lowcountry wrote:

slamjim wrote:and remember to sign your name as a French name.

No, that's Montreal.

You need to include a few "ehs" and disparaging comments about the Maple Leafs. And call JP a "hoser".

Your right. Last time I was in Toronto I was 3 and it all sounded French to me

The Savior wrote:

MattS wrote:

Brantt wrote:That's all fine and dandy, but his major league numbers in his career absolutely suck.

Now, you can claim small sample size since he's only thrown 114 innings, and I agree to a point. However it's also over a period of 3 years where he should be showing improvement each time that he comes up.

His career MLB numbers are awful...........and they'd be even worse if you exclude the 4 games he pitched in 2007.

114 IP
6-11 record
126 Hits
58 BB
1.614 WHIP
5.29 ERA

Last year was by far the most sustained big league action he got and his numbers were by far his worst.

Seems to me like a guy with great minor league numbers who has been hyped up for years but has never delivered on the major league level. And he's going to be 25 in two weeks.

Those aren't the numbers you should be using.

K/9: 8.28
BB/9: 4.58
GB%: 48.5%
HR/9: 0.95
FIP: 4.30
QERA: 4.44

Your numbers are all biased based on his .336 career BABIP. No one should care about his record; listing ip, hits, walks & whip is clearly redundant; and you left out the most essential predictor of major league success for pitchers which is K-rate. You take the 15 lucky hits and turn them into outs and you lower his ERA by a run.

You conveniently left out his H/9 of 9.95. Yes, being "unlucky" has something to do with it based on his BABIP, but that's still an alarming number for a guy that is said to be a strikeout pitcher.

H/9 is pretty easy to figure out with the hits and innings pitched brantt listed. I'm not stat whore, I'm just sayin'

mozartpc27 wrote:
You guys aren't serious about the "Buccholz really isn't that good" talk are you? His WHIP at AAA this season was under 1.

he's good, but he is 24 and hasn't yet successfully completed the jump to the majors. the likes of adam eaton and rick helling were also pretty darn good when repeating aaa at that age.

Halladay to Boston talked down on Sportscenter just now.

. . .

i just threw up

lowcountry wrote:Halladay to Boston talked down on Sportscenter just now.

What did they say?

Quoted Gammons as saying Westmoreland hasn't been offered. Olney was on live and made it seem very unlikely Boston was a real player for Halladay.

jamiethekiller wrote:. . .

i saw that. you are evil.

ek wrote:what does talked down mean?

Made it seem unlikely.

A coworker just came in and told me he heard on ESPN radio that Boston claims Buchholz is untouchable.

Woody wrote:

The Savior wrote:

MattS wrote:

Brantt wrote:That's all fine and dandy, but his major league numbers in his career absolutely suck.

Now, you can claim small sample size since he's only thrown 114 innings, and I agree to a point. However it's also over a period of 3 years where he should be showing improvement each time that he comes up.

His career MLB numbers are awful...........and they'd be even worse if you exclude the 4 games he pitched in 2007.

114 IP
6-11 record
126 Hits
58 BB
1.614 WHIP
5.29 ERA

Last year was by far the most sustained big league action he got and his numbers were by far his worst.

Seems to me like a guy with great minor league numbers who has been hyped up for years but has never delivered on the major league level. And he's going to be 25 in two weeks.

Those aren't the numbers you should be using.

K/9: 8.28
BB/9: 4.58
GB%: 48.5%
HR/9: 0.95
FIP: 4.30
QERA: 4.44

Your numbers are all biased based on his .336 career BABIP. No one should care about his record; listing ip, hits, walks & whip is clearly redundant; and you left out the most essential predictor of major league success for pitchers which is K-rate. You take the 15 lucky hits and turn them into outs and you lower his ERA by a run.

You conveniently left out his H/9 of 9.95. Yes, being "unlucky" has something to do with it based on his BABIP, but that's still an alarming number for a guy that is said to be a strikeout pitcher.

H/9 is pretty easy to figure out with the hits and innings pitched brantt listed. I'm not stat whore, I'm just sayin'

Interesting points, pro and con, on Buccholz (I didn't forget yours either, phorever, about repeating AAA and the success that can come with that: a good point as well). I think the thing you're seeing with Buccholz, combining all this information, is that at the ML level he has yet to develop good control, but isn't that usually the last thing a pitcher develops? His BB/9 at AAA this year was 2.7; if he were to replicate that at the ML level, his H/9 would surely drop, because his high H/9 is the result of being in predictable hitting counts because he's not locating his pitches. If he throws less fastballs on 3-0, 3-1, 2-0, 2-1, 1-0, or even 3-2 counts, the H/9 will drop dramatically.

I feel confident, with the electric stuff he has and the number of strikes he has certainly shown himself to be capable of throwing, that he will eventually learn to be aggressive in the strike zone early in the count (i.e., lose the fear of doing so), and then his ML numbers will start to become a whole lot more robust.

But it sounds like all this may be a moot point vis-a-vis Halladay!

This little scare along with however many pages of Halladay talk has convinced me that if we don't get him it will be the worst thing ever to happen to Philadelphia

All this bucholz talk has made me bust out my primer on game theory so I can understand the inevitable MattS analysis of what Rube should be doing when the bluejays threaten to counter his offer with a bucholz which may or may not be for real.

What do people expect Buchholz's ERA, in the next 2 years, to be? I'm especially interested in those people who say he's not a very good prospect.

Now that this threat appears to have passed, JP's last but of negotiating leverage has gone out the window. I expect Halladay will be a Phillies before 3 o'clock today, so that he won't make his scheduled start tonight.

If that happens, then Rube will have played this perfectly (pending losing his mind and giving up too much, which I doubt).

Werthless wrote:What do people expect Buchholz's ERA, in the next 2 years, to be? I'm especially interested in those people who say he's not a very good prospect.

This year, between 4.00-4.50. Next year, between 3.50-4.00. After that, sub-3.50. By then he should "know how to pitch."

mozartpc27 wrote:Now that this threat appears to have passed, JP's last but of negotiating leverage has gone out the window. I expect Halladay will be a Phillies before 3 o'clock today, so that he won't make his scheduled start tonight.

Friday's trade deadline, and not before. Book it. he is holding out for a hero(ic deal) for as long as is humanely possible.

mozartpc27 wrote:Now that this threat appears to have passed, JP's last but of negotiating leverage has gone out the window.

And it's not necessarily passed. I believe in the dim distant past of two weeks ago, Drabek wasn't to be discussed either.