Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

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

    Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    Has anyone heard or read of a reason for not starting our best pitcher in the first game of yesterday's double header?

    Seems that as good as Buchholz has been that it would have made more sense to start him in the first game yesterday hoping to win the first game of the series and put added pressure on the Angels to have to respond last night.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    clay seems to pitch better at night

    a lot more HR's that's 4 sure

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=buchhcl01&year=Career&t=p#stad_extra

     I would also mention the  W %  200 pts less in the daytime

    but I've been  told that doesn't matter anymore

     

     

    Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing.
    - Warren Spahn

    It’s not how hard you practice when somebody is watching, it’s how hard you practice when nobody is watching.

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

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    If I were arguing in favor, I'd say having Buchholz first would better define our BP needs for the second game.  Based on yesterday's game, you might have changed who relieved Doubront in the 2nd game.

    OTOH, if I were to argue against, I'd say you are more likely to need the BP in the Doubront game.  If he were pitching at night, that would make the RP to be less likely to be available for today, a 24-hour difference v maybe an 18-hour difference.

    Nothing huge either way.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 56redsox. Show 56redsox's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    We Needed His DEFENSE In The NightCap......Wink......

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    could be as simple as Clay facing the LAA's best after playing and sitting for 3 hours. Oh yeah it was keeping the staff in order that's all.

    Love the Red Sox and enjoy the ride every year.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to charliedarling's comment:

     

    Has anyone heard or read of a reason for not starting our best pitcher in the first game of yesterday's double header?

    Seems that as good as Buchholz has been that it would have made more sense to start him in the first game yesterday hoping to win the first game of the series and put added pressure on the Angels to have to respond last night.

     



    I don't think it would have mattered much who started the DH'r.  The one thing I do know is we could really increase our chances if we landed another starter before the deadline.  Our best pitcher "Clay" has never gone 200 innings and this season probably won't be much different.  Lackey has done better so far but now Jon has tailed off a bit.  Doub is what he is right now, a decent fifth starter like Wake used to be if he can continue going deep into games.

     

    Demp in my opinion was a bad signing, he's much like Lackey was his first couple of years.  Demp's strength/SO pitches come on breaking balls so he should throw them more often.  He doesn't have the velocity anymore to get away with fastballs down the center of the plate.  He also doesn't hit spots well enough to keep control or a lead.    

    No real SP depth here at all in the event of injury! 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    In response to charliedarling's comment:

     

    Has anyone heard or read of a reason for not starting our best pitcher in the first game of yesterday's double header?

    Seems that as good as Buchholz has been that it would have made more sense to start him in the first game yesterday hoping to win the first game of the series and put added pressure on the Angels to have to respond last night.

     



    I don't think it would have mattered much who started the DH'r.  The one thing I do know is we could really increase our chances if we landed another starter before the deadline.  Our best pitcher "Clay" has never gone 200 innings and this season probably won't be much different.  Lackey has done better so far but now Jon has tailed off a bit.  Doub is what he is right now, a decent fifth starter like Wake used to be if he can continue going deep into games.

     

    Demp in my opinion was a bad signing, he's much like Lackey was his first couple of years.  Demp's strength/SO pitches come on breaking balls so he should throw them more often.  He doesn't have the velocity anymore to get away with fastballs down the center of the plate.  He also doesn't hit spots well enough to keep control or a lead.    

    No real SP depth here at all in the event of injury! 



    Even if there was a team looking to dump a top starter in "early June," who are you going to replace in the rotation right now?  Dempster & Doubront have been solid 4 & 5 guys and they certainly aren't replacing Buchholz, Lackey & Lester.  Aceves, Webster & Morales can all give you a spot start if necessary.

     This team is in first place and playing well.  I seriously doubt the Front Office is trying to "shake up the roster" right now.  Please don't give me the "complacent" theory, because I'd love to see an example of a first place team with no serious issues that traded starting players in early June.  These trade "possibilities" are fun to throw around, but in reality, barring injury, this team isn't making any significant trades for at least another month, if at all.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to 56redsox's comment:

     

    We Needed His DEFENSE In The NightCap......Wink......

    LOL

    but it is a good question about why not the 1st game....

     

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

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to charliedarling's comment:

     

    Has anyone heard or read of a reason for not starting our best pitcher in the first game of yesterday's double header?

    Seems that as good as Buchholz has been that it would have made more sense to start him in the first game yesterday hoping to win the first game of the series and put added pressure on the Angels to have to respond last night.

     



    I don't think it would have mattered much who started the DH'r.  The one thing I do know is we could really increase our chances if we landed another starter before the deadline.  Our best pitcher "Clay" has never gone 200 innings and this season probably won't be much different.  Lackey has done better so far but now Jon has tailed off a bit.  Doub is what he is right now, a decent fifth starter like Wake used to be if he can continue going deep into games.

     

    Demp in my opinion was a bad signing, he's much like Lackey was his first couple of years.  Demp's strength/SO pitches come on breaking balls so he should throw them more often.  He doesn't have the velocity anymore to get away with fastballs down the center of the plate.  He also doesn't hit spots well enough to keep control or a lead.    

    No real SP depth here at all in the event of injury! 

     



    Even if there was a team looking to dump a top starter in "early June," who are you going to replace in the rotation right now?  Dempster & Doubront have been solid 4 & 5 guys and they certainly aren't replacing Buchholz, Lackey & Lester.  Aceves, Webster & Morales can all give you a spot start if necessary.

     

     This team is in first place and playing well.  I seriously doubt the Front Office is trying to "shake up the roster" right now.  Please don't give me the "complacent" theory, because I'd love to see an example of a first place team with no serious issues that traded starting players in early June.  These trade "possibilities" are fun to throw around, but in reality, barring injury, this team isn't making any significant trades for at least another month, if at all.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no such thing as having a 6th SP in case of injury.

    • A good SP probably goes for $8M+.  You won't pay that for someone to sit in the BP
    • No decent SP will want to sit in the BP waiting for an injury
    • Most SPs will lose focus waiting for an injury without starting

    Virtually 100% of the time, your #6 is either a long reliever, a good prospect, or an SP that couyldn't make anyone's roster and had to take a minor league assignment.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

     

    In response to charliedarling's comment:

     

    Has anyone heard or read of a reason for not starting our best pitcher in the first game of yesterday's double header?

    Seems that as good as Buchholz has been that it would have made more sense to start him in the first game yesterday hoping to win the first game of the series and put added pressure on the Angels to have to respond last night.

     



    I don't think it would have mattered much who started the DH'r.  The one thing I do know is we could really increase our chances if we landed another starter before the deadline.  Our best pitcher "Clay" has never gone 200 innings and this season probably won't be much different.  Lackey has done better so far but now Jon has tailed off a bit.  Doub is what he is right now, a decent fifth starter like Wake used to be if he can continue going deep into games.

     

    Demp in my opinion was a bad signing, he's much like Lackey was his first couple of years.  Demp's strength/SO pitches come on breaking balls so he should throw them more often.  He doesn't have the velocity anymore to get away with fastballs down the center of the plate.  He also doesn't hit spots well enough to keep control or a lead.    

    No real SP depth here at all in the event of injury! 

     



    Even if there was a team looking to dump a top starter in "early June," who are you going to replace in the rotation right now?  Dempster & Doubront have been solid 4 & 5 guys and they certainly aren't replacing Buchholz, Lackey & Lester.  Aceves, Webster & Morales can all give you a spot start if necessary.

     

     This team is in first place and playing well.  I seriously doubt the Front Office is trying to "shake up the roster" right now.  Please don't give me the "complacent" theory, because I'd love to see an example of a first place team with no serious issues that traded starting players in early June.  These trade "possibilities" are fun to throw around, but in reality, barring injury, this team isn't making any significant trades for at least another month, if at all.

     




    Thats part of the problem with signing Dempster over a stronger #3 guy.  I realize Ben did this hoping our young arms are ready after the two year contract but this team is one key pitching injury away from putting all the pressure on our offense.  In this case Ben will be forced to trade a ton of good prospects for a guy like Cliff Lee in order to compete, or bring in a patch job like Cook or Bedard which won't help at all.  So whatever success our long relief and SP has could dictate the rest of our season.  Lackey, Demp and good health will be key because you are right, we have few options.

     

    Fortunately our team is in 1rst place and playing great ball.  Salty, Iggy and Nava have made the biggest impact on our W/L record in my opinion.  Their contribution has never been consistent in the past.  Our team now has depth offensively and the type of team OBP needed to make the PS.  Pitching?  Not so much and thats what normally stops good hitting and helps win PS games.  I predicted a PS berth for this team, not a 500 season like a lot of others so I'm just giving my honest opinion.

     

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

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    Thats part of the problem with signing Dempster over a stronger #3 or 4 guy.  I realize Ben did this hoping our young arms are ready after the two year contract but this team is one key pitching injury away from putting all the pressure on our offense.  In this case Ben will be forced to trade a ton of good prospects for a guy like Cliff Lee in order to compete, or bring in a patch job like Cook or Bedard which won't help at all.  So whatever success our long relief and SP has could dictate the rest of our season.  Lackey, Demp and good health will be key because you are right, we have few options.

    Most rosters are one key pitching injury away from having an issue.  And Dempster has been one of the most uninjured pitchers in BB.  If health is your concern, you should be pretty happy with Dempster.

    As far as depth goes, we probably as deep as most teams, maybe deeper.  Aceves can still make a start, and i wouldn't overlook Webster or DLR for a spot start.

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

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In these situations , I think it is generally left up to the top pitcher as to which game he wants to pitch. I think Clay preferred to pitch the nightcap.  It 's really much ado about nothing. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Thats part of the problem with signing Dempster over a stronger #3 or 4 guy.  I realize Ben did this hoping our young arms are ready after the two year contract but this team is one key pitching injury away from putting all the pressure on our offense.  In this case Ben will be forced to trade a ton of good prospects for a guy like Cliff Lee in order to compete, or bring in a patch job like Cook or Bedard which won't help at all.  So whatever success our long relief and SP has could dictate the rest of our season.  Lackey, Demp and good health will be key because you are right, we have few options.

    Most rosters are one key pitching injury away from having an issue.  And Dempster has been one of the most uninjured pitchers in BB.  If health is your concern, you should be pretty happy with Dempster.

    As far as depth goes, we probably as deep as most teams, maybe deeper.  Aceves can still make a start, and i wouldn't overlook Webster or DLR for a spot start.

     



    I think you may be putting too much stock in Webster but time will tell.  Aceves maybe, at this point he has every reason to bring his A game to the bigs with every opportunity handed to him.  In my opinion if Aveves is happy he pitches well and he is 10 fold better than Mortensen. 

    Most rosters don't have the depth offensively to succeed in the PS.  Only a few select "CONTENDERS" are one starting pitcher away from having it impact their season like ours. 

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

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    Most rosters don't have the depth offensively to succeed in the PS.  Only a few select "CONTENDERS" are one starting pitcher away from having it impact their season like ours. 

    Angels without Weaver

    Philly without Halladay

    Dodgers without Greinke

    When teams struggle, there are usually more than one reason, but when yuo replace an ace with a minor leaguer, you usually have a problem.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Most rosters don't have the depth offensively to succeed in the PS.  Only a few select "CONTENDERS" are one starting pitcher away from having it impact their season like ours. 

    Angels without Weaver

    Philly without Halladay

    Dodgers without Greinke

    When teams struggle, there are usually more than one reason, but when yuo replace an ace with a minor leaguer, you usually have a problem.




    Joe,

    None of those teams have what are team is capable of.  The Phillies are too old and have very little depth offensively so it won't matter if Halladay or Lee is lost at this point.  Scioscia is a great "small ball" manager who now has a bunch of inconsitent/overpaid power hitters along with one of the worst pitching staffs in years.  The Dodgers also have little chemistry, or SP around their overpaid, injury prone superstars. 

    If we stay healthy and find a #3 in Lackey or Dempster we can win it all if the offense continues to get OB and score runs.  We can throw batters up against any type of pitching with enough success to win a big playoff series with solid pitching.

     

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

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Most rosters don't have the depth offensively to succeed in the PS.  Only a few select "CONTENDERS" are one starting pitcher away from having it impact their season like ours. 

    Angels without Weaver

    Philly without Halladay

    Dodgers without Greinke

    When teams struggle, there are usually more than one reason, but when yuo replace an ace with a minor leaguer, you usually have a problem.

     




    Joe,

     

    None of those teams have what are team is capable of.  The Phillies are too old and have very little depth offensively so it won't matter if Halladay or Lee is lost at this point.  Scioscia is a great "small ball" manager who now has a bunch of inconsitent/overpaid power hitters along with one of the worst pitching staffs in years.  The Dodgers also have little chemistry, or SP around their overpaid, injury prone superstars. 

    If we stay healthy and find a #3 in Lackey or Dempster we can win it all if the offense continues to get OB and score runs.  We can throw batters up against any type of pitching with enough success to win a big playoff series with solid pitching.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I like our team, but still, both LA teams were supposed to be serious contenders, if not favorites, and Philly was at least supposed to compete.  You can lose any player, and still be competitive, but the difference between an ace, who might pitch .700, and a minor leaguer that might pitch .450, is .25, which will cost any team 4-6 games.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Why not Buchholz in the first game yesterday?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

     

    Most rosters don't have the depth offensively to succeed in the PS.  Only a few select "CONTENDERS" are one starting pitcher away from having it impact their season like ours. 

    Angels without Weaver

    Philly without Halladay

    Dodgers without Greinke

    When teams struggle, there are usually more than one reason, but when yuo replace an ace with a minor leaguer, you usually have a problem.

     

     




    Joe,

     

     

    None of those teams have what are team is capable of.  The Phillies are too old and have very little depth offensively so it won't matter if Halladay or Lee is lost at this point.  Scioscia is a great "small ball" manager who now has a bunch of inconsitent/overpaid power hitters along with one of the worst pitching staffs in years.  The Dodgers also have little chemistry, or SP around their overpaid, injury prone superstars. 

    If we stay healthy and find a #3 in Lackey or Dempster we can win it all if the offense continues to get OB and score runs.  We can throw batters up against any type of pitching with enough success to win a big playoff series with solid pitching.

     



    I like our team, but still, both LA teams were supposed to be serious contenders, if not favorites, and Philly was at least supposed to compete.  You can lose any player, and still be competitive, but the difference between an ace, who might pitch .700, and a minor leaguer that might pitch .450, is .25, which will cost any team 4-6 games.

     



    Stay positive Joe, unlike me at times :)  I really think our 2013 team is pretty special if we have a little luck.  Ben did a good job in a very short period of time and managed to maintain the farm.  Our next 10 games will tell us a lot more but I like our chances.

     

Share