Buchholz Traded To Philly For 2B/DH Josh Tobias

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I don't love trading away depth and the money for "in season flexibility" mantra DD trotted out yesterday, but I think the griping about losing pitching assurance is heavily colored by what I think may be the most comparable trade Bronson Arroyo.

The difference ?

Arroyo was under control for multiple years when he was unceremoniously dumped. He also was a 200ip given in contrast to Clay's Dr. Ace / Mr. injured Gopher Ball roller coaster Red Sox career.

I thank Clay for pitching injured to help us get the ring in 2013 and for what a pleasure he was to watch when he was on. His stuff is great when in a groove. I do think the NL and getting away from the East will help. I don't know how much fastball he has left. I also doubt he's going to bring back some type of haul at the trade deadline as a rental.

Fortunately, the two rotations are in completely different places and Buchholz was likely further from being a part of the 2017 rotation than Arroyo was the 2006 rotation.

Arroyo was traded in spring training because he was viewed as extraneous due to the foolish belief that they already had a full rotation (Beckett, Schilling, Wakefield, Wells, and Clement), a sixth starter with options that they could "stash" in the pen or Pawtucket (Papelbon), and more highly-regarded reserves coming in the pipeline (Lester and eventually Buchholz). Then they made Papelbon the closer two days into the season and Wells made just two starts in the first four months of the season, which left them no choice but to use the likes of Lenny Dinardo, David Pauley, Kyle Snyder and Jason Johnson in the fifth spot...not to mention rush Lester up when Clement went down.

Trading Arroyo was ill conceived because three of the other five starters were 39+ and Clement didn't finish 2005 healthy. Trading Buchholz makes sense because they have six (not five) more starters heading into the season, none of whom are all that old, three of whom are legitimate Cy Young contenders, and one of whom is likely going to be relegated to the bullpen despite making the All Star game last year.

 

[rlcave3rd]

His slow pace and the tendency of many innings to drag on and on made me think of him as Dice-Clay.

 

[brandonchristensen]

He can run the bases again!

See ya Clay! You were frustrating at times and incredible at others. Good luck in the NL.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I don't love trading away depth and the money for "in season flexibility" mantra DD trotted out yesterday, but I think the griping about losing pitching assurance is heavily colored by what I think may be the most comparable trade Bronson Arroyo.

Aside from the nebulous concept of trading from depth, these two trades have nothing in common.

 

[jimbobim]

Aside from the nebulous concept of trading from depth, these two trades have nothing in common.

There are some significant differences that others posters have nicely fleshed out but take a look at this article. Dumping SP level cash likely ticketed for the pen isn't really a nebulous comparison IMHO.

Even more helpfully in comparison the Sox kicked in 1.5 mill on a market friendly deal with Bronson / WMP deal . Here they had no desire to do that at all.

That and Clay being a rental = getting no one to sell as an addition to ML roster. It also semi backs up the idea that teams generally don't have the room to absorb entire back end SP contracts around ST time.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=2376683
Arroyo was 14-10 with a 4.51 ERA last season. The right-hander was part of a deep group of Red Sox starters and had taken a home-team discount when he signed a three-year contract worth $11.25 million on Jan. 19.

Arroyo, ...was expected to start the season in the Boston's bullpen.

"They have a surplus of seven starting pitchers in their mind and I agree," Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky said. "Theyneeded a right-handed bat to complement Trot Nixon. It all fell into place rather quickly. [Boston general manager] Theo Epstein and I have been talking about this for three or four days."

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

There are some significant differences that others posters have nicely fleshed out but take a look at this article. Dumping SP level cash likely ticketed for the pen isn't really a nebulous comparison IMHO.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=2376683
Arroyo was 14-10 with a 4.51 ERA last season. The right-hander was part of a deep group of Red Sox starters and had taken a home-team discount when he signed a three-year contract worth $11.25 million on Jan. 19.

Arroyo, ...was expected to start the season in the Boston's bullpen.

"They have a surplus of seven starting pitchers in their mind and I agree," Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky said. "Theyneeded a right-handed bat to complement Trot Nixon. It all fell into place rather quickly. [Boston general manager] Theo Epstein and I have been talking about this for three or four days."

Again, aside from the nebulous concept of trading from depth (the circumstances of that depth, and why it existed are very different), these trades have nothing in common.

Arroyo - 29 years old, had just signed a 3 year deal, was a consistent back of the rotation workhorse, who was signed AS depth (he wasn't going to bump any of Schilling, Wake, Becket, Clement or Wells from the rotation at the start of the year), then traded for a power bat with lots of potential an sent money to the other team.

Buchholz - 32 years old, in the last option year of a deal that granted the Sox 6 years of control, is an inconsistent performer with a range of possible outcomes from top of the league dominance to barely worth rostering, had his option triggered because they had yet to trade for Sale and may still have had questions about Wright's health, who was traded for salary relief and a bit of minor league middle infield depth.

These trades aren't even remotely similar, never mind "the most comparable." Aside from both pitchers being redundancies on their respective rosters, there is nothing there. One trade was about converting one kind of value into another kind of value, the other was about clearing salary.

 

[nothumb]

Buchholz is a veteran in a walk year. A person, not a piece in a board game. He's earned the right to maximize his earnings as a starting pitcher, not as a long relief/ swing man. It's good business and also the right thing to do to allow him to try to realize that. I apologize if someone posted this already but I wasn't clever enough to find that post.

Being a vet in a walk year doesn't give him the right to start. There are shitloads of guys all over baseball who have put in a lot of years who haven't made 60MM and who aren't guaranteed the right to start. If you're looking for guys who are wronged by the MLB contracts system, start with the international amateurs and the pre-arb bullpen guys and basically anyone else who hasn't hit FA yet.

 

[mauf]

Being a vet in a walk year doesn't give him the right to start. There are shitloads of guys all over baseball who have put in a lot of years who haven't made 60MM and who aren't guaranteed the right to start. If you're looking for guys who are wronged by the MLB contracts system, start with the international amateurs and the pre-arb bullpen guys and basically anyone else who hasn't hit FA yet.

True enough, but it's also true that Buchholz likely wouldn't have been a happy camper as a long reliever/6th starter. I'm sure DD would've dealt with that risk if he didn't feel good about the health of his other SPs, but it might be a good reason (in addition to the salary difference) to trade Buchholz instead of Wright.

 

[Rasputin]

I'll certainly never get the Buchholz hate;

That's easy to explain. People are assholes.

 

[chrisfont9]

Wondering, would this trade have happened if Buchholz were making $5 million this year? If yes, obviously they could have gotten a bit more of a return on an inexpensive Clay than they did on $13m Clay. But I wonder where along the cost spectrum his value to the team would have prevented a trade? I'm not of the opinion that they wanted to move him out, period. The fact that he adapted well to relief, including accepting the role after some initial grousing, suggested that he could have been useful even in the crowded situation the team now has.

 

[rembrat]

That's easy to explain. People are assholes.

Now explain why this thread has 161 posts.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Sox fans seem to always need "that guy" - JD Drew, Buchholz... someone who's disliked for whatever reason. Who will it be next? Price seems like a good candidate.

Pomeranz and Kimbrel are good choices too.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Now explain why this thread has 161 posts.

That's 5.5 posts per stolen laptop.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Not loving an oft-injured, criminally inconsistent, and deliberately slow pitcher who was constantly bothered by baserunners makes a fan an asshole? We've all disliked players for less.

 

[Pozo the Clown]

That's easy to explain. People are assholes.

Ras! You're better than this. Support your claim! Show your work! Stats? Links? Twitter posts from verifiable sources?

 

[Plympton91]

JD Drew missed almost all of 2011 with injuries that took longer to heal than they should have, failing to get on the field even as the rest of the team collapsed down the stretch, was terrible when he played and then retired. He pretty much mailed in the 2011 season.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

JD Drew missed almost all of 2011 with injuries that took longer to heal than they should have, failing to get on the field even as the rest of the team collapsed down the stretch, was terrible when he played and then retired. He pretty much mailed in the 2011 season.

Precisely which injuries took longer to heal than should have? Interested in your professional opinion after reviewing his medicals.

 

[Plympton91]

Fortunately, the two rotations are in completely different places and Buchholz was likely further from being a part of the 2017 rotation than Arroyo was the 2006 rotation.

Arroyo was traded in spring training because he was viewed as extraneous due to the foolish belief that they already had a full rotation (Beckett, Schilling, Wakefield, Wells, and Clement), a sixth starter with options that they could "stash" in the pen or Pawtucket (Papelbon), and more highly-regarded reserves coming in the pipeline (Lester and eventually Buchholz). Then they made Papelbon the closer two days into the season and Wells made just two starts in the first four months of the season, which left them no choice but to use the likes of Lenny Dinardo, David Pauley, Kyle Snyder and Jason Johnson in the fifth spot...not to mention rush Lester up when Clement went down.

Trading Arroyo was ill conceived because three of the other five starters were 39+ and Clement didn't finish 2005 healthy. Trading Buchholz makes sense because they have six (not five) more starters heading into the season, none of whom are all that old, three of whom are legitimate Cy Young contenders, and one of whom is likely going to be relegated to the bullpen despite making the All Star game last year.

The other side of that comparison is that neither Pomerania nor Wright was healthy enough to be in the postseason rotation, and Edro remains unproven over a full season.

 

[Plympton91]

Precisely which injuries took longer to heal than should have? Interested in your professional opinion after reviewing his medicals.

Let's go with "longer than average" for those picking nits.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Let's go with "longer than average" for those picking nits.

Okay. Which injuries - in particular - took 'longer than average'. If you could be specific it would help.

 

[Frank Fenway]

Let's go with "longer than average" for those picking nits.

Let's not. You can't will yourself to be healthy. That load of bullshit has been around baseball for way too long.

 

[Byrdbrain]

JD Drew missed almost all of 2011 with injuries that took longer to heal than they should have, failing to get on the field even as the rest of the team collapsed down the stretch, was terrible when he played and then retired. He pretty much mailed in the 2011 season.

2011 was a lost year but JD was hated long before that while putting up good to great offensive and defensive seasons. His "grittiness" was far below the guy that played the position before him though.

 

[Plympton91]

2011 was a lost year but JD was hated long before that while putting up good to great offensive and defensive seasons. His "grittiness" was far below the guy that played the position before him though.

Agree. His 2007 transition wasn't that bad and he hit a key grand slam in the playoffs. His 2008-2009 were superb, though he played fewer than 140 games in each. In 2010 he slipped and in 2011 he fell off a clif in a season where one more effective player down the stretch might have changed history.

 

[Plympton91]

Let's not. You can't will yourself to be healthy. That load of bullshit has been around baseball for way too long.

You can put in varying levels of effort to your rehab regimen. JD Drew is on record as saying he only played for the money and would retire early. The Red Sox got the final year of that value system.

 

[mauf]

JD Drew missed almost all of 2011 with injuries that took longer to heal than they should have, failing to get on the field even as the rest of the team collapsed down the stretch, was terrible when he played and then retired. He pretty much mailed in the 2011 season.

Go back and look at his 2011 stats. Drew played half the season and was totally cooked; playing hurt more than he did would've only made matters worse.

Yes, the 2011 Sox would've been better if they hadn't gotten sub-replacement level production from their right fielder. Unfortunately, not all of us age gracefully. To the extent there's blame to be assessed, it lies with the FO for not hedging against the possibility that Drew's off year in 2010 (at age 34) was a harbinger of bad things to come, as opposed to a slight age-related decline compounded by bad batted-ball luck (which, to be fair, is what the numbers suggested).

 

[Rasputin]

Now explain why this thread has 161 posts.

I have two answers to that, both of which contain some chunks of truthiness.

1) The Red Sox have one of the most fanatical fan bases in sports today and this particular corner of the internet is home to some of the most rabid.

2) People are stupid.

Ras! You're better than this.

Eh, not sure that's true. Ask around a bit before you come to a final conclusion, mmmkay?

 

[Devizier]

This is a move about money, and little else (and that's okay).

I think what people should expect is at least a dozen starts by players not currently slated to make the MLB roster. That's how it works for every team just about every season and I don't see how this should be any different.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

This is a move about money, and little else (and that's okay).

It's more than just okay, if trading Clay specifically for salary relief has freed up enough of the Sox budget for DDski to announce they've been able to lock in Xander for the next 5-6 years this April.

Or even better, guaranteeing Mookie plays his next 7-8 seasons as a Red Sox.

 

[Average Reds]

This is a move about money, and little else (and that's okay).

Agree completely. The trade was basically an unwinding of the option that the Sox picked up as a hedge against not getting Sale. And in that sense, it's a huge win.

• Removes his salary from cap consideration.
• Saves the team an additional 500K.
• Provides a serviceable minor leaguer in return.

There's no question that if second-half Clay shows up in the first half this year, whoever owns him will have a nice trading chip at the deadline. But the Sox are not the team for that particular strategy, because they can't accept the downside risk of injury/underperformance against the salary when their rotation is already stacked. The Phils can take that risk, so more power to them.

 

[phenweigh]

This is a move about money, and little else (and that's okay).

I think what people should expect is at least a dozen starts by players not currently slated to make the MLB roster. That's how it works for every team just about every season and I don't see how this should be any different.

I think there are reason to think this could be different. Typically teams don't have three starters with good recent 200+ IP history, or a good sixth starter in the bullpen. I'm not arguing they won't need somebody not on the MLB roster to make starts, just saying I think their risk is lower than many teams.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think there are reason to think this could be different. Typically teams don't have three starters with good recent 200+ IP history, or a good sixth starter in the bullpen. I'm not arguing they won't need somebody not on the MLB roster to make starts, just saying I think their risk is lower than many teams.

I don't think their risk is any lower than anyone else. Typically, the starts that go to guys not expected to be in the rotation or on the big league roster are of two types: spot starts to avoid rest issues (such as a double header or use of a starter in a long extra inning game) or injury to someone in the rotation. Having multiple guys with the potential to throw 200+ innings doesn't make them immune to either scenario. Injuries can happen to anyone at any time.

That said, I don't think keeping Buchholz changes this equation at all. Unless two guys go down in April (or before), there's no way to keep two guys in the bullpen stretched out enough to immediately jump into the rotation when needed. One of those two starters turned relievers is going to become a full time reliever more or less by default. Thus if a need for a seventh starter arises, that guy is going to have to come from outside the 25-man roster.

 

[phenweigh]

I don't think their risk is any lower than anyone else. Typically, the starts that go to guys not expected to be in the rotation or on the big league roster are of two types: spot starts to avoid rest issues (such as a double header or use of a starter in a long extra inning game) or injury to someone in the rotation. Having multiple guys with the potential to throw 200+ innings doesn't make them immune to either scenario. Injuries can happen to anyone at any time.

That said, I don't think keeping Buchholz changes this equation at all. Unless two guys go down in April (or before), there's no way to keep two guys in the bullpen stretched out enough to immediately jump into the rotation when needed. One of those two starters turned relievers is going to become a full time reliever more or less by default. Thus if a need for a seventh starter arises, that guy is going to have to come from outside the 25-man roster.

I think having Wright in the pen absolutely changes the equation for the need to call up a starter for a spot start. Would he be expected to go deep into a game? No. But I don't think Sox would expect Owens or Johnson to go deep either.

I'd defer to a study, but it seems logical to me that having multiple pitchers with good injury histories would reduce the risk of needing more starters. Would you really expect the odds of Price making most of his starts to be equal to the odds of Buchholz making most of his starts?

 

[shaggydog2000]

Now explain why this thread has 161 posts.

There is a thread on the minor league board about Rusney Castillo that just got a post today. Every time I see that thread bumped all I can think is "What could possibly be left to say about this guy?" We're clearly nuts, and I count myself in that we.

This team has a serious issue with pitchers out of options on the fringe of the roster, and this trade clears out one of the likeliest candidates because of his ranking on the starting and relieving depth charts and his salary. It really makes all the sense in the world when you look at it like that.

 

[BJBossman]

I hoped to get something more useful for Buch, but if this keeps them under the tax for a year so they can go big again next winter...then this trade will be worth it.

 

[NDame616]

This team has a serious issue with pitchers out of options on the fringe of the roster,

I can't imagine this problem is unique to the Red Sox. I doubt many teams having a lot of pitchers slotted somewhere 4th through 7th in their rotation that have options. By definition, these guys are fringe roster, AAAA guys. Usually they're out of options

 

[shaggydog2000]

I can't imagine this problem is unique to the Red Sox. I doubt many teams having a lot of pitchers slotted somewhere 4th through 7th in their rotation that have options. By definition, these guys are fringe roster, AAAA guys. Usually they're out of options

Yeah, and they don't usually make 13 mil if they're projected to be the 7th starter or last used middle reliever. Eating or trading a minimum salary or not much more contract is not a big deal, or losing those depth guys on waivers. Here at least you got something for Buch instead of giving him away when you had to cut down the roster.

 

[Plympton91]

I think having Wright in the pen absolutely changes the equation for the need to call up a starter for a spot start. Would he be expected to go deep into a game? No. But I don't think Sox would expect Owens or Johnson to go deep either.

I'd defer to a study, but it seems logical to me that having multiple pitchers with good injury histories would reduce the risk of needing more starters. Would you really expect the odds of Price making most of his starts to be equal to the odds of Buchholz making most of his starts?

I agree with this, it seems like if the Sox need a spot start they could go to Wright for 4 and then Barnes for 3. Then send Barnes down for 10 days and bring up a fresh arm.

 

[Plympton91]

I can't imagine this problem is unique to the Red Sox. I doubt many teams having a lot of pitchers slotted somewhere 4th through 7th in their rotation that have options. By definition, these guys are fringe roster, AAAA guys. Usually they're out of options

In the case of Hembree, Abad, and even Elias, these are better than your average AAAA filter. At least Hembree and Abad have shown long stretches of above average pitching, and Elias has been a AAAA starter, but hasn't been tried exclusively in relief yet to see if his stuff will play up in the pen.

I'd hate to lose any of those guys for nothing, but they probably will.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think having Wright in the pen absolutely changes the equation for the need to call up a starter for a spot start. Would he be expected to go deep into a game? No. But I don't think Sox would expect Owens or Johnson to go deep either.

I'd defer to a study, but it seems logical to me that having multiple pitchers with good injury histories would reduce the risk of needing more starters. Would you really expect the odds of Price making most of his starts to be equal to the odds of Buchholz making most of his starts?

Guys who are durable are only durable until they're not any more. In other words, even durable guys can get hurt and miss a start or two, if not more. Freak injuries occur to the most fit of pitchers/players.

It boils down to this: no matter who is in your rotation, you generally need more than six guys to get through the year. Rotations like the 2004 one (two games started by guys outside the top 6, and only three starts by #6) are far and away the outlier. Even having five guys with a durable track record isn't going to increase the odds that you won't need a seventh and eighth starter taking the ball on multiple occasions over the course of the season.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Guys who are durable are only durable until they're not any more. In other words, even durable guys can get hurt and miss a start or two, if not more. Freak injuries occur to the most fit of pitchers/players.

It boils down to this: no matter who is in your rotation, you generally need more than six guys to get through the year. Rotations like the 2004 one (two games started by guys outside the top 6, and only three starts by #6) are far and away the outlier. Even having five guys with a durable track record isn't going to increase the odds that you won't need a seventh and eighth starter taking the ball on multiple occasions over the course of the season.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they won't need a 7th starter at all, just that the chances that keeping Buchholz and trying to keep him stretched out was even remotely likely to end up paying off. It would have been a poor use of resources.

I realize you aren't arguing against the trade in any way, but given the context of this thread (the Buchholz trade), I'm not sure what the impetus is behind pointing out that at some point they are going to need to call up a starter from their minor league depth.

Sort of falls into the "no shit" catgegory, eh?

 

[joe dokes]

It boils down to this: no matter who is in your rotation, you generally need more than six guys to get through the year. Rotations like the 2004 one (two games started by guys outside the top 6, and only three starts by #6) are far and away the outlier. Even having five guys with a durable track record isn't going to increase the odds that you won't need a seventh and eighth starter taking the ball on multiple occasions over the course of the season.

This is probably true to some extent. But for a variety of reasons Clay Buchholz 2017 was not suited to be that 7th or 8th guy.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I don't think anyone is arguing that they won't need a 7th starter at all, just that the chances that keeping Buchholz and trying to keep him stretched out was even remotely likely to end up paying off. It would have been a poor use of resources.

Yes, with the 2017 season underway and Buchholz pitching 4 innings a week, he's not going to be able to go 5 innings in a spot start when the need arises, so a call-up will ride the shuttle then.

 

[phenweigh]

Guys who are durable are only durable until they're not any more. In other words, even durable guys can get hurt and miss a start or two, if not more. Freak injuries occur to the most fit of pitchers/players.

It boils down to this: no matter who is in your rotation, you generally need more than six guys to get through the year. Rotations like the 2004 one (two games started by guys outside the top 6, and only three starts by #6) are far and away the outlier. Even having five guys with a durable track record isn't going to increase the odds that you won't need a seventh and eighth starter taking the ball on multiple occasions over the course of the season.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they won't need a 7th starter at all, just that the chances that keeping Buchholz and trying to keep him stretched out was even remotely likely to end up paying off. It would have been a poor use of resources.

I realize you aren't arguing against the trade in any way, but given the context of this thread (the Buchholz trade), I'm not sure what the impetus is behind pointing out that at some point they are going to need to call up a starter from their minor league depth.

Sort of falls into the "no shit" catgegory, eh?

I'll rephrase my position ... the Red Sox will probably need to call up a starter(s), but that probability though real, is lower than most teams.

 

[uncannymanny]

Not loving an oft-injured, criminally inconsistent, and deliberately slow pitcher who was constantly bothered by baserunners makes a fan an asshole? We've all disliked players for less.

Remove the baserunners qualifier and this sounds a lot like one Josh Beckett, who for some reason (he's a big, fireballing asshole) gets a pass on these same qualities. Who's who?

W-L%	ERA	CG	SHO	ERA+	FIP	WHIP	H9	HR9	BB9	SO9	SO/W
.570	3.96	9	6	109	4.04	1.303	8.5	0.9	3.2	6.9	2.16
.605	4.17	7	3	109	3.88	1.223	8.6	1.1	2.5	8.0	3.28

Spoiler

AAV A: $3.05MM
AAV B: $8.77MM

Edit: how can I post a table? This worked on desktop.

 

[donutogre]

I think Josh gets slightly more of a pass (though he had tons of people celebrating when he left, too) because he pitched one of the better end-to-end seasons in 2007 we've seen here over the last decade, including a sick postseason run ending with a championship.

As for the "oft-injured" bit, Josh pitched less than 25 starts once in six years here (excluding 2012 in which he also exceed that, albeit with a bunch coming in LA). Clay made more than 25 starts three times in nine years (excluding the cup of coffee in 2007).

Also, people love to throw around WAR here, so here we go:
Beckett accumulated 23.6 WAR in 6.5 seasons here, while Clay accumulated 15.8 in 10 years. And of course this doesn't take into account the postseason. Credit due to Clay for his gusty WS start for sure, but he was forgettable to terrible the rest of that postseason.

I guess because Beckett was paid more than double on average than Clay you can say Clay was a better deal. But I don't really give a crap about how much they were paid, it's not my money. I'll take the Beckett experience any day of the week.

Lastly, I will fully admit that there's some bias in this because I took such joy in Beckett's 2007 postseason performance that he's the kind of guy I'll give a pass to / defend even perhaps beyond what is reasonable. Like how I felt about Schilling after 2004 until he turned into literally one of the worst people to ever grace the internet.

I will say it's crazy they have the exact same ERA+. Never would have guessed that.

 

[uncannymanny]

I have all the same counter arguments to my own post, but a) a large part of that argument is 1/7 years and b) I also included Clay's first 2-3 years in those AAVs, whereas Beckett came in as a pitcher in his 30-start prime. I went with simple rate stats intentionally for that reason.

How does that 2013 team end up in the final standings without his first half? Not 5.5 up at the very least.

None of this means that I didn't find watching him pitch to be more often that not miserable; whoever made the point about people judging Clay on entertainment was spot on IMO.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Remove the baserunners qualifier and this sounds a lot like one Josh Beckett, who for some reason (he's a big, fireballing asshole) gets a pass on these same qualities. Who's who?

That table is an oversimplification of trying to compare two pitchers who aren't really all that comparable at all outside of a few select stats. Beckett was in no way as inconsistent or injury prone as Buchholz.

Also, Josh gets a pass because he dominated the 2007 postseason. Let's not be dense.

 

[uncannymanny]

Yeah I really cherry picked those stats. "Odd year Beckett" was the model of consistency in Boston.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Yeah I really cherry picked those stats. "Odd year Beckett" was the model of consistency in Boston.

I didn't say he was consistent. I said he was not nearly as inconsistent as Clay, and nothing in that chart does anything to show it. Clay could've shown up and been the worst or the best pitcher in the AL on any given season and you wouldn't have been surprised either way. You would've been surprised if he made it through the entire season unscathed, but hey, keep on keepin' on.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I didn't say he was consistent. I said he was not nearly as inconsistent as Clay, and nothing in that chart does anything to show it. Clay could've shown up and been the worst or the best pitcher in the AL on any given season and you wouldn't have been surprised either way. You would've been surprised if he made it through the entire season unscathed, but hey, keep on keepin' on.

Except if you exclude 2010, odd year Clay is just as much a thing as odd year Josh Beckett. It's just odd year Clay was also always injured.