Clay Buchholz And Innings Expectations
There has been plenty of discussion this off-season about how much the Red Sox can actually depend on Clay Buchholz in the rotation. After all, he has had just one full season in the majors, and missed more than half of 2011 thanks to back problems.
There are a few things to keep in mind when thinking about Buchholz and how many innings the Red Sox can expect out of him. First, if the stress fracture in his back had been diagnosed correctly sooner rather than later, he might have even been back in time for September -- and possibly to help Boston stave off their eventual demise. He was already waiting in the wings to make an appearance should the Red Sox had secured a playoff spot during that final series at Baltimore, and that was with the stress fracture diagnosis coming right after the July 31 trade deadline.
Buchholz first started to miss time due to his back in late September of 2010, though: a six-day stretch where he was listed as day-to-day due to "low back stiffness" caused him to miss the last of that season. He then dealt with "stiffness" again on May 29 and June 3, and was listed as day-to-day from June 4 through June 10 with "back soreness." He was placed on the disabled list (and eventually shifted to the 60-day DL) with a stress fracture in his lower back on June 17, but the cause wasn't uncovered until August.
What had been thought to be a "muscle strain" turned out to be much more. A stress fracture can be serious, but it isn't necessarily indicative of future issues, either. We asked Corey Dawkins, an athletic trainer who writes the Collateral Damage injury column for Baseball Prospectus, about the potential for a recurring problem:
True stress fractures of the back rarely recur because of an increased focus on mechanics and muscular balance. From a health point of view, I think he will be fine. From a productivity point of view, that's yet to be determined. Pitchers are such creatures of habit that any change in the way they have been throwing since grade school may make it difficult to get that "feel" for a pitch again and limit his effectiveness. But yes, the chance of another stress fracture is minimal, and he should be fine.
We'll see how he does in terms of production this year, but, in terms of health, things could be looking up for the right-hander.
The back injury limited Buchholz to just 82 innings, but if the cause had been pinpointed earlier, he likely would have thrown more than that. The Mets' David Wright had a stress fracture in his back last year as well, but his was discovered in May; Wright was back at the end of June, and didn't miss any additional time the rest of the year.
It's easy to worry about his innings even when you take into account he should have thrown more last year, though, just because Buchholz's track record in the majors isn't especially long. He has never thrown 200 innings before, but he also just turned 26 last season, and until 2010 had split time between the majors and minors. The 200 inning mark hasn't been miles off for him, though, even if it seems like it has:
| Age | Year | MiLB | MLB | Total |
| 22 | 2007 | 125.1 | 22.2 | 148.0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 58.2 | 76.0 | 134.2 |
| 24 | 2009 | 99.0 | 92.0 | 191.0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 3.2 | 173.2 | 177.1 |
| 26 | 2011 | 0.0 | 82.2 | 82.2 |
Buchholz nearly threw 200 innings at age 24, between Triple-A and the majors. He followed that up with nearly 180 innings in his first full year in the bigs. This, besides the 2011 season in which the stress fracture limited him, looks like a fairly normal innings progression for a young, twenty-something starter.
This isn't to say you can pencil Buchholz in for 200 innings in 2012 without a care. It's just meant to remind you that Buchholz's trajectory hasn't been all that weird, and that the Red Sox have tried to be careful with one of their young assets by giving him enough time in the minors and not rushing him back from the finger and hamstring injuries he suffered in years past.
It's easy to assume the worst, especially when the last bit of baseball we saw came in September, but there's a good chance we'll be pleasantly surprised by Buchholz's output in 2012.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My other worry with Buccholz is
…is that we simply do not know if he is legit. His only full MLB season with success could easily be characterized as lucky and the following one was shortened by injury. The reason his innings are split between the minors and pros prior to 2010 is that he simply was not good enough to hold down a job in that time period. Clay has been the picture of inconsistency, in play and in health his entire career.
I am Sandy's bitch.
Joseph Vincent Paterno 12/21/26 - 1/22/12 RIP Coach
Penn State Forever
I'm a pretty big Buchholz fan
And am aware I like him a lot more than most. I think there’s a lot we can learn from him (and pitchers like him) in terms of how DIPS is not 100 percent on target, and that, while BABIP is an average, not every pitcher is going to allow hits at the same rate for various reasons (even if differences are slight).
I wrote about this a bit in Baseball Prospectus 2011:
Pitchers can have fantastic stuff without racking up strikeouts, and Buchholz is exhibit A. The young right-hander should punch out more batters with his mid-90s heater, a 90-mph slider, and his finest pitch, a vanishing changeup, and those strikeouts are coming. His fastballs and sliders were fouled off at a 20-percent clip, which suggests that once he grows into his stuff, the whiffs will pile up. Normally, it would be odd to talk about a 26-year-old growing into anything but his thirties, but the velocity is new to Buccholz, whose slider averaged 81 mph two years ago. The added giddyup resulted from a change to his grip, which now resembles that used for a cutter, and the slider now functions as a fastball variant with a break he can command. Even without the extra strikeouts, the 25-year-old induced weak contact and grounders aplenty. Buchholz may never post a 2.33 ERA again, but he does have ace potential.
The “slider” that hits the 90s should be a cutter, but other than that, I still agree with this comment. And, all things considered, he was pretty effective in 2011 for a dude with a crack in his back.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 3, 2012 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
(Not to say I disagree with your point of view -- I understand the counter arguments to my own)
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 3, 2012 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
We'll see
I’d like to see Clay do well, I remember taking trips to Portland to watch him play when I knew he would be starting, an exciting pitcher to watch.
I am Sandy's bitch.
Joseph Vincent Paterno 12/21/26 - 1/22/12 RIP Coach
Penn State Forever
He nibles too much
from what I have seen. He is always trying to make the perfect pitch, and at times gets in trouble. It may just be me, but it feels like he doesn’t trust his stuff enough. This may be a sign of immaturity.
This was a problem until the end of 2009
I actually wrote a piece about this a few years ago, but of course I cant find it now. Basically, Buchholz wasn’t being aggressive in attacking hitters, a la Dice-K, but basically right after that he started to make a change in that regard.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 4, 2012 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
It re-emerged in several starts
I saw him pitch last year. IIRC he struggled at times with getting the fastball over – because he was too fine with it.
Incidentally, I saw David Price do the same thing down the stretch last year.
With the exception of his minor league numbers
Where over 447 IP he allowed a mere 323 H en route to a gaudy 1.004 WHIP. He also posted a ridiculous 10.2 K/9 over those innings of work. Maybe he’s a AAAA pitcher but you see so few of those
I’m not as concerned with Clay’s innings as I am with how many Bard might throw. Last year he only was good for about 50 innings. I’m not saying he was hurt after 50 but that he wasn’t effective after 50. (50 is an estimate, it could be more like 60) Most starting pitchers are asked to go around 150 in their first year. That is 3 times what he threw last year effectivly.
well the preparation, week to week, is very different
which is why you don’t see relievers out there pitching in literally every game and racking up 150 innings in relief- that said, yeah, he’ll be able to go a whole bunch more innings but, even if he is good at it, it’s hard to imagine him racking up 200.
150 seems like a safe estimate, assuming he performs well enough
The Alexi Ogando track, basically. But who knows, maybe he’ll pull a Matt Harrison and be fine for 6 innings instead of 5 each time out in his first year.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 3, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
As wolf points out
It’s a completely different preparation cycle, during the off-season and in-season. It might be good for him to build up the additional arm strength, even if he eventually ends back up in the pen.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 3, 2012 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
Didn't Bard say he wasn't doing anything different over the off-season?
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
yes he did
maybe starting throwing a week earlier.
One difference is the build up in spring training, but the biggest difference is the fact that he doesn’t have to stretch, warm up, and throw pitches every day. Can get in a regular routine that allows muscles to heal more easily. I think most any type of trainer is going to tell you that having a few days to allow muscles to heal and a set schedule is going to give him much more endurance over the long haul.
Yep
He did indeed say that he wasn’t doing much different so it really isn’t a completely different preparation for him at least, at least not as a rule but may be true for some pitchers. Other than spending extra time on his 3rd pitch and the mental preparation, I think you point out the biggest changes which will come in the regular season. Even in spring training we’re going to be limited on getting the picture of Bard’s endurance as a starter because he is going to be on pitch counts and they need to get a lot of pitchers innings in March.
I think the extra time off will be good for him, the only question is how his durability/effectiveness will translate past pitch 40+ in games.
My guess is 15 starts with a move to the bullpen around the trade deadline when they get a good idea of Dice-K’s health and the contribution of the LSPC (Long-Shot Pitcher’s Club). I would say 140-150 would be a little ambitious but if he stays healthy could reach that.
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 3, 2012 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
I like TPM.
Terrible Pitcher Medley.
Seems more accurate.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
I'm pretty fond of
Daniel Bard and the Rotationettes.
by abbreviatedman on Feb 3, 2012 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Think of it this way...
He threw 50-60 innings at 99 MPH. He won’t be throwing that as a SP – more like 94. He also will be taking 4-5 days off after pitching. The strain is much different. He simply needs to build endurance. It’s like the 5K runner who trains with a little longer training runs to compete at 10Ks.
And finishes dead friggin last
Maybe the 5k runner should be happy being a really good 5k runner.
Everything Must Go.
by Sean O on Feb 3, 2012 9:29 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
While changing his mechanics
So he doesn’t throw as hard…
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
don't think that's a real significant mechanical change
not changing the release point or arm angle or anything
This is a misnomer
“50-60 innings at 99 MPH” His average fastball sat at around 97 MPH, so yeah he probably reached back a few times to hit 99-100 range but tends to thrown in the 95-97 range more regularly
Oh god
So he’s going to sit around 92-94? this is such a bad idea.
Everything Must Go.
by Sean O on Feb 4, 2012 6:10 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I don't understand the thought that every pitch is going to drop 3 mph
he will probably just not reach back as much. Last year, his average was 97.3. The fastest of any qualified start last year was 96.7 (Pineda), and after that, it dropped to Verlander at 95.1. Potentially, if Bards average fastball dropped by 2 mph, he still would’ve had the second fastest last year.
For reference, in Ogando’s conversion, he had an average veloctiy of 96.3 as a reliever, then in his transformation to a starter, it dropped to 95.1 (a drop of 1.2). CJ Wilson’s dropped 2.9 mph in the conversion. Harrison’s average velocity in 2011 was the highest of his career (by .6 mph)
and, importantly, when necessary
Bard will still be able to reach back and hit 100. He just won’t as often.
The real problem...
…with the current lack of starting depth is, the Sox are heavily dependant on each of Lester, Beckett and Buchholz staying healthy and taking the ball every fifth day. If any one of them goes down for any length of time, we’re immediately back in Scrubville. Dice-K coming back could help alleviate that somewhat, but I see him slotting in later in the season once Bard starts approaching his inning limit.
This team, with the pitchers currently on the roster, does not appear to have the contingencies in place that would realistically allow it to endure a 162-game season and into the playoffs.
Heard this:
The majority of teams are fairly dependent on the health of their top 3 pitchers.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
it's very true
but off the top of my head, most serious contenders- say Rays, Yankees, Rangers, Angels, in the AL have enough in the starting rotation that, if one goes down, they can deal somewhat with having a depth guy filling in the last spot. The way the Sox look right now is like we’re starting off the year with at least one random scrub in the rotation (depending on how Bard fares), and so if one of our three decent pitchers is ineffective from injury, then suddenly 40% of our rotation is probably awful. Now, that worked out for the Yankees last year, but that hardly seems like a reliable model to follow.
Exactly.
For the most part, people here are comparing the rotation to the Pirates or Twins. They compare it to the teams that look to be competing for the playoffs.
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 3, 2012 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
Sure.
I was trolling a bit. The rotation doesn’t look to be a position of strength, but the reality is we can play that game for every team, though maybe at different positions.
The Yankees look like they’ll be giving a substantial amount of ABs to Nunez.
The Rays will have below league average players at C and SS.
And so on.
It doesn’t appear that those teams are panicking because they don’t have three players coming on MVP caliber seasons.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
Except that it's easier to hide a hole in your line up...
… than it is to hide a hole in your rotation.
As for the Rays below league average players at C and SS… I just have to say: Salty and… wait, who is playing SS for Boston now that we traded Scutaro?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
We have more, and more glaring holes than the Rays do.
I thought that was pretty obvious from his post.
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
Yeah....
And if that’s was his point, it’s doesn’t adequately respond to, refute, or expand upon my statement that
The rotation doesn’t look to be a position of strength, but the reality is we can play that game for every team, though maybe at different positions.
The two examples that I left are merely there to illustrate this.
If we’re going to try to say anything of worth in going position by position through the roster, we have to actually go position by position the roster.
A-Gon > Teixeira > Pena,
some mess of Pedoria/Cano/Zoberist,
and so on and so on.
Which is why I asked what his point was. If that was it, then it clearly missed by point.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I believe his point was more in line with
Not all holes are created equal.
That a hole at SS is far more easily concealed than a hole in the rotation, coincidentally two holes we have.
Basically, out of the east, our holes are worse.
BTW, I would totally get on board if we started calling our players holes. Just tossing it out there.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
It sort of sounds like he's describing either stab wounds or female genitalia.
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 3, 2012 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
But catchers and shortstops
Aren’t supposed to hit well. You’re supposed to have above replacement level starters.
Everything Must Go.
by Sean O on Feb 4, 2012 6:12 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
It's just that the dropoff seems particularly sharp this year.
I’m having flashbacks to 2006 and the likes of Jason Johnson taking the mound for the Sox in games that count. Those are not pleasant memories.
More recently, it reminds me
of going into 2007 with Tavarez manning the 5th spot of the rotation. Though admittedly, at the time
Beckett/Schilling/Dice-K/Wakefield
was more inspiring than
Lester/Beckett/Buchholz/Bard.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I do find it ironic
That right up until that season they were seriously considering using their best (arguably) reliever as a starter.
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 3, 2012 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
Does this mean we're going to move Bard back to the bullpen and trade Bailey to the Cards?
Because I’d be okay with that.
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
Well, you know... that is an interesting parallel.
Tavares = Aceves in that scenario?
So, if we add a #4 starter (I know, I know… we’re not going to do it), move Bard back to the bullpen and Aceves is the #5? I could live with that.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Can especially hope for a Mike Napoli sort of move...
If $Man traded Hughes for a Vernon Wells type of player….
Gotta be an outfielder
so we’re probably looking at Crawford.
"There's something out there, beyond the horizon in the corner of your eye. I'm going to find out what it is."
-Thomas Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer.
I have some Hughes worries going forward
The velocity dips last year, combined with the injury history, make me wonder about his long-term viability.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Feb 3, 2012 3:47 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
And almost be willing to send Crawford that way...
… except I feel like he and Granderson would patrol all of the OF, letting them hide a big bat in RF (like ARod), and the two of them would somehow feed off each other at the plate and on the base paths, leading to another decade of dominance by the MFY.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Really the trade to make
was Neiman for Lowrie and a prospect. The Rays need a shortstop, we need a pitcher.
No way they were going to trade within the division.
They moved two shortstops, there’s a reason neither went to TB.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
It wasn't going to happen - I agree
but if they were in different leagues it would have made sense.
Yep.
I think something could have definitely happened in another league. Maybe even another division.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
FYI...
Garza and the Cubs agreed to a 1-yr deal….there goes that possibility
Not really
No way the Cubs are contending in 2012. Garza could still be available at the deadline.
However... the Cubs agreed to $9.5 million, and if we were going to throw that kind of money...
… we’d have signed one of the FAs available so far.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
doesn't change anything
he was already under team control, he was going to definitely be on the team- that just determines how much $ he’ll make
$9.5 million, which I think eliminates him for the 2012 Red Sox, right?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!

by 





























