Molding Clay: Is He Finally The Pitcher The Red Sox Have Been Waiting For?
There was a conversation here that made me want to write a little something about Clay Buchholz. It was a comment about how his strikeout rate was down, but it seemed to be because he was pitching to contact and that he could still get a strikeout in situations where he needed to. Someone countered (sorry for the vagueness, I couldn't find it in looking today) with splits stating the opposite- his walk and K numbers were fine with bases empty, and it wasn't until there were men on that he started pitching more to contact and walking more.
My first thought, of course, was, he's picked up groundball tendencies and is trying for a double play. What I wanted to write was a piece about pitching as compared to throwing, and how a great pitcher is going to take dramatically different approaches to different situations, using Buchholz as an example; it was my impression from what I've seen that he has been able to do that.
What I found was a lot more worrying. Buchholz has, by all accounts, had a fantastic year. The problem is, every number I look through, none of them support him having a year anything like he is having. So is this just plain dumb luck that is bound to erode, or is his success sustainable?
Earlier in the year, he attributed his dramatic improvement this year to the fact that he was being more efficient. Before, trying too hard to get swings-and-misses, he would throw balls outside of the zone- this, in turn, would lead to walks and long at-bats against the opposing teams, limiting him from going really deep in games. He was saying that by pitching more to contact and trusting his defense, he could go deeper and not allow the free passes he did before. Of course with this, his strikeout rate would decline, but with the added success, who would care?
That's all well and good in theory, makes perfect sense. The only problem was that it's just not true. In 2010, Buchholz has actually thrown less balls in the strike zone than ever before, gotten less first pitch strikes than ever before, and has a similar amount of swinging strikes compared to himself in 2008-2009.
The real difference? he's throwing way more balls outside of the strike zone that get swung at than ever before AND batters are making contact with them at incredibly higher rates (54.3% last year has turned into 69.2% this year). The thing he has going for him this year is that his stuff is apparently inducing much worse contact because he has batters swinging at (and hitting) balls that aren't strikes.
The fact is that he has simply performed better with the bases empty than full- walking less, striking out more. He has developed strong groundball tendencies, but the fact that his Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) with men on base is a mere .224 (compared to .285 with bases empty, which is more like what his peripherals indicate) is worrisome and seems indicative to me that it may be more luck than anything.
Frankly, I don't think the strikeout and walk rates are the most worrisome- although I do hate the fact his strikeout rates appear to have declined more dramatically than his walk rates. What I find worrisome is that he has allowed approximately a third as many home runs per fly ball as in the rest of his career to date- his current rate of 5.7% seems completely unsustainable. Chances are that this is again attributable to batters swinging at bad pitches and not making as good of contact as they should.
Basically, my reading of his stats has led to two huge questions to consider for the future:
1. How long will it be before American League hitters figure out that they don't need to swing at all of his pitches they've been swinging at- and how well will he be able to compensate?
2. Is his ability to not allow runs when there are runners on base an actual skill, or are we looking at more unsustainable luck like in the case of 2007 Daisuke Matsuzaka?
Certainly I think in any case, this year has been a huge stepping stone for Clay- he's finally found (GREAT) success at the major league level, has appeared to mentally mature into a much more ace-like pitcher than we've seen before, and has gained confidence which he seemed to need for so long. It's clear that this is a breakout year for him, it will be interesting to see if we will actually see this same Clay Buchholz in years to come.
43 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It could be a kind of skill, but I just can't find the numbers to justify it
it just looks to me like he walks more and strikes out less with batters on base, and only allows less hits because of an unsustainably low BABIP.
Maybe his delivery out of the stretch has something incredibly deceptive about it which is making batters swing at balls out of the zone a lot. The only real explanation apart from luck and bad plate discipline I can think of… though I may be missing something.
unless it is his motion out of the stretch.
Don’t laugh.
Buch has a slightly unorthodox stretch move and a very fast pick off throw – probably the best on the team.
It is possible that his pitch motion when from the stretch is also causing problems for the hitters. His pitch selection probably changes in that situation as well – more fastballs, probably.
That’s not an argument for him always pitching from the stretch and throwing more fastballs. Part of that sort of advantage might come from the smaller sample size – basically he changes to become a different pitcher in those situations, disrupting the book on his tendencies.
It may or may not be an advantage that can persist going forward as scouting reports constantly get updated.
not laughing
first sentence of my second paragraph in that response I said it was a possibility. I can’t really judge that, but if it keeps up, it certainly could be the case.
Is their a SP with a significantly larger sample size and similar BABIP splits as Buch (career wise)?
I haven't seen any that dramatic, which doesn't mean they don't exist
just means that the few I’ve checked weren’t.
Yeah. I have been trying to brainstorm pitchers that fit the bill.
Can’t seem to come up with one yet.
Buchholz is a terrific pitcher
I’d say he’s turned out to be what you guys expected
"Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next." -George Michael Steinbrenner III
Well... maybe even more than that!
"Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next." -George Michael Steinbrenner III
by Chris McKeown on Aug 19, 2010 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
this year has been a ridiculous amount better than I honestly ever expected him to be
and I expected him to eventually be quite a good pitcher- an easy #2 to Lester. This year, he’s been absolutely ace-like. God knows where the Sox would be had they traded away Clay and we came into the year with a starting rotation of Beckett, Lester, Lackey, Dice-K, and Wakefield. Actually I have a pretty good idea of where they would be…
I would have had so much faith
In a Beckett, Lester, Lackey, Dice-K, and Wakefield rotation starting the year. I shudder to think how much more my soul could have been crushed
That and more
He’s been great this year, sustainable or not, he’s been great.
Oh yeah, good luck on your move in, feels weird not packing and going back this weekend.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
The unanswered question here
is why Buchholz is having a lot of contact on bad pitches. Is it because of a consistent delivery, or is it just completely luck? Is the BABIP so low because he’s getting so many grounders?
Some numbers tell you part of the story, but I believe there’s more data that needs to be mined.
As for Buchholz himself, I’m sure he’d tell you that it has a lot to do with confidence. He tried way too hard to throw perfect pitches, and would blow up as soon as he got into trouble. Now he’s worrying less about being perfect, and focusing on getting outs, which is exactly what a good pitcher should do.
Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell
grounders tend to lead to a fairly high BABIP
He DOES allow less line drives with men on base, but the difference is split fairly evenly between groundballs and flyballs.
They typical fangraphs estimator for BABIP based on his pitch results would be:
bases empty: .311
Men on base: .286
So he is outperforming both of those significantly (and some people do), but he is dramatically outperforming his BABIP with men on base.
There are some bright spots.
As you’ve said, his O-swing% is way up, and so is his O-contact%. Which I think explains his success without a lot of strikeouts. Also, his swinging strike % is still pretty elite, even if he’s not getting the same number of strikeouts.
The big thing I've loved to bring up this year with regards to lucky Buck:
ERA/FIP/xFIP
Lester 2008: 3.21/.3.64/4.08
Buchholz 2010: 2.36/3.65/4.22
Sometimes all you need is the one lucky year to get rolling. There’s no denying Clay’s stuff, after all.
USG
Leads to another question...
If its true that Clay’s success is bound to revert to the mean, I’d bet the front office is well aware of the possibility. I wonder if they’d then consider selling high on this commodity this off season…
Regression to the mean for Buchholz
Is still well above-average for an AL pitcher.
No way that they trade Buchholz at this point—except maybe for AGon PLUS the Catcher of the Future.
Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell
Completely agree
Even if he does regress a little, he’ll still be tremendous. Those numbers Ben posted above show that Buchh should have an ERA in the low 3s not the low 2s. Which is still top quality.
Yeah, the only way I see this happening is if they legitimately get value on a cost controlled ace.
It would have to be quite the haul, but if someone is willing to pay for a guy with a sub-3 ERA at 26, they’ll let them.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 19, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh, the Sox organization doesn't have a weak farm or lack of money
makes a lot more sense to keep a pitcher who’s going as well as he is. Of course, they also have much more advanced scouting that me watching NESN and going to a bunch of games, so I can’t say for sure. Surely they have a better idea of whether it is pure luck or genuine skill, I can really just speculate based on numbers. I do want to say it’s a skill after how long it’s been going on this year, I just can’t identify exactly what.
Well, if you want to say it's skill, I've got a way for you.
Clay Buchholz has the fifth lowest zone contact rate in the majors.
It’s been said that there’s only a few guys who can actually put it in the zone and make people miss consistently, but Clay’s rating was almost as good last year too. His swinging strikes are right up there with Lester’s, too, despite the contact the opponents make with pitches outside the zone.
Realistically, in fact, I’d say Clay has been getting unlucky with regards to his FIP figures. If a pitcher gets two swinging strikes and a few fouls, then it’s really just a matter of order that determines whether he picks up a strikeout, or the at bat continues. Indeed, there’s been plenty of data to back up the logical idea that swinging strike rate is directly proportional to K/9.
On the other hand, there’s the fact that outside swinging strikes have been shown to be more important in some places, but I wonder if there’s not typically a lot of correlation between those who can get whiffs inside and outside the zone?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 19, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, I wonder if that outside and inside split isn't just a matter of having more swinging strikes coming out of the zone
Which would leave SwStr% as the ultimate indicator moreso than either component.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 19, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
not sure I understand what you're saying here...
with a much higher contact rate out of the zone, that means that a lot less of the swinging strikes are outside the zone… maybe I’m just not understanding you.
There are studies that say that Outside contact rates are more important than zone contact rates when it comes to determining K/9
But I didn’t really scrutinize the studies to see if it compensates for the fact that the range on outside contact is twice as large (~50-80%) compared to zone contact rates (80-95%)
Basically, given an average zone% of about 45%, the outside rate might be more important simply because it’s a higher volume, and thus contributes more to SwStr% than the zone contact rates. Which would mean ultimately the only number that REALLY matters is SwStr%
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 19, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The easy test for this is if a "properly weighted" sum of OSwStr% and ZSwStr% correlates better with K/9
Then just SwStr%
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Aug 19, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
MAN U JUS BE TALKIN POPS AND WHISTLES
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
The strikeouts better come next year.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
He doesn't need as many as he used to have, his days of more Ks than innings are over
He changed his style up and it’s working just fine. Don’t want him to do a think differently.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
In unrelated news....
The Yankees, yet again…will not lose.
It’s gonna seriously take us going on like a 10-15 game win streak to gain ONE game against these fuckers.
Which is weird as hell
ARod is barely playing and Berkman just went on the DL. They should be getting worse. MFY.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Plus side?
We get a look at the Nava/Kalish/Drew outfield I’ve been dreaming of for a while.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Clay Buchholz for Adrian Gonzales - straight up trade in December - would you do it?
It would cost a ton of money, but I would if it’s in our budget. Hitters are simply more consistent year to year than pitchers.
It would make sense for SD to do it, too, as they would get an all-star for an all-star and stay within their budgetary constraints as well.
Nope. Wouldn't do it.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
but they have nothing but good pitchers
and one great offensive player. I don’t think they’d give up their one offensive superstar when their team is doing so very well.
And no, as the Sox, I wouldn’t do it anyways.
As I said above
Throw in a Catcher of the Future and we can talk. Otherwise, no dice.
Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell
And none of these sham Catchers of the Future
We’re talking Mauer-type potential, just career-blocked.
Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell

by 



















