Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    Buch was good until after not getting a call. Bobby V should have pulled him right there.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    I was encouraged by this start, even if it was against the A's. Buchholz was good for six innings. Even though his pitch count was kind of low going into the seventh, which was another good sign, Buchholz should have been on a short leash.

    He's been battling to regain his form, and it takes time after an injury like he had. As soon as runners reached base, Bobby V. should have gotten him out of there before more was done.

    Normally, I'm all for pushing pitchers, especially with the pitch count where it was. But when a pitcher is trying to regain his form, you get him while his line is still good so he can feel good about himself.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    He was good for 6 innings? Great. He should have breezed with an 11 run lead, but the bottom line is he gave up 6 runs, on 7 hits and 5 walks. Even O'Brien on the radio said it was another bad outing.

    He has the worst ERA of any starter in all of baseball. Period.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rickterp. Show rickterp's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    I'm not happy about the 5 walks, but aside from the unfortunate run that scored on the run-down, he was cruising through 6. The 7th was an adventure, but he should have been out of the inning with no runs allowed. After putting the first two on, he got Inge to line out and then got Pennington to ground into what should have been a double play to end the inning -- Barton BLATANTLY interfered by going way out of the baseline to break up the double play, but 2B umpire Manny Gonzalez declined to make the runner's interference call to end the inning.  Why have rule 7.09f if no umpire ever calls it??

    If the umpire makes the right call, Buchholz hits the showers with a line of 7IP 5H 1R 4W 5K and we all marvel at how he's finally turned the corner with a really strong start (though the 4 walks don't look so good).

    But instead, the roof caves in after the non-call.  Buchholz and Tazawa allow the next six batters to reach.  Not good at all -- Buchholz needs to suck it up in that situation and get the third out, but he didn't.  But the ump's non-call was a crucial part of that inning.

    Still, it was great to see him get an inning-ending strikeout to end the 6th on two consecutive changeups -- he hadn't thrown many up until then.  Too bad the 7th was such a trainwreck, which will no doubt be a confidence blow.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    In Response to Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be:
    [QUOTE]i notice now that buchholz stinks, nobody cares if his name is spelled correctly.
    Posted by mryazz[/QUOTE]

    His mom probably cares.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    In Response to Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be:
    [QUOTE]i notice now that buchholz stinks, nobody cares if his name is spelled correctly.
    Posted by mryazz[/QUOTE]

    It's Buchholz.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harv53. Show harv53's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    In Response to Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be:
    [QUOTE]I'm not happy about the 5 walks, but aside from the unfortunate run that scored on the run-down, he was cruising through 6. The 7th was an adventure, but he should have been out of the inning with no runs allowed. After putting the first two on, he got Inge to line out and then got Pennington to ground into what should have been a double play to end the inning -- Barton BLATANTLY interfered by going way out of the baseline to break up the double play, but 2B umpire Manny Gonzalez declined to make the runner's interference call to end the inning.  Why have rule 7.09f if no umpire ever calls it?? If the umpire makes the right call, Buchholz hits the showers with a line of 7IP 5H 1R 4W 5K and we all marvel at how he's finally turned the corner with a really strong start (though the 4 walks don't look so good). But instead, the roof caves in after the non-call.  Buchholz and Tazawa allow the next six batters to reach.  Not good at all -- Buchholz needs to suck it up in that situation and get the third out, but he didn't.  But the ump's non-call was a crucial part of that inning. Still, it was great to see him get an inning-ending strikeout to end the 6th on two consecutive changeups -- he hadn't thrown many up until then.  Too bad the 7th was such a trainwreck, which will no doubt be a confidence blow.
    Posted by rickterp[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but even though Barton could have been called for interference, Aviles tripped over his own feet causing the errant throw. Barton wasn't even close to Aviles.
    What really ticked me off was the way Buchholz left the mound pouting. he get a nice ovation from the crowd and instead of going to the bench, he heads straight for the clubhouse. Good team player!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    In Response to Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be:
    [QUOTE]Buchholtz has proved (9 era) that he belongs on DL or in the pen. Cook has proven he deserves a chance of some kind. Youk is making the argument that he doesnt belong and that Middlebrooks should be called up. Management is acting like they are not in last place playing weak clubs. I would hate to see Cook go to Yankees or somewhere else that would hurt us. Bobby V calling our Youk had some merit until he apologized.
    Posted by teddybaseball009[/QUOTE]BINGO !!!!  Let the TRUTH be said !!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    Bucholtz = old Wakefield.  Bucholtz cant just pitch deep anymore just like Wakefield cant do it in the last few years.  But the funny part is that he have the team's best record, 3-1.

    Really Bucholtz is a #5 starting pitcher.  I know you all would say he is being paid to be a #3 starting pitcher, but do not forget that Theo's idea of resigning him for a good long term contract.   

    Just leave him in the rotation for now.  If he struggle too much from inning 1 to 5, then that is when to take him out of the rotation.  For now, just leave him there.  I do not think Cook could do alot better job than Bucholtz cuz Cook is not a power pitcher either.  


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenwellforpresident. Show greenwellforpresident's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    In Response to Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be:
    [QUOTE]I was encouraged by this start, even if it was against the A's. Buchholz was good for six innings. Even though his pitch count was kind of low going into the seventh, which was another good sign, Buchholz should have been on a short leash. He's been battling to regain his form, and it takes time after an injury like he had. As soon as runners reached base, Bobby V. should have gotten him out of there before more was done. Normally, I'm all for pushing pitchers, especially with the pitch count where it was. But when a pitcher is trying to regain his form, you get him while his line is still good so he can feel good about himself.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    If only Valentine could make his decisions with the same benefit of hindsight that you have.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SleeStack1. Show SleeStack1's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting

    Cook's ceiling is being the 2012 version of 2011 Freddie Garcia.  The only reason I want Cook in Boston is because he has value as insurance and perhaps in eventual trade.  Letting him walk for 'nothing' would be unfortunate.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    If the game was closer, Buccholz likely would have been pulled in the seventh and the Bullpen most likely would have got the last out.  Up until that point he was very good...the Stats may not show it but it was much better than he has been this year.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from WilcyMoore. Show WilcyMoore's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    In Response to Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be : If only Valentine could make his decisions with the same benefit of hindsight that you have.
    Posted by greenwellforpresident[/QUOTE]  Coddle a pitcher to make him feel good about himself by taking him out early or try to build his confidence by letting him go as deep into a positive start as possible?  Such is the dilemma of field managers and pitching coaches.  As you observed, hindsight is always the best move after the fact. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    Bucholtz = old Wakefield.  Bucholtz cant just pitch deep anymore just like Wakefield cant do it in the last few years.  But the funny part is that he have the team's best record, 3-1.

    He's coming off a pretty major injury. It may take time before he can go 8 innings or 120+ pitches.

    Really Bucholtz is a #5 starting pitcher.  I know you all would say he is being paid to be a #3 starting pitcher, but do not forget that Theo's idea of resigning him for a good long term contract.   

    He's making $3.5M this year. (About $7.5 per year over 4 years)

    Just leave him in the rotation for now.  If he struggle too much from inning 1 to 5, then that is when to take him out of the rotation.  For now, just leave him there.  I do not think Cook could do alot better job than Bucholtz cuz Cook is not a power pitcher either.  

    Power pitchers are not the only effective pitchers.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yaso#7. Show Yaso#7's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    Nice run--- 7 out of 8 --- I'm still worried about the Bullpen-- its been pretty good as of late but my confidence in the Pen is not there.

    Leave Clay alone--- he will be fine.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    In response to "Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be": [QUOTE]He was good for 6 innings? Great. He should have breezed with an 11 run lead, but the bottom line is he gave up 6 runs, on 7 hits and 5 walks. Even O'Brien on the radio said it was another bad outing. He has the worst ERA of any starter in all of baseball. Period. Posted by ADG[/QUOTE] Are you capable of critical thinking? Apparently not, to judge this outing you can't just rely on the box because it does not tell the whole story.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Buchholtz should not be starting but Middlebrooks should be

    Worst ML starters:

    Freddy Garcia  12.51
    F Liriano            11.02
    J Collmenter       9.82
    J Jurrjens            9.37
    C Buchholtz       8.87
     

Share