Sox Pitching Staff Discussion

[Kimmi]

I agree. The same can be said for not needing to pick up Buchholz's option. There were a bunch of other guys available and it is quite evident that the Sox need new blood in this rotation.

 

What pitchers that produced a 3.2 WAR were available for a 1 yr/$13 mil contract?

[Kimmi]

They were trying to read the tea leaves and assume that signing Porcello ahead of time would save money in the long run. They only did this since they screwed the pooch with the Lester negotiations. Not a good look, imo.

 

I'm just filled with such sadness because I know in my heart of hearts that they are going to pick up Buchholz's option again...

 

LOL That would be worth the price of admission.

[Kimmi]

The Sox extended Porcello through his prime years (27 through 30) at reasonable money & at team friendly years. I'm sure they figured that he would improve some as he entered his prime and with guys like Homer Bailey getting 100+ million on the open market, it was well worth the risk at the time. This contract could still very well end up being a great deal for Boston.

 

Thank you for this post.

[Kimmi]

Oh, but they've tried to defend it.

 

It can be defended, again, when you're not looking through hindsight glasses.

 

No, it's not a deal that I would have made, but there is certainly rationale behind it.

[moonslav59]

You could also just say that Buchholz has only pitched over 115 innings 3 times in the MLB. Yuck. Why do I care about MiLB starts?

 

Well, when people are saying Buch can't start more than 14 starts a season, but he has more times than not (minors and majors combined), then bringing up minor league starts is significant.

 

Now, if someone wants to argue that some of those minor league starts we occurring because he wasn't doing well enough to pitch more than 14 starts a season, then that's another argument. But, it's not solely about stamina and health.

 

Clearly Buch has not been reliable. He is usually missing time, recovering from missed time or struggling to find the groove he's shown a few times over his career. Buc's only season of longevity and quality was 2010- his first full season in the bigs. That was long ago. I get that.

 

He had a decent short season in 2011, a long but not very good 2012 season, a fantastic half season in 2013 and a pretty good half season in 2015. So, basically since 2010 (6 seasons not counting 2016, he's given us:

1 good full season (10)

1 not so good full season (12)

1 bad full season (14)

1 off the charts great half season in 2013

1 good half season in 2015

1 pretty good half season in 2011

That's not really a bad record. At least the half seasons of goodness were not followed by pitching horribly the next half, he just missed time instead. Of course, I'd rather have a steady mediocre to good pitcher than one all over the map, but my point is he has not been terrible every year and he has not been hurt to the point of pitching less than 25 starts every year either.

.

So far, he's given us a horrible half season in 2016. Looking at his career trend of ups and downs, I'm not giving up on him just yet

[User Name]

Including the minors in any analysis of Buchholz' value to the MLB club is intellectually dishonest.

[a700hitter]

I did not single you out specifically for that reason. But iortiz, among others, have whined that contract into oblivion. Besides, they could have extended him, then used the money that went into the fat piece of s*** on another pitcher. Now there's a contract that's impossible to defend or salvage.

i don't think Sandoval's mom would argue that his contract was reasonable for the Red Sox. Lol!

[a700hitter]

It made good sense to lock Porcello up before he hit free agency, for reasons that have already been debated ad nauseam. Unfortunately, he had a bad first year with us, which makes the move look bad. But that is only with hindsight glasses on.

it looked bad with regular glasses at the time it was done.

[User Name]

It can be defended, again, when you're not looking through hindsight glasses.

 

No, it's not a deal that I would have made, but there is certainly rationale behind it.

 

Without the use of hindsight, the negative trend, platoon issues, and problematic body type were clearly visible.

[a700hitter]

Thank you for this post.

Yeah. Thanks kimmi's mom.

[a700hitter]

I'm not trying to argue that Buch is some sort of iron man- clearly he is not, but he is actually not as fragile as many seem to portray him as being. Including minor league starts, here are the total GS'd by Buch since 2006:

 

06 24 (minors only)

07 27 (including 3 MLB)

08 26 (15 MLB)

09 32 (16 MLB)

10 29 (28 MLB)

11 14 (all MLB)

12 30 (29MLB)

13 18 (16 MLB)

14 28 (all MLB)

15 18 (all MLB)

16 14++ (all MLB)

 

If you cherry pick 2011 as the starting point of your sample size, you could claim that Buch has not had more than 18 starts in 3 of his previous 5 seasons before 2016, but I would say that 60% is a sure bet he pitches just half a season.

 

 

No, even using your own numbers, he has only had more than 18 starts in 2 of his last 5 seasons. Also, since when has 18 starts become the threshold for a successful season?

[mvp 78]

What pitchers that produced a 3.2 WAR were available for a 1 yr/$13 mil contract?

 

Stop with the Fangraphs trutherism. He's a negative WAR player right now.

[mvp 78]

LOL That would be worth the price of admission.

 

Not funny. It's utterly depressing.

[mvp 78]

It can be defended, again, when you're not looking through hindsight glasses.

 

No, it's not a deal that I would have made, but there is certainly rationale behind it.

 

My foresight said not to pick him up. I was correct.

[moonslav59]

Including the minors in any analysis of Buchholz' value to the MLB club is intellectually dishonest.

 

1) It's not dishonest when I printed the MLB games started portion of the total GS'd. Nothing was hidden or distorted. It was all laid out as it was.

2) When the question is stamina or the ability to start more than 14-16 games a season, then it's highly relevant to show how many games Buch has started at any level. If he pitches 16 games in MLB and 14 in AAA, the issue is not health or stamina in that season, instead the issue was likely quality of performance.

[moonslav59]

No, even using your own numbers, he has only had more than 18 starts in 2 of his last 5 seasons. Also, since when has 18 starts become the threshold for a successful season?

 

Even 40% is a far cry from an automatic expectation of a season cut short by injury.

 

Plus 18 starts is maybe better than pitchers losing full seasons here and there.

 

From 2010-2016, 208 pitchers have qualified on fangraph's list of starters. Buch places 64th in GS'd at 133. That's hardly horrible. Now, I understand that list includes guys that have not been in the league all 6 years, so I'll change the criteria to pitchers over 25 in 2010 and 600+ IP from 2010-2015.

Buch places 53rd out of 85 qualifying starters. Not great, but not even bottom third.

Buch places 51st out of 85 in IP.

 

I was responding to the point made about Buch's fragility.

 

I said he was far from being an iron man, but that he was not as fragile as many posters seem to think he is.

 

It's not intellectually dishonest to back my opinion up with facts.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Yeah. Thanks kimmi's mom.

 

Kimmi's Mom wouldn't respond to you. She would immediately recognize that you are an incessant whiner who wasn't slapped enough by your own mom. How's James Shields doing by the way? Do you still think he's a better pitcher than Porcello right now?

 

It's one thing to be ignorant enough to think that you are smarter than the guys who get paid millions of dollars and have access to so much more information than the average fan. Hell, it's even fun! We all think it at times, but to actually believe it is pretty comical.

[User Name]

1) It's not dishonest when I printed the MLB games started portion of the total GS'd. Nothing was hidden or distorted. It was all laid out as it was.

2) When the question is stamina or the ability to start more than 14-16 games a season, then it's highly relevant to show how many games Buch has started at any level. If he pitches 16 games in MLB and 14 in AAA, the issue is not health or stamina in that season, instead the issue was likely quality of performance.

 

If it's not dishonest, it's the most unsound argument I have seen during my time here. That's just terrible logic.

[User Name]

Even 40% is a far cry from an automatic expectation of a season cut short by injury.

 

Plus 18 starts is maybe better than pitchers losing full seasons here and there.

 

From 2010-2016, 208 pitchers have qualified on fangraph's list of starters. Buch places 64th in GS'd at 133. That's hardly horrible. Now, I understand that list includes guys that have not been in the league all 6 years, so I'll change the criteria to pitchers over 25 in 2010 and 600+ IP from 2010-2015.

Buch places 53rd out of 85 qualifying starters. Not great, but not even bottom third.

Buch places 51st out of 85 in IP.

 

I was responding to the point made about Buch's fragility.

 

I said he was far from being an iron man, but that he was not as fragile as many posters seem to think he is.

 

It's not intellectually dishonest to back my opinion up with facts.

 

I mean, I still think Buchholz' option had to be picked up, but let's stick to actual facts here:

 

Fact A) Buchholz has not combined the ability to prevent runs at an above-average clip while providing enough innings to qualify for the ERA title as stated by rule 10.22 ( since 2010. In fact, he has pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title only two times in the last five seasons.

 

2011: 82.2 IP, 124 ERA+

2012: 189.1 IP, 92 ERA+

2013: 108.1 IP, 237 ERA+

2014: 170.1 IP, 75 ERA+

2015: 113.1 IP, 131 ERA+

 

Fact B ) Innings pitched in a minor league setting are unimportant to the Major league club, are usually a direct result of injury and/or ineffectiveness, and trying to prove Buchholz' lack of fragility by using said statistics is, at best, misguided, and at worst, as I mentioned before, dishonest.

 

Fact C) Buchholz is neither durable nor effective with any sort of consistency, and even worse, has managed to combine durability with effectiveness in very few occasions throughout his career, and none of those occasions have come in the last five years, as he has gotten older and his stuff has diminished. Those are facts.

[moonslav59]

If it's not dishonest, it's the most unsound argument I have seen during my time here. That's just terrible logic.

 

Wow!

 

Really? The guy who says we can expect Buch to go down with an injury is highly logical.

 

The guy who shows that Buch has not missed as much time due to injury is illogical.

 

Gotcha.

[User Name]

Wow!

 

Really? The guy who says we can expect Buch to go down with an injury is highly logical.

 

The guy who shows that Buch has not missed as much time due to injury is illogical.

 

Gotcha.

 

It's illogical if you're bending logic to prove a point. That is the definition of illogical

[moonslav59]

I mean, I still think Buchholz' option had to be picked up, but let's stick to actual facts here:

 

Fact A) Buchholz has not combined the ability to prevent runs at an above-average clip while providing enough innings to qualify for the ERA title as stated by rule 10.22 ( since 2010. In fact, he has pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title only two times in the last five seasons.

 

2011: 82.2 IP, 124 ERA+

2012: 189.1 IP, 92 ERA+

2013: 108.1 IP, 237 ERA+

2014: 170.1 IP, 75 ERA+

2015: 113.1 IP, 131 ERA+

 

I never claimed or tried to come close to imply otherwise. I even listed the amount of total GS'd were at the MLB level, and since 2010, the vast majority have been at the ML level.

 

Fact B ) Innings pitched in a minor league setting are unimportant to the Major league club, are usually a direct result of injury and/or ineffectiveness, and trying to prove Buchholz' lack of fragility by using said statistics is, at best, misguided, and at worst, as I mentioned before, dishonest.

 

The total GS'd (including minor leagues) argument was made to counter the "fragility argument. If a pitcher starts 16 in the bigs and 14 in the minors, his issue is not fragility or stamina for that season anyways, his issue is likely performance based or age related, which is a totally different argument. That is a clearly logical point to make. Nowhere did I try to imply that Buch has been healthy over the previous 4-5 years.

 

Fact C) Buchholz is neither durable nor effective with any sort of consistency, and even worse, has managed to combine durability with effectiveness in very few occasions throughout his career, and none of those occasions have come in the last five years, as he has gotten older and his stuff has diminished. Those are facts.

 

Where did I ever say Buch has been durable or effective since 2010?

 

All I said was Buch has not been as fragile as some seem to think he has been and that he has had a few stretches of fantastic pitching and a few decent ones too. I went out of my way to popint out that the only time he put durability and quality together was 2010.

 

Stop building strawmen by twisting my words and then calling the strawman's intentions dishonest or illogical.

[moonslav59]

The whole "no-brainer" analysis aside, the Red Sox needed to move on from Buchholz simply because the one certainty that he provides is that you have to scramble to replace him every June or July.

 

This statement is not based on anything logical, and this was what I was responding to.

[User Name]

Where did I ever say Buch has been durable or effective since 2010?

 

All I said was Buch has not been as fragile as some seem to think he has been and that he has had a few stretches of fantastic pitching and a few decent ones too. I went out of my way to popint out that the only time he put durability and quality together was 2010.

 

Stop building strawmen by twisting my words and then calling the strawman's intentions dishonest or illogical.

 

I am saying that argument is incorrect. It is not a strawman. He is as fragile as people say. I'm doubling down on that statement by proving that on the rare occasions when he isn't, he sucks so bad that scrambling to replace him in a non-lost season might be a need either way.

[moonslav59]

So, he's as fragile as the guy who says it's a certainty he will have to replace him every June or July?

 

That's a solid fact-based opinion, but mine isn't?

 

Hmm...

 

I never implied he pitched well enough to not be replaced when he was healthy all year. How many times do I have to repeat that his last full season of good pitching was 2010.

 

I was responding to the durability claim. You keep expanding it farther than I went, and that's strawman building.

[moonslav59]

Now, let's talk quality along with durability:

 

Counting this year and going back to 2010, Buch has pitched...

 

3 near full seasons

2010 Very good

2012 Servicable

2014 Very bad

 

4 half seasons

2011 Pretty good

2013 Excellent

2015 Very good

2016 Horrible

 

While Buch's quality stretches have been few and far between, especially since the start of 2012, I'm not sure I'd call them rare. There's a heck of a lot of SPe'rs in MLB who have less good stretches in their recent pasts than Buch.

 

Now, before you twist what I say into something like me saying he's an Allstar, I am totally frustrated with Buch and his injuries and poor performance stretches, but I wouldn't say good stretches in 2 of the last 4 seasons and 4 in the last 7 seasons with one halfway decent one not included is clearly "rare occasions".

[a700hitter]

Kimmi's Mom wouldn't respond to you. She would immediately recognize that you are an incessant whiner who wasn't slapped enough by your own mom. How's James Shields doing by the way? Do you still think he's a better pitcher than Porcello right now?

 

It's one thing to be ignorant enough to think that you are smarter than the guys who get paid millions of dollars and have access to so much more information than the average fan. Hell, it's even fun! We all think it at times, but to actually believe it is pretty comical.

Tone it down Eddy or f*** off.

[a700hitter]

Now, let's talk quality along with durability:

 

Counting this year and going back to 2010, Buch has pitched...

 

3 near full seasons

2010 Very good

2012 Servicable

2014 Very bad

 

4 half seasons

2011 Pretty good

2013 Excellent

2015 Very good

2016 Horrible

 

While Buch's quality stretches have been few and far between, especially since the start of 2012, I'm not sure I'd call them rare. There's a heck of a lot of SPe'rs in MLB who have less good stretches in their recent pasts than Buch.

 

Now, before you twist what I say into something like me saying he's an Allstar, I am totally frustrated with Buch and his injuries and poor performance stretches, but I wouldn't say good stretches in 2 of the last 4 seasons and 4 in the last 7 seasons with one halfway decent one not included is clearly "rare occasions".

Your numbers have established that he is a half season pitcher most of the time and on the rare occasions when he isn't a half inning pitcher, he sucks. I agree with this, but I don't think this establishes that A) he is more durable than I thought. In fact it supports what I thought about his durability, and it supports my opinion that the red Sox should have moved on from him.

[a700hitter]

The whole "no-brainer" analysis aside, the Red Sox needed to move on from Buchholz simply because the one certainty that he provides is that you have to scramble to replace him every June or July.

 

This statement is not based on anything logical, and this was what I was responding to.

Pretty much he is done by June or July. That is his history -- a fact. In 2011, he was done on June 16th. In 2011, he was done on June 10th and in 2015 he lasted until July 10th. Those are the facts. Denying that pattern is illogical.

[moonslav59]

Pretty much he is done by June or July. That is his history -- a fact. In 2011, he was done on June 16th. In 2011, he was done on June 10th and in 2015 he lasted until July 10th. Those are the facts. Denying that pattern is illogical.

 

You named 3 out of the last 5 years, how is that a "certainty"?

 

Again, I never claimed he was an iron man or durable. I just claimed he's not a certainty to always go on the DL every June.

 

My statement is more logical than his.