Buchholz and his cutter

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Nick Carfardo, in his Sunday Globe column (8/24), wrote this:
 
One National League scout who has watched Buchholz lately said he can’t believe how “cutter-happy” the righthander has become. “That pitch has sunk so many pitchers,” said the scout. “Buchholz has more talent than most of the pitchers in the game. To see him not use that arsenal he has like he used to is just amazing. He had one of the best changeups I’ve seen and now you rarely see it.”
 
Is there any verification of that from Pitch f/x?
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,657
Haiku
OttoC said:
Nick Carfardo, in his Sunday Globe column (8/24), wrote this:
 
One National League scout who has watched Buchholz lately said he can’t believe how “cutter-happy” the righthander has become. “That pitch has sunk so many pitchers,” said the scout. “Buchholz has more talent than most of the pitchers in the game. To see him not use that arsenal he has like he used to is just amazing. He had one of the best changeups I’ve seen and now you rarely see it.”
 
Is there any verification of that from Pitch f/x?
 
Yes. Since switching from the slider to the cutter in 2010, the proportion of cutters has risen from 15% to a high of 34% (month by month). The changeup has gone from best-in-baseball in 2009 to a fringe pitch. He complains that he has lost the feel for the changeup.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I was about to post, more or less, the same thing. Here's the chart for easy viewing.
 

Side note: Brooks Baseball is effing amazing. I'm constantly blown away by how it continues to get better every season.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
If this is so obvious to everyone, and if the results scream "STOP THROWING THE CUTTER SO MUCH AND START THROWING YOUR CURVE AND CHANGE MORE!!" why aren't they, you know, making him throw that?  Why isn't the pre game meeting essentially this over and over again, and so when Vazquez gets behind the plate he rarely puts down the sign for the cutter?  
 
Or, if it's really killing him, why not make him just not throw it at all?  Why not make him refine his fastball, change, and curve even more?
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Very strange trend.  It's not like he has lost velocity on his four-seamer.  It's been 91-93 for the last 3-4 years at least.  When spotted well (and "Good" Buchholz can spot all his pitches well), the four-seamer is a swing-and-miss pitch.  More than that, using the four-seamer more has to help his change-up.  His change sits 82-83 MPH, so if he is using the cutter too much at 87-88 MPH, there's not enough velocity difference.  At 91-93, the four-seamer shows plenty of velocity difference though.
 
This seems a bit like how Lester started letting his cutter become too much like a cutter than a combo slider/cutter.  It didn't vary enough from his fastball or move enough, reducing the value of both pitches.  Once he got his horizontal movement back (and regained a bit of life on his fastball), both pitches became far more dangerous in tandem.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The answer to ivan's question is that it's a far more complicated situation than "cutter bad: change good" as the reasons for the shift are at least partly due to Clay losing his feel for the changeup. Pitchers alter their arsenal for a lot of reasons and some of them make it really tough to go back to being the kind of pitcher you were before the change in approach.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Thanks. It's too bad that his change-up has gone because a 20-win season could do a lot to restoring the 2015 club to ascendency.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Snodgrass'Muff said:
The answer to ivan's question is that it's a far more complicated situation than "cutter bad: change good" as the reasons for the shift are at least partly due to Clay losing his feel for the changeup. Pitchers alter their arsenal for a lot of reasons and some of them make it really tough to go back to being the kind of pitcher you were before the change in approach.
 
Pitchers alter their arsenal because either (a) what they have isn't working, or (b) they want to add more weapons.  But if they choose to add more weapons, but the new weapons are making them LESS effective, a smart guy says, whoa, that's just not working, let's go back to what was working.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
ivanvamp said:
 
Pitchers alter their arsenal because either (a) what they have isn't working, or (b) they want to add more weapons.  But if they choose to add more weapons, but the new weapons are making them LESS effective, a smart guy says, whoa, that's just not working, let's go back to what was working.
 
You are ignoring my previous post (and Sprowl's) and the second half of the first sentence of the post you are quoting here. This isn't a case of Buchholz having a dynamite changeup that he simply decided he didn't want to use anymore.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,864
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I was about to post, more or less, the same thing. Here's the chart for easy viewing.
 

Side note: Brooks Baseball is effing amazing. I'm constantly blown away by how it continues to get better every season.
 
It seems like he is only throwing his cutter at a slightly greater rate than he did last year; when he was very good.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I meant to finish this post off.  Sorry I didn't.  I do not believe that Buchholz' change is "lost" in terms of effectiveness.  He can still throw it.  We've seen it from time to time this year.  So whatever mechanical changes he's made haven't been such to render the pitch ineffective.  He just doesn't use it that much.  
 
If you look at Brooks' page where it classifies Buchholz' pitches by usage and outcome, and then sort for whiff percentage (see:  http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=453329&b_hand=-1&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=month&minmax=ci&var=whiff&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=08/25/2014), you'll see that he's still getting a high percentage of swings and misses on his change….pretty much the same as ever.  A little more inconsistent, but on the whole, still a lot of swings and misses.  
 
Then sort by batting average against, and you'll see the same trend (http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=453329&b_hand=-1&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=month&minmax=ci&var=baa&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=08/25/2014)- a similar BAA against his change as ever.  
 
So I don't see it as being a less effective pitch.  He just isn't using it as much.  Why?  Who knows.  I don't see why, at least in this particular case, they can't just move his repertoire towards more change ups.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
ivanvamp said:
I meant to finish this post off.  Sorry I didn't.  I do not believe that Buchholz' change is "lost" in terms of effectiveness.  He can still throw it.  We've seen it from time to time this year.  So whatever mechanical changes he's made haven't been such to render the pitch ineffective.  He just doesn't use it that much. 
 
This is too binary. It's not a question of either being able to throw the pitch at will, or not being able to throw it at all. It's a question of being able to throw it more or less consistently from night to night. It's easy to understand how a pitcher will start to shy away from a pitch if the feel on that pitch seems to drift in and out on him. People like what is stable and reliable.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
ivanvamp said:
So I don't see it as being a less effective pitch.  He just isn't using it as much.  Why?  Who knows.  I don't see why, at least in this particular case, they can't just move his repertoire towards more change ups.
 
Losing his feel doesn't necessarily mean losing it entirely. Feel pitches can come and go, and that can mean from night to night. If he's throwing in the pen before a start and doesn't have a feel for the chagneup, he's not going to use it that night. If he does, he will. Just because it's effective when he does throw it, that does not mean his statement about losing his feel for it is incorrect. I mean, the pitcher himself is saying it. I think we can take him at his word. What reason would he have to mislead people about it? It's kind of ridiculous to assert you know what's going on more than Buchholz does.
 
Look at this page, which charts movement. His horizontal movement in particular is of note. He has three months this year in which it's moving more than in any month in 2013, meaning it might be getting away from him a bit at times. The change up, especially one like his which has a lot of movement, isn't as useful if he can't spot it. When it starts to run like you are seeing in the April, June and August numbers, it's tough to trust it.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,147
<null>
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Side note: Brooks Baseball is effing amazing. I'm constantly blown away by how it continues to get better every season.
 
<3
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,828
Pitchers alter their arsenal because either (a) what they have isn't working, or (b) they want to add more weapons.  But if they choose to add more weapons, but the new weapons are making them LESS effective, a smart guy says, whoa, that's just not working, let's go back to what was working.
or (c) there are physical implications with respect to what they used in the past.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,852
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
Losing his feel doesn't necessarily mean losing it entirely. Feel pitches can come and go, and that can mean from night to night. If he's throwing in the pen before a start and doesn't have a feel for the chagneup, he's not going to use it that night. If he does, he will. Just because it's effective when he does throw it, that does not mean his statement about losing his feel for it is incorrect. I mean, the pitcher himself is saying it. I think we can take him at his word. What reason would he have to mislead people about it? It's kind of ridiculous to assert you know what's going on more than Buchholz does.
Not only that, but the empirical data, and the eye test are also consistent with what Buchholz has said. In fact, the assertion that Buchholz abandoned the pitch because he was obsessed with cutters has literally zero support from anyone. It's no wonder that Nick had to secure a quote from a National league scout in order to back up his thesis.
 
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
Look at this page, which charts movement. His horizontal movement in particular is of note. He has three months this year in which it's moving more than in any month in 2013, meaning it might be getting away from him a bit at times. The change up, especially one like his which has a lot of movement, isn't as useful if he can't spot it. When it starts to run like you are seeing in the April, June and August numbers, it's tough to trust it.
 
Not to quibble, but I think you need to combine the horizontal movement  , vertical movement, and velocity data in order to show the variability in Buchholz's changeup because the change in all three appears to be related. At times, his changeup does three things that are bad: increased horizontal movement, decreased vertical movement, and increased velocity. All of which combine to make his changeup both more hittable and an easier pitch to take for a ball.

Interestingly, Buchholz's best changeups appear to have occurred in 2010; they had average horizontal movement, high vertical movement, and decent separation from his fastball. It was also the year where Buchholz's changeup had the best linear weights scores.
 
ivanvamp said:
I meant to finish this post off.  Sorry I didn't.  I do not believe that Buchholz' change is "lost" in terms of effectiveness.  He can still throw it.  We've seen it from time to time this year.  So whatever mechanical changes he's made haven't been such to render the pitch ineffective.  He just doesn't use it that much.  
 
If you look at Brooks' page where it classifies Buchholz' pitches by usage and outcome, and then sort for whiff percentage (see:  http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=453329&b_hand=-1&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=month&minmax=ci&var=whiff&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=08/25/2014), you'll see that he's still getting a high percentage of swings and misses on his change….pretty much the same as ever.  A little more inconsistent, but on the whole, still a lot of swings and misses.  
 
Then sort by batting average against, and you'll see the same trend (http://www.brooksbaseball.net/outcome.php?player=453329&b_hand=-1&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=month&minmax=ci&var=baa&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=08/25/2014)- a similar BAA against his change as ever.  
 
So I don't see it as being a less effective pitch.  He just isn't using it as much.  Why?  Who knows.  I don't see why, at least in this particular case, they can't just move his repertoire towards more change ups.
 
I don't know, I see a downward trend in his changeup whiff rate per year, with an uptick in the beginning of 2013 (i.e. when he was pitching well), just saying. I'm not a big fan of using batting average as a measure for pitch quality, however, there is a more volatile (but still visible) downward trend with an uptick in early 2013. I'm not saying his early 2013 success was due to finding the changeup again, more that there is a noticeable downward trend for the pitch itself.

I also think you're cherry picking outcomes here. Take a look at isolated power, slugging percentage, and line-drive rate in 2014. Buchholz' whiff percentage is highest in the month where his isolated power against is 1.00, and second highest (a big gap) where his isolated power against is 0.17. Those are not good numbers for a changeup and suggest that he is getting hit hard.
His line-drive rate against is highest for those months as well. On the other hand, the remaining three months have the third-fifth lowest whiff rates of his career.

In other words, over the past year, when the changeup is getting whiffs, its also getting hit.

 
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
A change-up is perhaps more reliant on a pitcher's other pitches than any in baseball.  It is by definition basically a crummy fastball, meant to keep a guy off-balance from the hard stuff.  He may not be doing it intentionally, but I do think the value of his change-up declines with an increased use of a cutter, especially if that cutter is used in lieu of a true fastball.  Given his cutter is only 87-88 and his changeup is 81-83, there's not enough difference in there to fool MLB hitters, which likely leads to them teeing off on a changeup that could be a swing-and-miss pitch if they were at first sitting on a 92-94 MPH fastball.
 
That said, it also seems he is simply missing location on his change as well, leaving it in the zone too much when it should be diving below the knees.  Even if you have good velo differential between fastball and change, leaving any 80 MPH in the zone means if someone does make contact, it likely will go a long way.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,380
San Andreas Fault
jscola85 said:
A change-up is perhaps more reliant on a pitcher's other pitches than any in baseball.  It is by definition basically a crummy fastball, meant to keep a guy off-balance from the hard stuff.  He may not be doing it intentionally, but I do think the value of his change-up declines with an increased use of a cutter, especially if that cutter is used in lieu of a true fastball.  Given his cutter is only 87-88 and his changeup is 81-83, there's not enough difference in there to fool MLB hitters, which likely leads to them teeing off on a changeup that could be a swing-and-miss pitch if they were at first sitting on a 92-94 MPH fastball.
 
That said, it also seems he is simply missing location on his change as well, leaving it in the zone too much when it should be diving below the knees.  Even if you have good velo differential between fastball and change, leaving any 80 MPH in the zone means if someone does make contact, it likely will go a long way.
The changeup used to just be a "slowball" used to mess with hitters' timing when they're probably looking for a fastball. It has generally evolved into a sharp downward or horiz. or both breaking ball and the best are using a splitter, forkball or whatever else a pitcher can develop that breaks sharply at a slower speed. It's also the out pitch that right handed pitchers for example, are throwing to left handed hitters. Kershaw said about Felix Hernandez:
 
"They all look like fastballs out of his hand, but it winds up being a breaking ball, or that split-finger-looking changeup — whatever that thing is."
 
Against the Red Sox last week:
 
CH (Changeup) 89.3 avg. velo (90.6 max)  -6.38 horiz. brk, 0.97 vert. brk. That's no "crummy fastball".
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,464
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Al Zarilla said:
The changeup used to just be a "slowball" used to mess with hitters' timing when they're probably looking for a fastball. It has generally evolved into a sharp downward or horiz. or both breaking ball and the best are using a splitter, forkball or whatever else a pitcher can develop that breaks sharply at a slower speed. It's also the out pitch that right handed pitchers for example, are throwing to left handed hitters. Kershaw said about Felix Hernandez:
 
"They all look like fastballs out of his hand, but it winds up being a breaking ball, or that split-finger-looking changeup — whatever that thing is."
 
Against the Red Sox last week:
 
CH (Changeup) 89.3 avg. velo (90.6 max)  -6.38 horiz. brk, 0.97 vert. brk. That's no "crummy fastball".
 
They were talking about this in the Jays/Redsox broadcast last night. Buck brought up Dave Steib as having the best "slowball" - Stieb called it a Dead Fish .. I don't think it had much movement.
 
I think the changeup with horizontal movement started coming into vogue in the 90s - Pedro's being the classic (and best) example.
 
Of course there's been forkballs and screwballs for a hundred odd years - splitters being the most recent variant. Pitches that break toward the arm side - which are the perfect weapon against opposite handed hitters.
 
They are also notorious for putting strain on the arm - which is why the screwball is basically gone from the game (Mike Marshall's protestations notwithstanding)
.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,614
I believe the term being searched for is "straight change." 
 
IIRC, the advent of the "circle change" is what gave changeups their screwball-like motion. (I think Frank Viola was the first to have success with that?)
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Al Zarilla said:
The changeup used to just be a "slowball" used to mess with hitters' timing when they're probably looking for a fastball. It has generally evolved into a sharp downward or horiz. or both breaking ball and the best are using a splitter, forkball or whatever else a pitcher can develop that breaks sharply at a slower speed. It's also the out pitch that right handed pitchers for example, are throwing to left handed hitters. Kershaw said about Felix Hernandez:
 
"They all look like fastballs out of his hand, but it winds up being a breaking ball, or that split-finger-looking changeup — whatever that thing is."
 
Against the Red Sox last week:
 
CH (Changeup) 89.3 avg. velo (90.6 max)  -6.38 horiz. brk, 0.97 vert. brk. That's no "crummy fastball".
 
Perhaps for Felix Hernandez, that is the case.  For Buchholz, there is movement, but it ultimately comes in at 81-83 MPH, not 89 MPH.  A pitch like that, even with movement, is required to either be down in the zone or offset by a fastball that's 8-10 MPH faster.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,147
<null>
Guys:

 
This is literally the first result for "Buchholz Changeup" on google images.
 
Also, Harry Pav has done some great work over at BP (and presented it at Saberseminar 2 yrs ago) on the difference between a changeup likely to get swings & misses vs. a changeup likely to get ground ball outs. Highly recommended reading. The 10 second synopsis is that power changes are ground ball changes and those with big velo differences are whiff changes.
 
Of course, this is compounded for Buchholz because he's one of the very small number of pitchers that throws a true split in addition to his change.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
jscola85 said:
 
Perhaps for Felix Hernandez, that is the case.  For Buchholz, there is movement, but it ultimately comes in at 81-83 MPH, not 89 MPH.  A pitch like that, even with movement, is required to either be down in the zone or offset by a fastball that's 8-10 MPH faster.
 
And there actually isn't a lot of movement on Buchholz' change, at least not relative to his peers. More specifically, he is one of very few pitchers whose change has less armside movement than his four-seamer. Among 64 RHP with 130+ innings this year with changeup data in FG's PitchFX tab, only three--Buchholz, Lincecum, and Phil Hughes--fall into that category. (This reverse split, so to speak, was even larger in 2010.)
 
In terms of vertical movement, Buchholz is also near the bottom of MLB this year in terms of differential in V-Mov between change and 4-seamer (70th out of 87).
 
So I don't think Buchholz relies on movement on his change. It has always looked to me like a pitch that works almost entirely by messing up hitters' timing. His velocity differential is still pretty large at 9.4 mph (11th out of 87). But it has dropped significantly since 2010, when it was the 2nd best in baseball at 12.1. Maybe a changeup that doesn't move much needs that extra 3 mph of contrast to get enough swings and misses?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
jscola85 said:
A change-up is perhaps more reliant on a pitcher's other pitches than any in baseball.  It is by definition basically a crummy fastball, meant to keep a guy off-balance from the hard stuff.  He may not be doing it intentionally, but I do think the value of his change-up declines with an increased use of a cutter, especially if that cutter is used in lieu of a true fastball.  Given his cutter is only 87-88 and his changeup is 81-83, there's not enough difference in there to fool MLB hitters, which likely leads to them teeing off on a changeup that could be a swing-and-miss pitch if they were at first sitting on a 92-94 MPH fastball.
 
That said, it also seems he is simply missing location on his change as well, leaving it in the zone too much when it should be diving below the knees.  Even if you have good velo differential between fastball and change, leaving any 80 MPH in the zone means if someone does make contact, it likely will go a long way.
 
Pedro's change wasn't just to mess up hitters' timing.  It had serious down and away action to lefties (and down and in action to righties).  It wasn't just the velocity difference that made it such a weapon; it was the movement.  
 
I offer as exhibit A, this video montage of Pedro in the 1999 all star game.  Two prominent change ups in this short video (which doesn't show all his pitches…just the strike-out pitches).  Look especially at the last one to Bagwell.  Holy crap.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN1nUnCr1QM
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I don't think it's a mystery.  He's incredibly talented and incredibly inconsistent.  He has the ability to dominate any lineup at any time.  But he also has the ability to be awful.  You keep him for the potential, but man, when he's bad, he's bad.  There probably have been lots of guys in MLB history that have had tremendous talent but have not been able to maintain it consistently.  Hence their overall stats look very mediocre and you say, man, this guy was nothing special.  But oh, if you only saw them when they were on their game…..
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
That's 2 really great starts in a row. A strong September from Buchholz would do wonders for the morale of Red Sox Nation headed into what is the way too long non-playoffs winter and perhaps more importantly, strengthens the Red Sox negotiating position with pending free agents as they don't appear quite as desperate.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
ivanvamp said:
I don't think it's a mystery.  He's incredibly talented and incredibly inconsistent.  He has the ability to dominate any lineup at any time.  But he also has the ability to be awful.  You keep him for the potential, but man, when he's bad, he's bad.  There probably have been lots of guys in MLB history that have had tremendous talent but have not been able to maintain it consistently.  Hence their overall stats look very mediocre and you say, man, this guy was nothing special.  But oh, if you only saw them when they were on their game..
AJ Burnett has destroyed how many livers?
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,852
Plympton91 said:
That's 4 straight good to great starts. Is he fixed?
I'm not sure "fixed" is the right term here...he's pitching better...
 
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
He seems to have regain the feel for his Change-up which is a huge step forward. I think he's back.
The question is whether he can retain that feel through the offseason.
 

O Captain! My Captain!

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 3, 2009
3,532
I just hope that a healthy Buchholz at the end of 2014 means he can hit the ground running in 2015. Buchholz was clearly gassed/injured/both at the end of 2013 and whether it was an inability to workout in the offseason, injury hangover, or something else, it pretty clearly had an effect on the way he pitched for a lot of 2014.