Clay Buchholz - Is he worth the 2016 option?

[moonslav59]

How does the $13.5 million Clay Buchholz option compare with that of Jason Hammel, whose $12 million option for 2017 has been declined by the Chicago Cubs?

 

The 32-year-old Buchholz has been valued at 5.3 fWAR in 423 innings over the past three seasons, including 0.5 fWAR in 139.1 innings this year.

 

Hammel, who is two years older than Buchholz, has been valued at 5.6 fWAR in 513.2 innings over the past three seasons, including 1.5 fWAR in 166.2 innings this year.

 

Hammel has never shown the extended flashes of greatness Buch has. It's not always about most recent WAR numbers. Sometimes it's about what a players ceiling could be, and Buch can pitch like an ace for extended periods of time. He's done it 3-4 times over his career.

[harmony]

Hammel has never shown the extended flashes of greatness Buch has. It's not always about most recent WAR numbers. Sometimes it's about what a players ceiling could be, and Buch can pitch like an ace for extended periods of time. He's done it 3-4 times over his career.

Jason Hammel probably has not slumped for extended periods like Clay Buchholz has.

 

In terms of best fWAR seasons, Buchholz posted 3.2 in 2015, 3.0 in 2010 and 2.8 in 2013 while Hammel posted 3.5 in 2009, 3.2 in 2010 and 2.4 in 2015.

 

Just for fantasy kicks, read the results of one poll:

 

https://www.fantasypros.com/mlb/draft/clay-buchholz-jason-hammel.php

[Bellhorn04]

There was some chatter a while back about how some managers - and Tito's name was at the forefront - have changed the way the game is played. This may be another instance of it, using your best reliever in the highest leverage situations regardless of the inning. This is something Bill James has been saying for years. It'll be interesting to see if this catches on in 2017.

 

It will be interesting. But not every team is going to have an Andrew Miller and a Cody Allen at their disposal. You have to have a couple of studs to be able to utilize that strategy on a consistent basis.

[Dojji]

My position on the Bill James relief ace model vs the closer model is unchanged.

 

If you have zero good relievers it doesn't matter, you're screwed

 

If you have 1 good reliever it doesn't matter, if you use him as a fireman instead of a closer, you're screwed in late innings, if you use him as a closer rather than a fireman, you're screwed in middle innings. If there's any advantage to be had, securing the late innings gives you a slight chance to come back if the middle innings screw you over.

 

If you have more than 1 good reliever, it still doesn't matter, because you have the good arms you need to fill both roles, and if the debate is over which to use where, see prior paragraph only less so.

 

This is obviously an oversimplification since you need multiple good arms to win anything at the big league level, but I think it still makes the point clearly enough. THe whole debate is much ado about nothing. If your talent is good enough, it doesn't matter which reliever you use where within reason, if your talent is not good enough -- same thing.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Dojji

[moonslav59]

It will be interesting. But not every team is going to have an Andrew Miller and a Cody Allen at their disposal. You have to have a couple of studs to be able to utilize that strategy on a consistent basis.

 

True enough, and what else is important is the fact that the Guardians went much deeper than just those two!

 

Dan Otero 71 IP!!!

1.53 ERA/0.906 WHIP

 

Bryan Shaw 67 IP!!!

3.24 ERA/1.26 WHIP

 

WOW!!!

 

Cody Allen 68 IP, 2.51 ERA/ 1.00 WHIP

Andrew Miller 29 IP, 1.55 ERA/ 0.552 WHIP

 

Compare these 4 to our top 4:

 

Kimbrel 51 IP 2.65/1.33

Ziegler 30 IP 1.52/1.25

R Ross 55 IP 3.25/1.25

Barnes 67 IP 4.05/1.40 or Uehara 47 IP 3.45/0.96

 

 

 

[Kimmi]

There was some chatter a while back about how some managers - and Tito's name was at the forefront - have changed the way the game is played. This may be another instance of it, using your best reliever in the highest leverage situations regardless of the inning. This is something Bill James has been saying for years. It'll be interesting to see if this catches on in 2017.

 

I have always agreed with this philosophy. The real 'save' situation in a game often comes in the 7th or 8th innings. To me, it doesn't make any sense to save your closer for a save situation that might never come.

 

That said, many relief pitchers like to have defined roles and like to know exactly when they're coming into the game. Also, it might be difficult to have your closer warming up and ready to go in the earlier innings because the highest leverage situations might not be apparent until it's too late or until after the fact.

 

For those reasons, I'm not sure that it would be practical for a manager to manage his BP like that over the course of a long regular season.

[Kimmi]

How does the $13.5 million Clay Buchholz option compare with that of Jason Hammel, whose $12 million option for 2017 has been declined by the Chicago Cubs?

 

The 32-year-old Buchholz has been valued at 5.3 fWAR in 423 innings over the past three seasons, including 0.5 fWAR in 139.1 innings this year.

 

Hammel, who is two years older than Buchholz, has been valued at 5.6 fWAR in 513.2 innings over the past three seasons, including 1.5 fWAR in 166.2 innings this year.

 

There is speculation that Hammel is not fully healthy. Some type of elbow thing?

[sk7326]

Better ways like throwing Guerra, Margot and others at a closer because you didn't have one and wouldn't pay for the bird in the hand?

 

Come on, you're expecting DD to make a bullpen out of smoke and mirrors, and then complaining when a pen made with a limited budget is limited. Yes, relievers can be found cheap who will be effective, especially over the short term. No, that doesn't mean building a championship strategy out of consistently doing this is anything other than an absolutely stupid idea.

 

El cheapo bullpens are not consistent, sometimes they're great if you're really lucky, but a perennial contender would rather be good than lucky. Small markets on a run can get away with going cheap on the pen because they can afford to only get lucky a few times in any given generation. Champions need consistent relief, and consistent relief costs money.

 

TLDR, if you don't want to spend money on relief, don't be surprised if the bullpen is your greatest liability.

 

Cost has nothing to do with it ...

 

Consistent relief requires attrition and luck - throw "stuff guys" at the wall until you get paydirt. It's why the years are so hard to reconcile.

 

Virtually every good reliever was a starter who couldn't cut it - couldn't turn a lineup over, couldn't find a third pitch worth a damn. Line em up and see where it takes you - and if any stink, line up some more.

[Kimmi]

Cost has nothing to do with it ...

 

Consistent relief requires attrition and luck - throw "stuff guys" at the wall until you get paydirt. It's why the years are so hard to reconcile.

 

Virtually every good reliever was a starter who couldn't cut it - couldn't turn a lineup over, couldn't find a third pitch worth a damn. Line em up and see where it takes you - and if any stink, line up some more.

 

And this is why I like you sk.

[a700hitter]

Who could have predicted this? See you in 2019, Clay.

The D-backs announced a series of roster moves Monday, activating right-hander Shelby Miller from the 60-day disabled list, placing fellow righty Clay Buchholz on the 10-day disabled list due to a strained left oblique muscle and releasing right-hander Stefan Crichton, who’d been on the minor league disabled list due to a shoulder inj

[Spudboy]

But we should have taken a flier on Buch this year!!!!

[kenmeister]

I still can’t believe we held onto Buchholz that year instead of keeping Rich Hill.

[a700hitter]

I still can’t believe we held onto Buchholz that year instead of keeping Rich Hill.

some thought it was a “no-brainer.”

[vegasbob]

some thought it was a “no-brainer.”

 

Rich Hill dealing with lots of blister problems and DL time in LA. He's no game changer. Buchholz on the other hand is just unintelligent and unconfident in his own skin.

[Emp9]

some thought it was a “no-brainer.”

 

Wow, I still can’t live that down? Go eat a dick, huh? Jesus Lol;)

[a700hitter]

Wow, I still can’t live that down? Go eat a dick, huh? Jesus Lol;)

I didn’t even realize that that was you. LOL!

[a700hitter]

Rich Hill dealing with lots of blister problems and DL time in LA. He's no game changer. Buchholz on the other hand is just unintelligent and unconfident in his own skin.

But he is fast — faster guy in the majors while carrying a laptop in each hand.

[Emp9]

I didn’t even realize that that was you. LOL!

 

Lol!

[S5Dewey]

I still can’t believe we held onto Buchholz that year instead of keeping Rich Hill.

 

That's what our resident sage Bosoxmal said all along! He was one of the few here who was big on Rich Hill and he was right!!

[SoxHop]

some thought it was a “no-brainer.”

 

"no-brainer" should be that guys surname. Like Sir Robin, or Sir No-Brainer. Or even Sir Cut Bait.

[Bellhorn04]

He was pitching pretty well too! Good old Clay.

[Emp9]

That's what our resident sage Bosoxmal said all along! He was one of the few here who was big on Rich Hill and he was right!!

 

Well, that was later on. The no brainer comment was in spring training i believe.

[mvp 78]

Most of us wanted the Sox to sign Hill, but Hill just didn't want to sign here because there was no spot in the rotation for him.

[Slasher9]

i still believe picking up the $13MM option was a no brainer.

the LT still got reset.

[a700hitter]

i still believe picking up the $13MM option was a no brainer.

the LT still got reset.

And the outcome was also a "no-brainer." He was never more than a half year pitcher when he was at his peak. His performance and durability had been declining for years. He was no longer a top pitcher when healthy. He had become an injury prone mediocre pitcher.

[notin]

And the outcome was also a "no-brainer." He was never more than a half year pitcher when he was at his peak. His performance and durability had been declining for years. He was no longer a top pitcher when healthy. He had become an injury prone mediocre pitcher.

 

The deal did wind up not working out, but it was a worthwhile gamble given thst it was only one year and not an outrageous price for a declining pitcher given the contracts given to other free agent pitchers at the time like Yovanni Gallardo and Mike Pelfrey, both of whom signed multi year deals.

 

Given that $13mill want really elite pitcher money at the time, I would just as well assume only take the risk on the one year deal in that case, rather than saddle the team with a declining pitcher for multiple seasons....

[a700hitter]

The deal did wind up not working out, but it was a worthwhile gamble given thst it was only one year and not an outrageous price for a declining pitcher given the contracts given to other free agent pitchers at the time like Yovanni Gallardo and Mike Pelfrey, both of whom signed multi year deals.

 

Given that $13mill want really elite pitcher money at the time, I would just as well assume only take the risk on the one year deal in that case, rather than saddle the team with a declining pitcher for multiple seasons....

Those of us who called it were right, so it turned out to not be a "no-brainer". The fact that the trajectory of his career and durability was in steep decline was quite obvious. The "no-brainer" was to cut ties with him. The organization was just hoping that the obvious decline wasn't real.

[SoxHop]

He was pitching pretty well too! Good old Clay.

 

When he was really dealing, he was one of my favorite pitchers to watch. He had talent for sure.

[notin]

Those of us who called it were right, so it turned out to not be a "no-brainer". The fact that the trajectory of his career and durability was in steep decline was quite obvious. The "no-brainer" was to cut ties with him. The organization was just hoping that the obvious decline wasn't real.

 

The organization may have also felt that even with his decline they weren't going to get a better pitcher for that kind of money on a one year deal. ..

[MADSTORK]

Bust!