Archive for Clay Buchholz

Pitcher Spotlight: Clay Buchholz’s Career Saving Cutter

Did you expect any sort of spotlight on Clay Buchholz this season? I certainly didn’t think he would be worth anyone’s time, with his last healthy season producing a 4.78 ERA and 1.33 WHIP, watching his strikeout rate dive to an abysmal 16% mark and hinting at a 10% walk rate. But here we are, four starts into his 2018 season and Buchholz is getting our attention. Seriously, he’s been quite remarkable thus far (I’m ignoring 2017 stats wise as his poor health reduced his season to just two starts in 7.1 innings):

Clay Buchholz 2016 vs. 2018
Year IP ERA WHIP K% BB%
2016 139.1 4.78 1.33 15.8% 9.4%
2018 24.0 1.88 0.83 22.8% 3.3%

I was like many of you at first, waving this away with a slight scoff, quickly quoting small sample size and the inconsistent nature of Buchholz, and suggesting that nothing has changed. Maybe even adding a quick “this is the same old Buchholz” quip.

But it isn’t. This could be nothing, yet another byproduct of a minuscule 24 frames, but there’s a chance that it sticks across the weeks and months of the year.

That thing is Clay Buchholz’s cutter.

Read the rest of this entry »


Buying Low Using LOB%: Buchholz, Carrasco and Strasburg

Strikeouts are highly desirable from starting pitchers — not exactly an Earth shattering revelation. Unfortunately, everyone wants them, meaning they aren’t often readily available on the waiver wire. With that in mind, I glanced over the leaderboard for strikeout rate among qualified hurlers searching for some potential buy-low candidates. A trio of pitchers stood out to me. Clay Buchholz, Carlos Carrasco and Stephen Strasburg are all posting significantly worse ERA marks than their ERA estimators suggest they should be. Each pitcher, somewhat predictably, has an elevated BABIP, but all three also rank in the bottom 10 among qualified starters in left on base percentage. Read the rest of this entry »


Pitcher Over/Under Performers

I wanted to highlight Pitcher over and under performers. Naturally, Mike Podhorzer has already done that and more concisely and eloquently than I ever could. In conjunction to what he did (ERA vs. SIERA within this year), I wanted to look at pitchers’ skills and luck relative to last year.

By “skills” I mean K%-BB%, combined Contact% and SwStr%, GB/FB and IFFB%. These columns are in green.

By “luck” I mean BABIP, LOB% and HR/FB. These are in some emotional shade of red.

I took all the 2014 vs. 2013 differentials and z-scored them. I summed them up and presented them under column 3 (“SKILL”) and column 4 (“LUCK”). In short, these are not their skill and luck scores for 2014, but their change relative to 2013…in relation to how much everyone else from this list changed (50 IP qualifier).

Read the rest of this entry »


The Red Sox Rotation

I didn’t spend the time to click through each team in the Steamer projections, but I’m guessing the Red Sox are one of few teams, if not the only team, to have the five guys projected to pitch the most innings each be projected for 2+ WAR. They may not have an elite starter, but their rotation has nice depth.

Although not elite, Jon Lester isn’t a bad first option. He’s going on six straight years of 190+ IP, and he topped 200 IP in five of those six years. From 2008 to 2011 he coupled the workhorse inning totals with a sub-3.50 ERA. But the wheels came off in 2012. He lost velocity, and his ERA ballooned up to 4.82 while his strikeout rate fell to league average. Luck also played a part in the down year as his HR/FB rate was about four points higher than his career average, which contributed to a career low strand rate that was about seven points below his career average.

Not that we should have seen such a blow up coming, but the signs were there in 2011 that Lester was in decline. His strikeout rate had hovered just above 26% in the two years prior to 2011, but it fell to 22.8% that year. That contributed to the highest ERA (3.47) of that four year stretch and the first time in three years that his SIERA was above 3.50. At that point it was probably safe to assume that a slow decline had begun. Given that Lester’s ERA finished at 3.75 last year, maybe we should have expected to land in the 3.60 range in 2012 if all else had been equal. Read the rest of this entry »


Red Sox Rotation Depth Chart Discussions

Starting pitching wasn’t a bright spot for the Boston Red Sox in 2012. Nine different arms toed the rubber as a Red Sox starter last season and as a whole, the club managed just a 121 ERA-, finishing 25th in baseball. The conversion of Daniel Bard as a starter never got off the ground, Daisuke Matsuzaka finished with an ERA higher than his K/9, and their former ace Josh Beckett finshed as a Dodger. Despite all of this, there’s actually reasons for some optimism in Boston’s rotation as they have several starters who ought to merit your fantasy consideration entering 2013.

Read the rest of this entry »


Pick Six Value Picks: Starters and Relievers

To close out our series of looks at the values of players in ottoneu Pick Six, we look today at pitchers.  As before, the numbers below are based on weighted averages of THT’s Oliver and BPro’s PECOTA (more weight to Oliver b/c it includes this season’s data).  The numbers are FP (FanGraphs Points per IP), though keep in mind that for starters this number is divided by four to keep starters from being the only thing that matters in pick six.

Starting Pitchers

Elite Five (they cost a fortune, but they’re worth it)

Tim Lincecum, 5.33 FP/IP, $48
Josh Johnson, 5.21 FP/IP, $38
Felix Hernandez, 5.04 FP/IP, $49
Cliff Lee, 5.04 FP/IP, $43
Roy Halladay, 5.01 FP/IP, $52

Johnson’s injury risk has kept his value down in traditional ottoneu, but when he’s healthy (currently has shoulder ouchie), he’s the best value of this group.  But you can’t go wrong here: more than any other pitchers in baseball, these guys should give you lots of productive innings per start.

Read the rest of this entry »


Pitcher value in a FanGraphs points league

Continuing this series of comparing FanGraphs Points league scoring to traditional scoring, we’ll begin looking today at pitching.  To start, I decided to look at a traditional points scoring system compared to the ottoneu points scoring system.  There is no apparent “standard” fantasy points system, but I chose the points scoring used at CBSSportsline as my comparison, as it seems fairly typical of systems you see out “in the wild.”  Let’s start with a list of the top-10 pitchers by their system in the 2010 season:

CBSRnk Name CBSPts FGRnk
1 Roy Halladay 699 1
2 Felix Hernandez 651 2
3 Adam Wainwright 650 3
4 CC Sabathia 628 8
5 Ubaldo Jimenez 604 7
6 Jered Weaver 586 6
7 David Price 581 20
8 Justin Verlander 579 5
9 Chris Carpenter 563 13
10 Tim Hudson 561 31

For reference, I also included their rank according to total FanGraphs Points.  Overall, it doesn’t look that different, right?  The top three are identical, and most of the top-10 are ranked similarly in both systems.  There are two pitchers who had a ranking disparty of at least 10 spots, however: David Price and Tim Hudson.

Read the rest of this entry »


2010 FIP Challenge Results Part II

Earlier today, in Part I of the series, I published a chart of 38 pitchers who had a difference of 0.50 or greater between their FIP and xFIP at the All-Star break and their 2nd half ERAs. Here I want to go into more detail rather than just giving a raw score for the two metrics.

In rating the two systems, I considered the metrics to recommend keeping a pitcher if at the All-Star break they were at 3.50 or lower, to listen to a trade if they were between 3.51 and 4.00, to actively look to sell the player if they were between 4.01 and 4.50 and to either sell or cut a pitcher if they were above 4.51.

Of course, we also have to consider what the pitcher’s actual ERA was at the break, too. A pitcher could still be a sell candidate if one of the metrics was significantly higher than his ERA. For these extreme cases, I considered a difference between 50-75 points to be a “listen” candidate, while above 75 to be a “sell high” guy.

Felipe Paulino – pitched in just 5.2 innings after the break. Officially a win for xFIP, but one we should probably dismiss due to a lack of playing time.

Francisco Liriano – His second half ERA was better than his first half mark, but both metrics thought he was outstanding before the All-Star break. This is a clear win for xFIP.

Anibal Sanchez – His 2nd half ERA (3.44) was a near-perfect match for his first half FIP (3.46).

Clay Buchholz – Both systems thought Buchholz was not nearly as good as he was in the first half. FIP had his as a keep while xFIP said he was an active sell. Since Buchholz did even better in the second half of the season than the first, this was a clear victory for FIP.

Josh Johnson – Both systems had Johnson as a keeper, but xFIP did a better job predicting his 3.50 post All-Star break mark.

Daisuke Matsuzaka – After allowing 4 HR in 71 IP in the first half, Matsuzaka served up 9 HR in 82.2 IP after the break. Big win for xFIP.

Johan Santana – His 3.00 ERA in the second half almost identical to his first half mark of 2.98. xFIP had Santana as a cut, so an easy win for FIP.

Jason Vargas – Eight of his 14 starts after the break came on the road and he allowed eight of his 10 second half HR away from Safeco. Big win for xFIP.

Justin Verlander – In the last three years, Verlander has posted an ERA over 5.50 in the month of April. He was terrific from May 1st through the end of the season again in 2010. Easy win for FIP.

Barry Zito – A lousy second half of the season made Zito a spectator for the Giants in the post-season. xFIP did an outstanding job predicting Zito’s collapse.

Ubaldo Jimenez – Just like with Zito, xFIP was just about perfect predicting Jimenez in the second half.

Tom Gorzelanny – Both systems saw Gorzelanny as a pretty good pitcher, but xFIP came closer to his second-half collapse.

John Danks – Again, the crystal ball for xFIP was right on target for Danks.

Tommy Hanson – In both seasons in the majors, Hanson has outperformed his xFIP. He turned it up a notch in the second half of 2010, thanks as much to his .233 BABIP as his 7 HR in 100.1 IP.

Matt Cain – Another pitcher with a history of outperforming his peripherals, Cain beat his FIP by nearly a run and his xFIP by nearly two runs in the second half of 2010.

Clayton Kershaw – Just as good in the second half of the season as he was in the first.

Cliff Lee – Many people wanted to eliminate Lee from this study last year, as he went from a pitcher’s park to a hitter’s park. But Lee outpitched his xFIP after the break in 2009. No such luck for Lee this year while following a similar story line of moving to a tougher park for pitchers.

C.J. Wilson – Like Kershaw, he was remarkable consistent between halves and ended up as a win for FIP.

Livan Hernandez – Those of us who kept predicting the bottom to fall out for Hernandez in 2010 are still waiting. Meanwhile, his second half ERA of 4.02 was a perfect match for his first half FIP.

Doug Fister – I imagine even the staunchest FIP supporters were shopping Fister every chance they could.

Fausto Carmona – After back-to-back seasons with a BB/9 over 5.00, Carmona allowed just 29 BB in 94.0 IP after the break last year. That had more to do with it than HR rate (10 HR in 94 IP) for why FIP was a clear winner.

Gavin Floyd – Fantasy owners did not know start from start what to expect from Floyd, but xFIP did a nice job of predicting his second half ERA.

Mark Buehrle – Like Wilson and Kershaw, Buehrle was a model of consistency with his ERA between halves this year. However, I worry about his K/9 rate and would be shocked if he was on any of my teams next year.

Brandon Morrow – With the Blue Jays out of the race, they decided to shut down a healthy Morrow after his first September start, which limited him to 46.1 IP after the break. A polar opposite to Buehrle, Morrow posted a 10.95 K/9, up from 8.14 a season ago.

Johnny Cueto – Cueto’s second half ERA was in the range predicted by his first half FIP and xFIP. But it was just 0.05 away from his FIP.

John Lackey – His second half ERA of 3.97 was a nice match for his 3.89 career mark but I doubt that makes too many Red Sox fans happy about his season and the team’s remaining obligation to him.

Kevin Correia – The first player on our list to have a big discrepancy between his FIP and xFIP due to a high HR rate, Correia did not show much regression in the second half of the year. Those who thought he would rebound, especially considering his home park, were disappointed. Correia allowed 13 HR in 82.1 IP in Petco this year.

Cole Hamels – Just like in 2009, one pitcher from the high HR rate side completely turned things around to become one of the best pitchers in the second half. Hopefully, Hamels has more luck in 2011 than 2009’s entry did. Rich Harden had a 5.58 ERA in 20 games with the Rangers this year after having a tremendous post-break performance (2.55 ERA) in 2009.

Nick Blackburn – Both systems would have advised cutting Blackburn, who responded with a 3.94 ERA in the second half, as he showed a big across-the-board improvement, including a microscopic 1.83 BB/9.

Kevin Millwood – Most of the players with a high HR/FB rate come back as not worth the risk by both systems. But xFIP said Millwood was significantly better than he showed in the first half and did an excellent job projecting his post-break ERA.

Jeff Karstens – An sore shoulder led to just one appearance in September. I regret the pain suffered by Mr. Karstens but it’s probably just as well that it played out that way.

Zach Duke – Hard to believe he made the All-Star team in 2009. Since then he is 11-23 with a 5.52 ERA.

James Shields – Both systems predicted a big bounce-back performance in the second half by Shields but that never materialized. He continued to give up HR by the basket, saw his K/BB ratio drop by over a full point and saw his BABIP increase to .362 after the break.

Brian Bannister – Limited to 25.2 IP in the second half due to rotator cuff tendinitis.

Randy Wolf – Both systems saw Wolf as waiver wire fodder but he had a 2.67 ERA in his final 13 starts, which was right after I placed him on waivers in a dynasty league.

Doug Davis – Elbow tendinitis kept Davis from pitching after the All-Star break.

Ricky Nolasco – FIP was nearly perfect with its Nolasco forecast, a marked departure in recent history, as he has generally underperformed his peripherals the past two seasons. Of course, Nolasco pitched just 47 innings after the break due to knee surgery.

Ian Kennedy – Neither system thought much of Kennedy going into the break but xFIP had a brighter outlook. Meanwhile, Kennedy put it altogether after the All-Star game, with Quality Starts in seven of his last nine outings. He finally started pitching well in his home park. In his last three games in Chase Field, Kennedy allowed 4 ER (0 HR) in 19 IP.

*****

When I started this comparison in 2009, my belief was that you would be just as well off using either system. After last year, there was a definite raw advantage for xFIP but now with two years worth of data, the two systems are basically even. Overall, there have been 72 pitchers who’ve had a 0.50 or greater difference between their FIP and xFIP at the All-Star break. Here’s how they did if you used their first half FIP or xFIP to project their second half ERA:

xFIP – 37
FIP – 34
Push – 1

Both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Generally speaking, xFIP does a better job with non-elite pitchers with low HR rates while FIP does a better job with elite hurlers. So, if a Tom Gorzelanny is cruising along with a sub-7.0 HR/FB rate, it appears you should look to sell high. But if it’s Justin Verlander, perhaps you should hold onto him.

We know that over the long haul that xFIP is the better metric to use for most pitchers. The issue here is that for one season (or one partial season) there may not be enough time for regression to fully kick in. Let’s look at Tim Lincecum. In the first half of 2009, he had a 3.9 HR/FB rate. In the second half of the season he had a 7.5 HR/9. This year he had a 9.9 HR/FB ratio. He has been regressing towards a normal HR/FB rate since the first half of 2009. But it did not all come in the same season.

Readers have suggested using first half ERA, or a mid-point between first half FIP and xFIP or an average of all three to see which one best predicted second half ERA. I think these are worthwhile suggestions and perhaps ones that we can use in the future (going back retroactively, too) as our sample size increases. We can also eliminate pitchers who did not pitch substantial innings and look for other trends and anomalies as our population gets bigger.

This started with a claim by my friend and colleague Derek Carty that FIP was basically useless for fantasy purposes with other metrics like xFIP available. Right now it appears FIP is making a case not to be tossed into the trash can by fantasy players.


2010 FIP Challenge Results Part I

In 2009, I did a column at the All-Star break to see if FIP or xFIP would be more helpful for fantasy players in making trades. This year I did the same thing. You can see the results below

Should Fantasy Owners Use FIP?
FIP Challenge Results Part I
FIP Challenge Results Part II
FIP Challenge 2010

Here is the table from the 2010 article, along with an additional column, the pitcher’s ERA in the second half of the season.

Name HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP 2nd Half ERA
Paulino 1.9 4.40 3.25 4.60 15.88
Liriano 2.5 3.86 2.18 2.97 3.31
A. Sanchez 3.4 3.66 3.46 4.52 3.44
Buchholz 3.6 2.45 3.45 4.26 2.20
J. Johnson 3.8 1.70 2.31 3.06 3.50
Matsuzaka 4.1 4.56 3.83 4.98 4.79
J. Santana 4.5 2.98 3.62 4.69 3.00
Vargas 4.7 3.09 3.62 4.84 4.66
Verlander 5.3 3.82 3.11 3.89 2.89
Zito 5.3 3.76 3.91 4.79 2.89
Jimenez 5.4 2.20 3.13 3.71 3.80
Gorzelanny 5.4 3.16 3.26 3.92 5.20
Danks 5.6 3.29 3.41 4.13 4.19
Hanson 5.6 4.13 3.26 4.02 2.51
Cain 5.7 3.34 3.82 4.72 2.91
Kershaw 5.7 2.96 3.11 3.79 2.84
C. Lee 5.8 2.64 2.58 3.34 3.79
Wilson 6.1 3.35 4.14 4.71 3.36
L. Hernandez 6.2 3.37 4.02 4.71 4.02
Fister 6.3 3.09 3.75 4.38 5.06
Carmona 6.3 3.64 4.08 4.61 3.93
Floyd 6.5 4.20 3.28 3.78 3.91
Buehrle 6.6 4.24 4.16 4.85 4.32
Morrow 6.7 4.86 3.42 3.93 3.69
Cueto 6.9 3.42 3.91 4.45 3.96
Lackey 6.9 4.78 4.39 4.98 3.97
Correia 15.7 5.26 4.82 4.22 5.64
Hamels 15.2 3.78 4.53 3.85 2.23
Blackburn 14.8 6.40 5.89 5.14 3.93
Millwood 14.8 5.77 5.03 4.32 4.23
Karstens 14.5 5.42 4.88 5.50 5.00
Duke 14.5 5.49 4.89 4.36 7.00
Shields 14.3 4.87 4.11 3.55 5.59
Bannister 14.0 5.56 5.26 4.69 9.47
Wolf 13.9 4.56 5.81 5.24 4.11
Davis 13.7 4.69 5.69 5.10 DNP
Nolasco 13.7 4.55 4.39 3.84 4.40
Kennedy 13.7 4.12 4.83 4.31 3.38

There are 38 pitchers in the above chart. On a raw scale, the two systems were almost identical, with the FIP metric did a better job of predicting 2nd half ERA in 20 cases while xFIP did better 17 times. Furthermore, FIP did a better job of forecasting 14 of the 26 players with low HR/FB rates and both systems got five of the 11 pitchers (Davis being a wash) with high HR/FB rates.

In 2009, xFIP did better on a raw scale, as it did a better job predicting 20 of the 34 pitchers in the sample.

Similar to 2009, most of the pitchers fell outside the range predicted by FIP and xFIP. For example, Liriano’s FIP was 2.18 while his xFIP was 2.97. But he had a 3.31 second half ERA. Only seven of the 37 players listed above had a second half ERA between their first half FIP and xFIP. The two systems were close on this, too, with FIP being better on four of these seven pitchers. In 2009, 28 of the 34 pitchers had second half ERAs outside the range of their first half FIP and xFIP numbers.

Later today I will post a breakdown of all 38 pitchers in this survey.


A Buchholz Breakout?

Glance at Clay Buchholz’s ERAs over the 2008-2010 seasons, and you’ll be inclined to believe that the former phenom’s major league performance has progressed from ghastly (6.75) to good (4.21) to great (2.52). That’s a compelling narrative — the hot-shot prospect tosses a no-no during a September ’07 call-up, gets his head handed to him the following year and then makes the necessary adjustments to blossom into a full-fledged ace.

It’s a nice story. But it’s also misleading. In truth, Buchholz neither fell to the depths of despair that his ’08 ERA suggests, nor has he risen from the ashes like a phoenix this season for a Boston rotation suffering greatly from injury and underachievement. Throughout his big league tenure, Buchholz has been pretty good, but hardly elite.

In 2010, Buchholz has 5.72 K/9, 3.78 BB/9, a 51.5 percent ground ball rate and a 4.33 xFIP in 78.2 frames. For comparison, his xFIP was 4.28 in ’08 and 4.09 last season. The big change in Clay’s ERA is due to factors largely out of his control — his BABIP is .268 (.302 career average) and his home run per fly ball rate is just 4.2%. His career rate is 11%, right at the big league average.

The 25-year-old’s K rate is down from the previous two seasons (8.53 K/9 in ’08, 6.65 in ’09). His swinging strike rate is basically the same all the years, ranging from 9.7% to 9.9% (8-9% MLB average), but the culprit for the lack of punch outs appears to be the rate of contact made against Buccholz’s pitches thrown outside of the strike zone. He’s throwing more off-the-plate pitches in 2010, and batters are swinging at plenty of them. But they’re also connecting more often against those offerings:

Buchholz has thrown just 43.8 percent of his pitches within the zone this year (47.3% MLB average). Batters have gone after his out-of zone pitches 31.5% (28.1% MLB average). However, they have put the bat on the ball 67.6% (66.4% MLB average).

That’s a sizeable increase from the previous two seasons — in 2008 and 2009, hitters made contact with Buchholz’s out-of-zone pitches at a rate that was about seven percent below the major league average. This season, they’re making contact on those pitches at a clip that’s two percent above the MLB norm.

Pitch selection has played a role in the K decline. Buchholz has a four-pitch mix: a 93-94 MPH fastball, a hard-upper 80’s slider, a mid-to-high-seventies curveball and a 79-80 MPH changeup. According to Pitch F/X data from Trip Somers’ site, Buchholz has increasingly gone to his slider this season, at the expense of some changeups and curves:

His fastball has never garnered many whiffs, and neither has his curve. Buchholz’s changeup has always gotten a healthy number of swing-throughs. His slider produced plenty of whiffs in ’08, but it’s not missing many bats this year:

So more sliders, and fewer whiffs on the slider. In our splits section on the player pages, we have pitch usage by count. Buchholz is going to his fastball and slider (two pitches with below-average whiff rates) more often in two-strike situations, in place of his curveball and whiff-generating changeup:

(note: the numbers are rounded, so not all columns add up to exactly 100).

These changes in Buchholz’s approach help explain why he hasn’t missed as many bats as expected. His minor league K rates suffered over this period as well. Buchholz spent much of 2007 pitching between Double-A Portland and Triple-A Pawtucket, and he logged a good number of innings with the PawSox in ’08 and ’09. Buchholz’s major league equivalent K rates declined over the years — According to Minor League Splits, Buchholz’s work in the minors in 2007 translated to 9.8 K/9 in the big leagues, but that mark fell to 7.7 K/9 in 2008 and 6.7 K/9 in 2009.

Clay Buchholz has a fantastic minor league track record. He exhibits strong ground ball tendencies, and he was an elite strikeout pitcher during most of his days as a prospect. It wouldn’t be surprising if he took significant steps forward in the coming years. But the current version of Buchholz is more of a solid, low-four’s ERA-type than any sort of rotation messiah.