Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    I am a Buchholz fan.  Got a problem with that?

     

    I am a fan of Clay Buchholz because he pitches for the Red Sox, and I am a fan of the Red Sox.  Not a an in the way some are.  You know the type - hating any player whose prior approval for acquisition they did not give consent to, and clearly taking the non-use of their suggestions as a personal affront.  They also tend to think they know as much about all the players as the front office personnel, presumably because they can look them up on The Baseball Cube.

     

    As long as Clay pitches for Boston, I am a fan.  And I don't pretend to be on the same plane as the Sox FO, which is where far too many think they are...

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The important thing for Clay is that he was given no chance to be removed from the rotation, no pressure of a pennant race, no penalty from his team for pitching poorly. He's rewarded them with some good starts over the past month. Maybe it will work out for him, maybe it won't. I hope he can be consistent, which he has not proven to be this year.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's probably no coincidence that since the Sox folded coupled with the realization that no matter how poorly he pitched mgt simply would not do the right thing and remove him from the rotation that he started to pitch better. 

    There are literally thousands of guys pitching right now who could throw a good game the majors.  One good game.  Or maybe one good game a month.  But doing it consistently every 5 games for an entire season and then for 5-10 years on top of that is when  you separate the men from the boys.  Lots of guys with potential.  Potential doesn't win games.  You know what does?  Consistency.

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

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There are literally thousands of guys pitching right now who could throw a good game the majors.  One good game.  Or maybe one good game a month.  But doing it consistently every 5 games for an entire season and then for 5-10 years on top of that is when  you separate the men from the boys.  Lots of guys with potential.  Potential doesn't win games.  You know what does?  Consistency.

    [/QUOTE]

    And how many pitchers in baseball right now can you say that about?  It's a pretty short list.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    DAD thinks that the young catcher has won over CLAY's confidence....  Critical to the THINKING of Clay !!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    I'll be looking at if he Pitches like a spoiler in the last Month. Will make me feel better going into next season. Jays are out probably, but after that 2 against the O's, 1 against Pirates, and 1 against Yanks.
    O's, Pirates, and Yanks could be looking Play-offs, with the O's almost assured. Lets see how he performs against teams that will be fighting hard for wins.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

    Sox4ever

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    Ideally, I'd like to see Kelly, Buch, de la Rosa, Webster and Ranaudo (Owens too) fight for just the 4 & 5 slots, but in reality, they will probably be battling for the 3, 4 & 5 slots.

    Sox4ever

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

    Sox4ever

    [/QUOTE]
    I always have questions and concerns with 1 or two year starters. You'll probably see inconsistency, from kids.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    My ideal rotation next year:

    1 - Scherzer (26X6=156) or Lester (24X5=120) (sign)

    2 - Latos or Sale (trade; I'd probably use the talent only to get a starter and forget about Stanton since we did technically already give our offense a boost recently)

    3- Kelly

    4, 5 - tryout for guys already on the roster (gotta go cheap here to balance out the allocation to the 1 hole and even the 2 hole)

    Need to have 1 lefty (so either Lester or Sale or Owens needs to be in the rotation)

     

    It may sound like a lot but it's not asking a lot for the Sox to make 1 big FA signing and 1 big trade this winter.  They have the money in the budget now plus assets in the system plus they did pretty much nothing last winter.......

    The other tryout in Spring Training will be for a lead off hitter.  This is my main concern with the offense going into next year.  We got killed this year w/o Ellsbury and Injurino setting the tables for us......Pedey can handle the 2 hole but who bats leadoff?  Other slots OBP is no longer our strength.  We need a strong OBP guy.  Holt, Castillo, and even Boggarts and maybe Betts will be in the mix but I need a 380 OBP in that slot and not a hacker........

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

    Sox4ever

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Of course, it would've been clinically insane to have cut him.  I can understand if someone wanted to trade him during one of his manic streaks, but since 2010, even with all the injuries, he is 25 games over .500.  There are only 10 other pitchers 25 games > .500 during that stretch.

    Just for comparison purposes, Lester (since 2010) is 22 over .500 with a 3.59 while Buchholz is 25 over .500 with a 3.61.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

    Sox4ever

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Of course, it would've been clinically insane to have cut him.  I can understand if someone wanted to trade him during one of his manic streaks, but since 2010, even with all the injuries, he is 25 games over .500.  There are only 10 other pitchers 25 games > .500 during that stretch.

    Just for comparison purposes, Lester (since 2010) is 22 over .500 with a 3.59 while Buchholz is 25 over .500 with a 3.61.

    [/QUOTE]


    wow

    You realize that Lester had 78 W's and Clay only 52 including the post season of 2013. That's like a 15 game winner vs a 10 game winner.  Huge difference there.  Next time, try and show the entire picture like total # of W's and innings pitched.  Most of Buck's "over 500" wins game in a season where he missed 3 FULL MONTHS.  Never has Day to Day Clay had 30 GS or 200 IP while Lester does that year in and year out..........Really, do not compare the 2.  Evah...........

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    I have been encouraged by what I've seen the last few games from Clay. To me..every good start he has will hopefully go a long way towards helping whatever mental issues he has going on.

    How many here think Vasquez has good amount to do with the pitching improvement from Clay. I don't discount it..that's for sure.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.


    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.


    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.


    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.


     


    Sox4ever





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Of course, it would've been clinically insane to have cut him.  I can understand if someone wanted to trade him during one of his manic streaks, but since 2010, even with all the injuries, he is 25 games over .500.  There are only 10 other pitchers 25 games > .500 during that stretch.


    Just for comparison purposes, Lester (since 2010) is 22 over .500 with a 3.59 while Buchholz is 25 over .500 with a 3.61.


    [/QUOTE]


    wow


    You realize that Lester had 78 W's and Clay only 52 including the post season of 2013. That's like a 15 game winner vs a 10 game winner.  Huge difference there.  Next time, try and show the entire picture like total # of W's and innings pitched.  Most of Buck's "over 500" wins game in a season where he missed 3 FULL MONTHS.  Never has Day to Day Clay had 30 GS or 200 IP while Lester does that year in and year out..........Really, do not compare the 2.  Evah...........


    [/QUOTE]


    So, because Buch is not as good as Lester, he must stink?


    10 game winners are not easy to come by either, and many also have 10 losses or more.


    BTW, I think Lester has about 50 losses since 2010. (He's about 78-50.) Buch is about 52-27. So, if you want to throw W-L's out there- a poor stat, the difference is about 26 more wins and 23 more losses.


    Nobody is saying Buch is as good or consistent as Lester, but he's not a throw-away pitcher either.


    He's worth keeping, since his stock is low right now.


    He's worth giving a chance to be in our rotation next year.


    It's not unreasonable to think he may win 15+ games in 2015 or a future season, but of course, his health is an important factor.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

    Sox4ever

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Of course, it would've been clinically insane to have cut him.  I can understand if someone wanted to trade him during one of his manic streaks, but since 2010, even with all the injuries, he is 25 games over .500.  There are only 10 other pitchers 25 games > .500 during that stretch.

    Just for comparison purposes, Lester (since 2010) is 22 over .500 with a 3.59 while Buchholz is 25 over .500 with a 3.61.

    [/QUOTE]


    wow

    You realize that Lester had 78 W's and Clay only 52 including the post season of 2013. That's like a 15 game winner vs a 10 game winner.  Huge difference there.  Next time, try and show the entire picture like total # of W's and innings pitched.  Most of Buck's "over 500" wins game in a season where he missed 3 FULL MONTHS.  Never has Day to Day Clay had 30 GS or 200 IP while Lester does that year in and year out..........Really, do not compare the 2.  Evah...........

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    You need to do some margin analysis.  Lester had an extra 46 starts,  In those extra 46 starts, he was 19-22.  There is a lot of value in never missing a start, but you are overlooking the value of almost never losing a game.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

     

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

     

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

     

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

     

     

    Sox4ever

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    Of course, it would've been clinically insane to have cut him.  I can understand if someone wanted to trade him during one of his manic streaks, but since 2010, even with all the injuries, he is 25 games over .500.  There are only 10 other pitchers 25 games > .500 during that stretch.

     

    Just for comparison purposes, Lester (since 2010) is 22 over .500 with a 3.59 while Buchholz is 25 over .500 with a 3.61.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    wow

     

    You realize that Lester had 78 W's and Clay only 52 including the post season of 2013. That's like a 15 game winner vs a 10 game winner.  Huge difference there.  Next time, try and show the entire picture like total # of W's and innings pitched.  Most of Buck's "over 500" wins game in a season where he missed 3 FULL MONTHS.  Never has Day to Day Clay had 30 GS or 200 IP while Lester does that year in and year out..........Really, do not compare the 2.  Evah...........

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So, because Buch is not as good as Lester, he must stink?

     

    10 game winners are not easy to come by either, and many also have 10 losses or more.

     

    BTW, I think Lester has about 50 losses since 2010. (He's about 78-50.) Buch is about 52-27. So, if you want to throw W-L's out there- a poor stat, the difference is about 26 more wins and 23 more losses.

     

    Nobody is saying Buch is as good or consistent as Lester, but he's not a throw-away pitcher either.

     

    He's worth keeping, since his stock is low right now.

     

    He's worth giving a chance to be in our rotation next year.

     

    It's not unreasonable to think he may win 15+ games in 2015 or a future season, but of course, his health is an important factor.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    That was the conclusion I was hoping to lead AM to.  Over the past 5 years, these are the two averages-

    Lester 14-10  3.59

    Buch   10-5    3.61

    So from a replacement perspective, Buchholz' replacement only has to go 4-5 to equal Lester's record.  Like I said, there is huge value in never missing a start.

    But if AM wants to make a tag wager on who has more wins per $ next year, then that's what I'm here for.

    Any takers?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

     

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

     

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

     

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

     

     

    Sox4ever

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    Of course, it would've been clinically insane to have cut him.  I can understand if someone wanted to trade him during one of his manic streaks, but since 2010, even with all the injuries, he is 25 games over .500.  There are only 10 other pitchers 25 games > .500 during that stretch.

     

    Just for comparison purposes, Lester (since 2010) is 22 over .500 with a 3.59 while Buchholz is 25 over .500 with a 3.61.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    wow

     

    You realize that Lester had 78 W's and Clay only 52 including the post season of 2013. That's like a 15 game winner vs a 10 game winner.  Huge difference there.  Next time, try and show the entire picture like total # of W's and innings pitched.  Most of Buck's "over 500" wins game in a season where he missed 3 FULL MONTHS.  Never has Day to Day Clay had 30 GS or 200 IP while Lester does that year in and year out..........Really, do not compare the 2.  Evah...........

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So, because Buch is not as good as Lester, he must stink?

     

    10 game winners are not easy to come by either, and many also have 10 losses or more.

     

    BTW, I think Lester has about 50 losses since 2010. (He's about 78-50.) Buch is about 52-27. So, if you want to throw W-L's out there- a poor stat, the difference is about 26 more wins and 23 more losses.

     

    Nobody is saying Buch is as good or consistent as Lester, but he's not a throw-away pitcher either.

     

    He's worth keeping, since his stock is low right now.

     

    He's worth giving a chance to be in our rotation next year.

     

    It's not unreasonable to think he may win 15+ games in 2015 or a future season, but of course, his health is an important factor.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    That was the conclusion I was hoping to lead AM to.  Over the past 5 years, these are the two averages-

    Lester 14-10  3.59

    Buch   10-5    3.61

    So from a replacement perspective, Buchholz' replacement only has to go 4-5 to equal Lester's record.  Like I said, there is huge value in never missing a start.

    But if AM wants to make a tag wager on who has more wins per $ next year, then that's what I'm here for.

    Any takers?

    [/QUOTE]


    not a single analysis regarding consistency.  oh well.  keep on truckin i guess......ignorance is indeed bliss.........

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Buch has talent. He always has. He's battle injuries and slumps- like lots of players, but he has also had long stretches of pitching very well. For that, a good management team does not just give up on.

     

    Some posters here would have been happy had Ben just cut him at various times over the past few years. I'm pretty sure some of these same posters would have been or would be complaining when Buch did well for his next team.

     

    I wouldn't be counting on Buch to be our ace or number 2 guy next year and beyond. I wouldn't count on 28+ starts either. But, I would not give up on Buch, and I would certainly give him every opportunity to be in our rotation next year.

     

    That does not mean I would not also make sure we have a solid #6 and 7 SP'er in waiting- not just because of Buch's fragility and "inconsistencies", but because other starters like Kelly, de la Rosa, Webster, and Ranaudo also have questions and concerns.

     

     

     

    Sox4ever

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    Of course, it would've been clinically insane to have cut him.  I can understand if someone wanted to trade him during one of his manic streaks, but since 2010, even with all the injuries, he is 25 games over .500.  There are only 10 other pitchers 25 games > .500 during that stretch.

     

    Just for comparison purposes, Lester (since 2010) is 22 over .500 with a 3.59 while Buchholz is 25 over .500 with a 3.61.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    wow

     

    You realize that Lester had 78 W's and Clay only 52 including the post season of 2013. That's like a 15 game winner vs a 10 game winner.  Huge difference there.  Next time, try and show the entire picture like total # of W's and innings pitched.  Most of Buck's "over 500" wins game in a season where he missed 3 FULL MONTHS.  Never has Day to Day Clay had 30 GS or 200 IP while Lester does that year in and year out..........Really, do not compare the 2.  Evah...........

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So, because Buch is not as good as Lester, he must stink?

     

    10 game winners are not easy to come by either, and many also have 10 losses or more.

     

    BTW, I think Lester has about 50 losses since 2010. (He's about 78-50.) Buch is about 52-27. So, if you want to throw W-L's out there- a poor stat, the difference is about 26 more wins and 23 more losses.

     

    Nobody is saying Buch is as good or consistent as Lester, but he's not a throw-away pitcher either.

     

    He's worth keeping, since his stock is low right now.

     

    He's worth giving a chance to be in our rotation next year.

     

    It's not unreasonable to think he may win 15+ games in 2015 or a future season, but of course, his health is an important factor.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    That was the conclusion I was hoping to lead AM to.  Over the past 5 years, these are the two averages-

    Lester 14-10  3.59

    Buch   10-5    3.61

    So from a replacement perspective, Buchholz' replacement only has to go 4-5 to equal Lester's record.  Like I said, there is huge value in never missing a start.

    But if AM wants to make a tag wager on who has more wins per $ next year, then that's what I'm here for.

    Any takers?

    [/QUOTE]


    not a single analysis regarding consistency.  oh well.  keep on truckin i guess......ignorance is indeed bliss.........

    [/QUOTE]

    When you are consistently excellent you are an ace. Buchholz is not an ace because he is not consistent, but when he is on his game, he pitches like an ace. No one is saying he is ace material, but that doesn't mean he cannot contribute to the team in a positive manner, like he has recently.

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    That was the conclusion I was hoping to lead AM to. Over the past 5 years, these are the two averages-

    Lester 14-10 3.59

    Buch 10-5 3.61

    So from a replacement perspective, Buchholz' replacement only has to go 4-5 to equal Lester's record. Like I said, there is huge value in never missing a start.

    But if AM wants to make a tag wager on who has more wins per $ next year, then that's what I'm here for.

    Any takers?

    [/QUOTE]


    not a single analysis regarding consistency. oh well. keep on truckin i guess......ignorance is indeed bliss........

    Strawman argument.  No one said he was consistent.

    Any takers?

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    When you are consistently excellent you are an ace. Buchholz is not an ace because he is not consistent, but when he is on his game, he pitches like an ace. No one is saying he is ace material, but that doesn't mean he cannot contribute to the team in a positive manner, like he has recently.

    That's an ongoing theme in here.  There seems to be a line in the sand where guys are stars or there is no use for them.  There are plenty of guys that aren't stars, and can be incredibly inconsistent.  But the only thing that ultimately means anything is how many wins you add over 162 each year.  Not when you get the wins.

    Or put another way, Buchholz' average over the past 5 years is (52-27)/5, and probably slightly better since you have a month to go.  If your entire rotation did the same, you rotation would have a 52-27 record.  If your BP and backup starters were .500, your record would be 93.5-68.5.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    Not many players are very consistent. Of course, consistency is an asset, and I went through the same argument over Napoli last summer. Streaky players are fine with me, as long as they end up being an overall plus.

    Since our SP'er depth seems to be one of our few strengths, I think the frequent missed starts by Buch might not be as big of a hassle as it might be with another team with bad rotation depth.

    Sox4ever

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That was the conclusion I was hoping to lead AM to. Over the past 5 years, these are the two averages-

    Lester 14-10 3.59

    Buch 10-5 3.61

    So from a replacement perspective, Buchholz' replacement only has to go 4-5 to equal Lester's record. Like I said, there is huge value in never missing a start.

    But if AM wants to make a tag wager on who has more wins per $ next year, then that's what I'm here for.

    Any takers?

    [/QUOTE]


    not a single analysis regarding consistency. oh well. keep on truckin i guess......ignorance is indeed bliss........

    Strawman argument.  No one said he was consistent.

    Any takers?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Just in case Mitch overlooked my offer.

    Buchholz v Lester in wins per $ of salary for a tag bet.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    Joe, you can't lead AM to any conclusion once his mind is made up.  Doesn't matter how logical, factual or any other -al you are.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Joe, you can't lead AM to any conclusion once his mind is made up.  Doesn't matter how logical, factual or any other -al you are.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Right, it was basically a strawman arguement from the start for AM; nary a poster would actually stand up and say 'I love Clay Buchholz' - as in 'I love this guy because he is without flaw and an ace' or however AM has it stacked up.  But, he is limited intellectually to binary who is right/who is wrong arguements.  It is not even that his mind is made up (it is) - but rather that he can not accept any reasonable nuanced understanding of Buchholz beyond love him/hate him - because that is the way he orginally framed this dull arguement and he can't move beyond it.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Clay Buchholtz Lovers - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Joe, you can't lead AM to any conclusion once his mind is made up.  Doesn't matter how logical, factual or any other -al you are.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Right, it was basically a strawman arguement from the start for AM; nary a poster would actually stand up and say 'I love Clay Buchholz' - as in 'I love this guy because he is without flaw and an ace' or however AM has it stacked up.  But, he is limited intellectually to binary who is right/who is wrong arguements.  It is not even that his mind is made up (it is) - but rather that he can not accept any reasonable nuanced understanding of Buchholz beyond love him/hate him - because that is the way he orginally framed this dull arguement and he can't move beyond it.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Of course.  The question for me is, will Buchholz out-perform his salary?  There are more factors to consider, but the first question will always be, what can I expect and what will I have to pay for it.  Of course he isn't Lester, but he also isn't going to get paid $25M.

    Again, going back to my previous example, based on 5 years worth of data, here's what you get-

    5 Lesters      71-49 for $125M

    5 Buchholz'    52-27 for $60M

    It isn't really a linear equation since I'd like to have one of each, but if it were either/or, you would almost have to take 5 Buchholz with an extra $65M to spend.

    Still, maybe AM will take me up on my offer and maybe prove me wrong.

     

Share