in 2002, when he went 19-7. In 2003, Halladay won the AL Cy Young Award.

 

Just another reason for Buchholz to smile.

 

 

 

 

> http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/news/story?id=4988152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dojji]

I think I can safely say not just no, but heck no. By Buchholz' age, Halladay was already a dominant #1.

 

There's plenty of room for Buchholz to be a danged good pitcher without being as good as a generational talent like Halladay. and if one of our pitchers has a chance to reach that level it's likely Kelly rather than Buchholz.

 

Besides, I'm still waiting for evidence that Buchholz has the "head" to pitch in the AL East.

[a700hitter]

Will he be in the starting rotation when the team goes north? Wakefield has yet to give up a run, and he is the incumbent. I would prefer that Wakefield not be in the rotation, but if he keeps up the current pace, he will keep his job. They are not going to a 6 man rotation. Maybe Spud could run Wakefield down with his car and knock him out of the rotation. I don't want him dead, just winged like Spud did to Nomar years back,

[Dipre]

No to Bucholz and Beltre. Yes to Hunter Jones and Tug Hulett. A-m-a-z-i-n-g.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Bucholz has had plenty of time to try to prove himself, and outside of that no hitter he hasn't. He hasn't been as awesome as everyone makes him out to be.

[Dipre]

Bucholz has had plenty of time to try to prove himself' date=' and outside of that no hitter he hasn't. He hasn't been as awesome as everyone makes him out to be.[/quote']

 

He has 1.5 years of ML playing time.

[riverside sluggers]

Bucholz has had plenty of time to try to prove himself' date=' and outside of that no hitter he hasn't. He hasn't been as awesome as everyone makes him out to be.[/quote']

 

Clay proved himself worthy of a rotation spot, for what he did down the stretch last season. 6 starts in September, he was 4-1 with a 2.87 ERA!

 

700, Dice-K is likely to start season on DL. So that has Wake in the rotation. Clay will not be in the bullpen or Triple A on opening day

[Dojji]

No one here is saying that buchholz is a terrible pitcher. Just no way is he Roy Halladay.

[Dipre]

No one has said Bucholz "is" the next Roy Halladay. The article simply points out some interesting similarities. Also, no one here is trying to make out Bucholz as "awesome". He's a highly regarded guy with great stuff who's yet to put it all together, so people are rightfully excited about him realizing his potential. Context.

[Dojji]

No one has said Bucholz "is" the next Roy Halladay.

 

Thread title:

 

Buchholz the next Halladay?

 

Yeah. OK. He didn't say it. He just introduced the topic in a manner that suggested it.

[Dipre]

Thread title:

 

 

 

Yeah. OK.

 

Posing it as a question and then explaining statistical similarities. Ok?

 

If the thread title was: "Bucholz to become the next Halladay" you may have a point.

 

Not going to argue the obvious there, buddy.

[bsox0407]

Buchholz still has a lot to prove. 1.5 years of experience is not enough to base whether he is good or not not even having a full year in the majors in the starting rotation. He is good but we don't know how good because he hasn't put a full year in. He has a career 190.2 innings pitched in the majors with a record of 12-14. He has a good WHIP 1.495. ERA.- 4.91

 

BTW Dojji Halladay was not the ace that he is today at 24. 18-17 W-L. in 336.1 innings and a WHIP of 1.536. ERA.- 4.95

[redsoxrules]

Buchholz still has a lot to prove. 1.5 years of experience is not enough to base whether he is good or not not even having a full year in the majors in the starting rotation. He is good but we don't know how good because he hasn't put a full year in. He has a career 190.2 innings pitched in the majors with a record of 12-14. He has a good WHIP 1.495. ERA.- 4.91

 

BTW Dojji Halladay was not the ace that he is today at 24. 18-17 W-L. in 336.1 innings and a WHIP of 1.536. ERA.- 4.95

 

that's not good . it sucks ass

[Dojji]

Buchholz still has a lot to prove. 1.5 years of experience is not enough to base whether he is good or not not even having a full year in the majors in the starting rotation. He is good but we don't know how good because he hasn't put a full year in. He has a career 190.2 innings pitched in the majors with a record of 12-14. He has a good WHIP 1.495. ERA.- 4.91

 

BTW Dojji Halladay was not the ace that he is today at 24. 18-17 W-L. in 336.1 innings and a WHIP of 1.536. ERA.- 4.95

 

Halladay at age 24: 5-3, 3.16 ERA

Buchholz at age 24: 7-4, 4.21 ERA.

 

I'm not saying:

 

-- that Buchholz Sucks

-- that he doesn't have great stuff

-- that he doesn't have a ton of potential

-- that he doesn't deserve a spot in the Boston rotation

-- that he won't be extremely productive considering he's probably our 4th or 5th starter most of the year

 

I am saying:

 

-- He is not yet Roy Halladay

-- He has a few things to prove before a Halladay comparison makes sense

-- I want to be a little surer about his confidence and "head issues" before I hype him as a generational ace

-- Mentioning Halliday in this way is unfair to Buchholz because it creates unrealistic expectations

-- I will be watching his performances as closely as I can this year

 

 

If he improves enough this year or in the future, that comparison could be more apt later. Just not yet.

[Dipre]

Halladay at age 24: Third full year in the Major Leagues.

 

Bucholz at age 24: Second year in the Major Leagues, begins pitching at the ML level after the mid-way point of the season.

 

Also, the article is not literally comparing Bucholz to Halladay, but pointing out signs that Bucholz may break out in a similar way to Halladay. Dunno how else to interpret this.

[Dojji]

That's kind of my point. Look, I'm not down on Buchholz. If you'd just concede my point, which you actually agree with, instead of being a dick about this, we'd be done here.

 

And I am aware that the article doesn't directly compate Buchholz to Halladay, but the suggestion is still there. I'd tell you to try to deny it, but you're really good at that and I'm afraid you might manage it.

[Dipre]

Buchholz debuted in 2007. Both of them bounced back and forth in the minors until age 24. Fail.

 

And I am aware that the article doesn't directly compate Buchholz to Halladay, but the suggestion is still there. I'd tell you to try to deny it, but you're really good at that and I'm afraid you might manage it.

 

Lol Fail. Fantastic. Halladay pitched 14 innings in '98, 149 in 99, 67 in 2000 (Getting rocked) and then broke through.

 

Buch debuted in 2007, got rocked in '08, then pitched half a season in '09. I never counted Halladay's 98 or Buch's '07, because logic would dictate that. Logic.....

 

If you count it then:

 

Fourth full year for Halladay. FAIL

[Dipre]

That's kind of my point. Look, I'm not down on Buchholz. If you'd just concede my point, which you actually agree with, instead of being a dick about this, we'd be done here.

 

And I am aware that the article doesn't directly compate Buchholz to Halladay, but the suggestion is still there. I'd tell you to try to deny it, but you're really good at that and I'm afraid you might manage it.

 

Oh. My. God.

 

Oh, and edit, then edit, then edit. Typical. You edit your post to go out of your way to personally attack me by calling me a dick. Irony.

[Dojji]

You're BEING a dick. Feel free to keep making this conversation into a personal war for some obscure reason. You will anyway.

 

And if you weren't lurking here mashing the refresh button, you wouldn't have been caught by the edits. Even I'm not THAT desperate.

[Spudboy]

Lol.

 

A meaningless thread turns into more s*** slinging. How predictable.

[Dipre]

You're BEING a dick. Feel free to keep making this conversation into a personal war for some obscure reason. You will anyway.

 

And if you weren't lurking here mashing the refresh button, you wouldn't have been caught by the edits. Even I'm not THAT desperate.

 

Please keep editing. Gonna call the whhhhhambulance and put me on ignore again?

 

By the way, this is the actual name of the article:

 

New infield should bolster Buchholz

 

Obviously an attempt to compare Bucholz and Halladay.

[redsoxrules]

HOLY f***ING s***

[yeszir]

Dojji and Dipre, expect a PM from me.

 

And back on topic, if people actually care about discussing this.

[bsox0407]

that's not good . it sucks ass

 

that includes his 1.7 from 2008. he had a 1.059 in 2007 and a 1.380 in 2009.

 

Halladay at age 24: 5-3, 3.16 ERA

Buchholz at age 24: 7-4, 4.21 ERA.

 

I'm not saying:

 

-- that Buchholz Sucks

-- that he doesn't have great stuff

-- that he doesn't have a ton of potential

-- that he doesn't deserve a spot in the Boston rotation

-- that he won't be extremely productive considering he's probably our 4th or 5th starter most of the year

 

I am saying:

 

-- He is not yet Roy Halladay

-- He has a few things to prove before a Halladay comparison makes sense

-- I want to be a little surer about his confidence and "head issues" before I hype him as a generational ace

-- Mentioning Halliday in this way is unfair to Buchholz because it creates unrealistic expectations

-- I will be watching his performances as closely as I can this year

 

 

If he improves enough this year or in the future, that comparison could be more apt later. Just not yet.

 

I think I can safely say not just no' date=' but heck no. By Buchholz' age, Halladay was already a dominant #1.[/quote']

 

 

This is what i was reacting to and showing that he was not already a dominant number 1. He was comparable to Buchholz at 24.

[Dojji]

I dunno, you look at those numbers at age 24, if he isn't a #1, it's pretty close -- like Zack Greinke 2008, only Greinke got a whole year of playing time and Halladay's a half season sample.

 

Certainly Halladay's ERA and rate stats at that age are nothing to sneeze at. Buchholz, while not bad by any stretch of the imagination, is not as good as Halladay was at the same age.

 

This is all kinda pointless. I'd like to hope this isn't the kind of conversation we're going to be having here going forward.

[bsox0407]

I dunno, you look at those numbers at age 24, if he isn't a #1, it's pretty close -- like Zack Greinke 2008, only Greinke got a whole year of playing time and Halladay's a half season sample.

 

Certainly Halladay's ERA and rate stats at that age are nothing to sneeze at. Buchholz, while not bad by any stretch of the imagination, is not as good as Halladay was at the same age.

 

This is all kinda pointless. I'd like to hope this isn't the kind of conversation we're going to be having here going forward.

 

he was good in the short season but no number 1. ANd Buchholz is not Doc. Plus DOc is going to amazing in the NL. Getting to play the Mets and NAts. Getting out of Fenway and NYY Stadium.

[Dipre]

he was good in the short season but no number 1. ANd Buchholz is not Doc. Plus DOc is going to amazing in the NL. Getting to play the Mets and NAts. Getting out of Fenway and NYY Stadium.

 

The point is that when making the comparison "Age" in itself means nothing, but rather time in the league.

 

Let's look at the timeline this way:

 

Roy Halladay:

 

Year 1: 14 IP, 1.93 ERA

 

Year 2: 149 IP, 3.92 ERA

 

Year 3: 67.2 IP, 10.64 ERA

 

Year 4: 105 IP, 3.16 ERA

 

Clay Bucholz:

 

Year 1: 22.2 IP, 1.59 ERA

 

Year 2: 76 IP, 6.75 ERA

 

Year 3: 92 IP, 4.21 ERA

 

Year 4: ???

 

What the article tries to ascertain is the similarities in career paths (i.e early succes, struggles, then a settiling down period) and tries to use the rising groundball rate as the reason for what later became sustained success for Halladay and could become success for Bucholz as well.

[Dojji]

I'd love to see it if it happened, but I suspect the writer is mistaking correlation for causation.

 

The thing that helped Halladay get over the hump is a sea change in his command. The ground balls are nice, but a lot of #3's have a high GB rate. It's more of a symptom that you have pitched well, than any predictor of what will happen, because it's an indicator that tends to fluctuate within a fairly wide range throughout a pitcher's career.

 

Halladay combines three things, all of which go into making him what he is.

 

A K/8 rate consistntly around 8. Very high for a starter.

A high groundball rate

One of the lowest bb/9 in the league.

 

It's the last one that I need to see from Buchholz before I'll say he's on a Halladay career track. He needs to drop a walk and a half per 9 innings to really combine all the tools Roy Halladay uses to be what he is.

 

That said, he did show very good command in the minors, so if he can settle in, gain some confidence at the big league level, and STOP NIBBLING, he has as good a chance to take that step as anyone on the team.

[Dipre]

I suppose you mean the fastball command that completely abandoned Bucholz during 2008 when they started tinkering with his arm slot, and that he slowly regained as 2009 went on. That's the issue. The writer is saying that the cards are stacked for Bucholz, not against him.

[jacksonianmarch]

Comparing anyone to Halladay is ridiculous since Halladay mixes great command and pitch movement with an unparalelled work ethic. Guys like him dont come around often. This is a big season for Buch, but these types of commentaries dont help the kid feel his way around a batters box. He's gonna have a good yr IMO, some patches where he is dominant and others where he is downright inconsistent. By the end of the yr, he'll cement a spot in the rotation for a long, long time.