PDA

View Full Version : Homer Bailey, 38th best prospect in Baseball, according to BA



dougdirt
02-23-2006, 12:31 AM
Baseball America top 50 prospects (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/060223top100c.html)

Not to shabby.

corkedbat
02-23-2006, 12:53 AM
Bruce checked in at #76 - the only other Red

kheidg-
02-23-2006, 12:56 AM
Jay Bruce also listed on the second page.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/060222top100b.html

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 01:01 AM
Yes, I made a post about Bruce yesterday. Bailey landed slightly lower than I had expected(30-35), but still pretty high up for only having pitched 1 year. Justin Upton checking in at #2 overall was also a bit of a suprise. I didnt expect him in the top 5 without having played a game yet.

IslandRed
02-23-2006, 01:15 AM
On the minus side -- sorry if this was posted earlier -- Baseball Prospectus' Top 50 had nary a Red, even in the honorable mention.

TRF
02-23-2006, 10:26 AM
Justin Upton, no games played. #2 prospect.
Travis Wood dominates 2 levels. Not listed.

Pretty much all I need to know.

blumj
02-23-2006, 11:34 AM
The BP list is probably intentionally controversial, although I don't think they fully expected the sheer volume of angry responses they were going to get from Red Sox fans by leaving Jon Lester off their list. There's nothing more telling about how they approached this than their ranking of Dustin Pedroia at #11, which is so ludicrous that it's almost as if they're mocking him.

princeton
02-23-2006, 11:46 AM
Not to shabby.

number five guy was available with the same pick

M2
02-23-2006, 12:03 PM
The BP list is probably intentionally controversial, although I don't think they fully expected the sheer volume of angry responses they were going to get from Red Sox fans by leaving Jon Lester off their list. There's nothing more telling about how they approached this than their ranking of Dustin Pedroia at #11, which is so ludicrous that it's almost as if they're mocking him.

The BP list cares about how a guy actually plays, particularly in the high minors. I'm sure BP would love to stack its rankings from previous years against BA's and see who's done a better job of prognosticating talent.

Mind you, BA's not really prognosticating. It's assigning market value. It's establishing the relative worth of various prospects. If a guy has a high value, but you think he's unlikely to pan out all that well, then there's a fellow who needs a good trading.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 12:38 PM
number five guy was available with the same pick

I dont understand your point? He came from college, is at a higher level, and is a bit older than Bailey. In all fairness, he should be ranked a little higher.

TRF, I am willing to bet Travis Wood fell between 105 and 125 on the list. As for Justin Upton being #2, I didnt think he would be that high, but I did expect him to be in the top 10. The hype, which everything I have read says its not hype, is huge for him. He is apparently that once ever 5-10 year talent that comes along (Griffey, Arod, Delmon Young type). So to have him ranked so high, is not as much of a shocker.

traderumor
02-23-2006, 12:40 PM
The BP list cares about how a guy actually plays, particularly in the high minors. I'm sure BP would love to stack its rankings from previous years against BA's and see who's done a better job of prognosticating talent.

Mind you, BA's not really prognosticating. It's assigning market value. It's establishing the relative worth of various prospects. If a guy has a high value, but you think he's unlikely to pan out all that well, then there's a fellow who needs a good trading.With Bailey, it would seem genuine to tell a potential purchasing GM "we love him and think he will be a major league starter one day, but that is further down the road and we need guys in the rotation yesterday. While it pains us to part with him..."

traderumor
02-23-2006, 12:43 PM
Don't we have a history with Markakis?

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 12:52 PM
Yes, we drafted him out of HS, but couldnt sign him.

Tornon
02-23-2006, 12:55 PM
It strikes me as a little odd that while every other prospect on the list has a scouting report given by a scout, manager, or coach of some sort the scouting report on Bailey is given by an outfielder that played on his team

traderumor
02-23-2006, 01:03 PM
Yes, we drafted him out of HS, but couldnt sign him.
Thanks, the Baseball Cube doesn't show that on his profile, too bad we didn't throw a hefty bonus at him in hindsight, which I'm sure was foresight for some on this board.

M2
02-23-2006, 01:06 PM
Markakis, Jeremy Sowers and Scott Kazmir are the holy trinity of players the Reds didn't land early in the decade. Had the Reds shelled out for those guys we'd be looking at a very different picture at this moment.

RedsManRick
02-23-2006, 01:10 PM
Markakis, Jeremy Sowers and Scott Kazmir are the holy trinity of players the Reds didn't land early in the decade. Had the Reds shelled out for those guys we'd be looking at a very different picture at this moment.

Given the way our scouting department has been raked over the coals both here and in the papers, perhaps we haven't been assigning enough blame to a management group that failed to sign players who we've recognized as good prospects (or failed to communicate the fact that we didn't have the available resources). If I remember correctly, it was a Reds scout who first wanted to sign Miguel Cabrera but management wouldn't spend the $50,000 or some other small figure it took to get him.

The conclusion to this point being that given an ownership group with the willingness to spend money on young talent, perhaps we're primed for a significant boost in the quality of signed draftees and international signees.

traderumor
02-23-2006, 01:16 PM
Given the way our scouting department has been raked over the coals both here and in the papers, perhaps we haven't been assigning enough blame to a management group that failed to sign players who we've recognized as good prospects (or failed to communicate the fact that we didn't have the available resources). If I remember correctly, it was a Reds scout who first wanted to sign Miguel Cabrera but management wouldn't spend the $50,000 or some other small figure it took to get him.

The conclusion to this point being that given an ownership group with the willingness to spend money on young talent, perhaps we're primed for a significant boost in the quality of signed draftees and international signees.
It seems to me that these types of players should be able to be recognized as studs by even the worst scout, so all the blame lays at the feet of being too cheap to get them signed in my book.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2006, 01:16 PM
Markakis, Jeremy Sowers and Scott Kazmir are the holy trinity of players the Reds didn't land early in the decade. Had the Reds shelled out for those guys we'd be looking at a very different picture at this moment.

In the Reds farm system, 2 of those 3 would've already had debilitating arm injuries by now and would be on the Bobby Basham workout plan. The failure to develop pitching by this organization has been so complete on so many different levels that it cannot just be the guys who are pitching that are at fault.

Even if the Reds would've signed Jeremy Sowers, he'd have been forced to go through the same meat-grinder system that has torn up more pitchers over the last 10 years than I would care to count.

M2
02-23-2006, 01:17 PM
Given the way our scouting department has been raked over the coals both here and in the papers, perhaps we haven't been assigning enough blame to a management group that failed to sign players who we've recognized as good prospects (or failed to communicate the fact that we didn't have the available resources). If I remember correctly, it was a Reds scout who first wanted to sign Miguel Cabrera but management wouldn't spend the $50,000 or some other small figure it took to get him.

The conclusion to this point being that given an ownership group with the willingness to spend money on young talent, perhaps we're primed for a significant boost in the quality of signed draftees and international signees.

Exactly. I think it was Stormy who first made this very point back in 2003.

Though I'd add that the scouting folks failed to emphasize the importance of signing their best finds.

princeton
02-23-2006, 01:38 PM
I dont understand your point?.

you and the Reds both

top 10 guys are rare. Get some. If they're already developed, even better, because we're not developing squat.

pedro
02-23-2006, 01:42 PM
Was Stepen Drew a senior or a junior when he was drafted?

I woudl have been afraid that he wouldn't have signed with teh Reds if drafted, especially knowing his family history.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 03:20 PM
Thanks, the Baseball Cube doesn't show that on his profile, too bad we didn't throw a hefty bonus at him in hindsight, which I'm sure was foresight for some on this board.

Well, he was a 23rd round pick, and its not to often you throw a huge type of bonus at a 23rd round pick.

NoColonBoy
02-23-2006, 03:21 PM
We can all look at wasted Reds first round draft picks and find "mistakes"--not just mistakes of the "hindsight is 20-20" variety, but mistakes of the "Duh! Why'd they pass on [fill in the blank] variety."

What I find most frustrating is the inability of the scouting staff to identify decent picks in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. rounds that develop into serviceable players. Missed opportunities in Round 1 are often based on money; missed opportunities in later rounds are based on bad homework where the playing field should be more even.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 03:29 PM
you and the Reds both

top 10 guys are rare. Get some. If they're already developed, even better, because we're not developing squat.

Here is what I do get. You take the guy with the most upside. Bailey has more upside than Drew. Bailey has the ability to be a #1 pitcher. Drew is a shortstop. A very good hitting shortstop, but I would much rather have a good #1 or good #2 starting pitcher over a good hitting Shortstop.

Obviously top 10 guys are rare, there are only 10 of them per year out of hundreds, maybe a thousand or more guys. Give Bailey until he is the age Drew is now, and see where he is on the list. Stephen Drew will be 23 at the start of this season. Bailey will still be 19 until May.

Plus, I think he is slightly overrated. He tore up single A, but once he got to double A, in his 101 at bats, he hit a nice .218 with a slg % of .386. I like his potential in the future, but I dont expect him any sooner than September in Arizona.

ochre
02-23-2006, 03:33 PM
Upside is balanced out by washrates. First round Pitchers, particularly High Scool pitchers, wash out much more often than legit position player prospects. Legit Premium position players (shortstops, etc.) are pretty hard to find too.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 03:33 PM
What I find most frustrating is the inability of the scouting staff to identify decent picks in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. rounds that develop into serviceable players. Missed opportunities in Round 1 are often based on money; missed opportunities in later rounds are based on bad homework where the playing field should be more even.

Well so far, this past years draft seemed to get some good talent outside of round 1.
Travis Wood in round 2
Sam Lecure in round 4
James Avery in round 5
Jefferey Stevens in round 6
Adam Rosales in round 12 - in my opinion the biggest steal of the Draft by the Reds
Abe Woody in round 31

Now of course, these guys havent played much, but all performed pretty well in their debut and thats all we can ask of them right now. Of course, I also like Zach Ward, who was taken in the 3rd round, but did not pitch last season to rest his arm.

pedro
02-23-2006, 03:37 PM
Here is what I do get. You take the guy with the most upside. Bailey has more upside than Drew. Bailey has the ability to be a #1 pitcher. Drew is a shortstop. A very good hitting shortstop, but I would much rather have a good #1 or good #2 starting pitcher over a good hitting Shortstop.

Obviously top 10 guys are rare, there are only 10 of them per year out of hundreds, maybe a thousand or more guys. Give Bailey until he is the age Drew is now, and see where he is on the list. Stephen Drew will be 23 at the start of this season. Bailey will still be 19 until May.

Plus, I think he is slightly overrated. He tore up single A, but once he got to double A, in his 101 at bats, he hit a nice .218 with a slg % of .386. I like his potential in the future, but I dont expect him any sooner than September in Arizona.

I disagree. You take the guy who has the best chance of providing any upside. More than likely, Homer Bailey will never be an impact pitcher in the majors. That's just a statistical fact.

Drafting HS pitchers with your first round pick is incredibly bad strategy, especially for a team who needs help a badly and as quickly as the Reds do.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 03:39 PM
Upside is balanced out by washrates. Pitchers, particularly High Scool pitchers, wash out much more often than legit position player prospects. Legit Premium position players (shortstops, etc.) are pretty hard to find too.

Yet 3 of the top 5 players are all shortstops. I will agree that the infield depth the Reds have in the minors is absolutely horrible. I still, would much rather have a legit pitcher over a legit position player any day of the week. While we all know the injury rate of a pitcher is much higher than that of a position player, that is to be expected. Our infield at the major league level, outside of second base, is looking pretty good for the future with Dunn, Lopez and Encarnacion. I still think that Bergolla has the ability to play second base at the major league level. Not this year, but possibly in 2007. Given the situation of us having Lopez, I would much rather have a top 40 prospect pitcher, over Stephen Drew. Give me Justin Upton, and maybe I will change my mind....but not for a 23 year old who only have 100 at bats above single A, and they pretty much all were worthless at bats.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 03:43 PM
I disagree. You take the guy who has the best chance of providing any upside. More than likely, Homer Bailey will never be an impact pitcher in the majors. That's just a statistical fact.

Drafting HS pitchers with your first round pick is incredibly bad strategy, especially for a team who needs help a badly and as quickly as the Reds do.
You can disagree all you want. I have a different opinion of how I would draft. Yeah, statistical facts say that the odds of anyone, even #1 picks being any good in the big leagues arent good. Of course there are always exceptions. Griffey and Arod come to mind right off the bat as only a few of the #1 picks to come to fruition. Im sure the same thing can be said of #2, #3 and so on draft picks. I also believe in building the best team for the future. Not building the best team 2 years from now through a draft, but taking the player who I think will be the best player 5 years into their career, becuase that is what the team can ideally control. As for the upside of Bailey, it is huge.

NoColonBoy
02-23-2006, 03:52 PM
You can disagree all you want. I have a different opinion of how I would draft. Yeah, statistical facts say that the odds of anyone, even #1 picks being any good in the big leagues arent good. Of course there are always exceptions. Griffey and Arod come to mind right off the bat as only a few of the #1 picks to come to fruition. Im sure the same thing can be said of #2, #3 and so on draft picks. I also believe in building the best team for the future. Not building the best team 2 years from now through a draft, but taking the player who I think will be the best player 5 years into their career, becuase that is what the team can ideally control. As for the upside of Bailey, it is huge.

The problem with Bailey is his heart. Baseball isn't important enough to him that he'll ever be an elite player. It's just a fact.

And while the names on the list of pitching prospects change, until the Reds develop a real, live starting pitcher, we're not going to have anything but names on a list. At least when we had to play Paul Householder. we knew that Paul O'Neill and Eric Davis weren't far behind.

Patrick Bateman
02-23-2006, 03:59 PM
The problem with Bailey is his heart. Baseball isn't important enough to him that he'll ever be an elite player. It's just a fact.


That's not really a fact. That's really speculation. We don't really know how important baseball is to him, but I do know that many people like money, and I bet baseball is Bailey's best bet to make some good cash.

M2
02-23-2006, 04:02 PM
In reviewing the top 100 list, if you take Nelson Liriano and Justin Verlander out of the top top 50, I much prefer the arms in the 51-100 range.

pedro
02-23-2006, 04:06 PM
You can disagree all you want. I have a different opinion of how I would draft. Yeah, statistical facts say that the odds of anyone, even #1 picks being any good in the big leagues arent good. Of course there are always exceptions. Griffey and Arod come to mind right off the bat as only a few of the #1 picks to come to fruition. Im sure the same thing can be said of #2, #3 and so on draft picks. I also believe in building the best team for the future. Not building the best team 2 years from now through a draft, but taking the player who I think will be the best player 5 years into their career, becuase that is what the team can ideally control. As for the upside of Bailey, it is huge.

You still don't get it. Griffey and Arod are position players. Nobody ever said don't draft HS position players with your first pick. What we are saying is that you don't draft HS pitchers with a first round pick. It's a waste of time and money.

Here's a list of all the HS pitchers taken in the first round 1990-1999 who had any type of career in the majors.

Steve Karsay
Sean Estes
Justin Thompson
Dan Serafini
Chris Carpenter
Jeff D'Amico
Jamey Wright
Jaret Wright
Scott Elarton
Kerry Wood
John Patterson
Adam Eaton
Bobby Seay
Gil Meche
Jake Westbrook
Nick Bierbrodt
Chris Reitsma
Jason Marquis
John Garland
Jason Standridge
Chris George
Nate Cornejo
Josh Becket
Jimmy Gobble


That's it. Pretty damn underwhelming if you ask me.

Honestly look through the drafts. You'll see that almost every good pitcher taken in the first round during that time was taken out of college, not high school.

Teams in the Reds position can not take risks on high school pitchers with their first round pick. It's an absolute no brainer.

NoColonBoy
02-23-2006, 04:06 PM
That's not really a fact. That's really speculation. We don't really know how important baseball is to him, but I do know that many people like money, and I bet baseball is Bailey's best bet to make some good cash.

I don't disagree, but it's no more speculative than speculating that he'll be an elite pitcher. And, I'm not trying to be negative--it's just when you've suffered as a Reds fan, listening to games on the radio in 1982-83-84, you will take everything you hear about the "next great thing" cynically.

I would like nothing more than for Homer Bailey to be the second coming of Roger Clemens. The reality is that the chances are extraordinarily slim and that he needs to focus on baseball 24/7, just like Roger, to have a chance on getting there.

NoColonBoy
02-23-2006, 04:08 PM
Teams in the Reds position can not take risks on high school pitchers with their first round pick. It's an absolute no brainer.

That's a great post.

I'll add that teams with the Reds track record have no business drafting a mechanically-challenged Travis Wood early, either. He may defy the odds, but you just don't take that chance.

MikeS21
02-23-2006, 04:11 PM
You can disagree all you want. I have a different opinion of how I would draft. Yeah, statistical facts say that the odds of anyone, even #1 picks being any good in the big leagues arent good. Of course there are always exceptions. Griffey and Arod come to mind right off the bat as only a few of the #1 picks to come to fruition. Im sure the same thing can be said of #2, #3 and so on draft picks. I also believe in building the best team for the future. Not building the best team 2 years from now through a draft, but taking the player who I think will be the best player 5 years into their career, becuase that is what the team can ideally control. As for the upside of Bailey, it is huge.
The problem is that five years from now, statistics say that Bailey is more likely to turn out like Ty Howington and Chris Gruler than some #1 stud. With a HS pitcher like Bailey - despite a few impressive tools - there are too many things that can go wrong: his health, his development, his "mental" game, his mechanics, etc. to name a few. And I'm not sure who put forth the notion that Homer Bailey has #1 stuff, but I am pretty sure it wasn't an actual baseball scout who has any understanding of pitching (which excludes anyone affiliated with the Reds).

By drafting the SS, despite the fact you have Lopez, now you have options. You can trade Lopez and keep the drafted SS, or you can trade the SS prospect and keep Lopez. With either option, you increase your chances of landing a decent pitcher.

IslandRed
02-23-2006, 05:16 PM
Setting aside the merits of any particular player for a moment, the main argument I have against "it's all about upside" is that a team in our position needs both quality and quantity from its farm system. Baseball people tend to focus too narrowly on trying to find the next superstar. Heck, NFL teams do it all the time, too, drafting workout warriors ahead of guys who can actually play football. Focus too hard on upside and it might pay off, but it's probably going to come with a higher bust rate. Some teams can afford that and some can't. A team on the lower end of the payroll curve generally can't. It's nice to have an Adam Dunn pop out of the farm system now and then, sure. But the main thing that's kept the smaller-market Twins, A's, Marlins etc. going is not the great prospects, but the steady stream of good ones that turn into solid (and cheap) contributors or trading chips.

The other, more cynical, reason for not taking high school pitchers is that they require more development than any other type of player and we've been the worst there is at development. That argues for taking players that are as close to finished products as possible. I hope Krivsky changes that; the Twins have had success developing pitchers.

SteelSD
02-23-2006, 05:38 PM
Here's a list of all the HS pitchers taken in the first round 1990-1999 who had any type of career in the majors.

Steve Karsay
Sean Estes
Justin Thompson
Dan Serafini
Chris Carpenter
Jeff D'Amico
Jamey Wright
Jaret Wright
Scott Elarton
Kerry Wood
John Patterson
Adam Eaton
Bobby Seay
Gil Meche
Jake Westbrook
Nick Bierbrodt
Chris Reitsma
Jason Marquis
John Garland
Jason Standridge
Chris George
Nate Cornejo
Josh Becket
Jimmy Gobble


That's it. Pretty damn underwhelming if you ask me.

If you think that's underwhelming, take a look at the list of the long-term MLB ace-level HS pitchers from the first ten picks of the first round who weren't unquestionably the best pitcher available in the draft:

1. ---Your query returned no results matching the criteria selected---

If Homer Bailey stays healthy, fixes his severe command issues, and performs at the level of a true #1 Starting Pitcher in the Show over the long haul, his name will BEGIN the list.

In short, Bailey wouldn't be AN exception, he'd be THE exception. The only one. And yet, we keep hearing about what a smart idea it is to continue selecting guys whose long-term "ceiling" hasn't been reached by anyone else who fits the same profile. Not one guy.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 06:33 PM
I think some people on this message board just like to complain about things way to much and want to pick apart everything. In 2002 if the Reds took Scott Kazmir instead of Chris Gruler, no one on here would be talking about never draft a HS pitcher because they never turn out. Instead we got Gruler and Howington who in turn got hurt, and never came to the front. So now, anytime a Reds pitcher is drafted from high school, they are the next injury waiting to happen, or the next big flop. It doesnt always work that way, the Reds just have a bad history with it. History doesnt always repeat itself guys, have a little bit of faith would ya?
There is way to much negativity going on throughout these boards.

westofyou
02-23-2006, 06:41 PM
There is way to much negativity going on throughout these boards.
2001 5th 66 96 .407 27
2002 3rd 78 84 .481 19
2003 5th 69 93 .426 19
2004 4th 76 86 .469 29
2005 5th 73 89 .451 27


EAR ERA HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB
2001 4.78 198 9.81 13.32 5.88 3.21 1.83
2002 4.29 173 9.30 13.05 6.07 3.41 1.78
2003 5.09 209 9.82 13.79 5.80 3.67 1.58
2004 5.21 236 9.94 13.85 6.18 3.57 1.73
2005 5.18 219 10.41 14.00 6.00 3.09 1.94
TOT 4.91 1035 9.85 13.60 5.99 3.39 1.77

ochre
02-23-2006, 06:46 PM
I think some people on this message board just like to complain about things way to much and want to pick apart everything. In 2002 if the Reds took Scott Kazmir instead of Chris Gruler, no one on here would be talking about never draft a HS pitcher because they never turn out. Instead we got Gruler and Howington who in turn got hurt, and never came to the front. So now, anytime a Reds pitcher is drafted from high school, they are the next injury waiting to happen, or the next big flop. It doesnt always work that way, the Reds just have a bad history with it. History doesnt always repeat itself guys, have a little bit of faith would ya?
There is way to much negativity going on throughout these boards.
Actually the things I remember seeing on here -- during the draft mind you -- was that if the Reds were to take a HS pitcher it ought to be Kazmir...

pedro
02-23-2006, 06:51 PM
I think some people on this message board just like to complain about things way to much and want to pick apart everything. In 2002 if the Reds took Scott Kazmir instead of Chris Gruler, no one on here would be talking about never draft a HS pitcher because they never turn out. Instead we got Gruler and Howington who in turn got hurt, and never came to the front. So now, anytime a Reds pitcher is drafted from high school, they are the next injury waiting to happen, or the next big flop. It doesnt always work that way, the Reds just have a bad history with it. History doesnt always repeat itself guys, have a little bit of faith would ya?
There is way to much negativity going on throughout these boards.

You can call it negativity. I'll call it intelligence.

We're not basing our opinions on speculation and unrealistic hopes. You are.

Do a little research instead of planning your future on winning the lottery. It'll serve you much better.

Honestly, I hope Bailey turns out to be a stud, but even if he does, that doesn't change the fact that it was stupid, irresponsible pick.

Nugget
02-23-2006, 06:54 PM
Why can't you look at it as Bailey being a Carpenter instead of a Standridge?

If baseball was all about statistics we may as well feed them into a computer and forget about six months of the year!

ochre
02-23-2006, 06:55 PM
Here's princeton's aught 2 version 5 Jun 02 post date:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=42049&postcount=1

1A. Jeff Francis, LHP
1B. Micah Schilling, 2b
2. Jonathan Lester, LHP
3. Jason Neighborgall, RHP
4. Anthony Reyes, RHP
5. Mike Esposito, RHP

pedro
02-23-2006, 06:58 PM
Why can't you look at it as Bailey being a Carpenter instead of a Standridge?

If baseball was all about statistics we may as well feed them into a computer and forget about six months of the year!

Because odds are he isn't.

If you were playing blackjack would you hit on 19 when the dealer had a 6 showing? Would you do it repeatedly?

I'm guessing some of you would.

ochre
02-23-2006, 07:01 PM
For further reading see the entire 2002 draft thread:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4217
This post by cincinnati chili sums it up quite nicely:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=42763&postcount=42

I wanted to share with you all some old research I did about high school pitchers taken in the first round. Hopefully, this will give everyone a sense of how large the Reds' gamble was.

Between 1990 and 1996, there were 40 high school pitchers taken in the first round. A total of $42.859 million was been spent on bonus money for these guys (of course the going rate is higher).

- 27 out of the 40 (67.5%) pitchers were busts
- 2 more (5%) will probably be busts
- 1 (2.5%) is a horrible major league pitcher
- 4 of them (10%) had a good year or so then flamed out with injuries
- 4 of them (10%) are actually good major league pitchers
- 1, and only 1 (2.5%), Kerry Wood, is an all-star quality player

I've never seen Grueler pitch. But hopefully this will give some perspective on how big a gamble the Reds are taking.

5 *Kurt Miller, rhp, Pirates 232,000 1990 bust
9 *Ron Walden, lhp, Dodgers 215,000 1990 bust
25 *Robbie Beckett, lhp, Padres 175,000 1990 bust
1 *Brien Taylor, lhp, Yankees $1,550,000 1991 bust
15 *Tyrone Hill, lhp, Brewers 280,000 1991 bust
18 *Al Shirley, of, Mets 245,000 1991 bust
22 *Brian Barber, rhp, Cardinals 200,000 1991 bust
17 *Jim Pittsley, rhp, Royals 410,000 1992 bust
26 *Dan Serafini, lhp, Twins 350,000 1992 bust
8 *Kirk Presley, rhp, Mets 900,000 1993 bust
13 *Matt Drews, rhp, Yankees 620,000 1993 bust
15 *Jayson Peterson, rhp, Cubs 712,500 1994 bust
16 *Matt Smith, lhp-1b, Royals 1,000,000 1994 bust
27 *Jacob Shumate, rhp, Braves 500,000 1994 bust
15 *Andy Yount, rhp, Red Sox 986,000 1995 bust
16 *Joe Fontenot, rhp, Giants 900,000 1995 bust
17 *Todd Noel, rhp, Cubs 900,000 1996 bust
21 *Jake Westbrook, rhp, Rockies 750,000 1996 bust
24 *Sam Marsonek, rhp, Rangers 834,000 1996 bust
26 *Josh Garrett, rhp, Red Sox 665,000 1996 bust
7 *Doug Million, lhp, Rockies 905,000 1994 Died tragically (asthma attack), but was awful in the minors and appeared to be a bust waiting to happen.
5 *John Patterson, rhp, Expos/DBacks 6,075,000 1996 helped send the Dbacks toward bankrupcy
7 *Matt White, rhp, Giants/DRays 10,200,000 1996 helped send the Drays toward bankrupcy
12 *Bobby Seay, lhp, White Sox/DRays 3,000,000 1996 helped send the Drays toward bankrupcy
22 *Tony McKnight, rhp, Astros 500,000 1995 net value was a rental of Mike Williams for the 2001 stretch run
14 #*Todd Van Poppel, rhp, Athletics 500,000 1990 of no value to team that drafted him
12 *Todd Ritchie, rhp, Twins 252,500 1990 released by team that drafted him before succeeding later
5 *Kenny Henderson, rhp, Brewers Did not sign 1991 DNS
30 *Nick Bierbrodt, lhp, Diamondbacks 1,046,000 1996 will probably be a bust
22 *Gil Meche, rhp, Mariners 820,000 1996 will be a bust unless he recovers from injury
28 *Jamey Wright, rhp, Rockies 395,000 1993 not a bust, but a bad major league starting pitcher. Doesn't throw strikes.
23 *Jeff D'Amico, rhp, Brewers 525,000 1993 Dominant in 2000; worthless to Brewers in other years due to injury
11 *Adam Eaton, rhp, Phillies 1,100,000 1996 looked very promising in short major league stint. Career may be over due to injury.
10 *Jaret Wright, rhp, Indians 1,150,000 1994 Short, immediate success in majors before flaming out due to injury
25 *Scott Elarton, rhp, Astros 750,000 1994 Short, immediate success in majors before flaming out due to injury
17 *Roy Halladay, rhp, Blue Jays 895,000 1995 excellent pick
15 *Chris Carpenter, rhp, Blue Jays 580,000 1993 middle of rotation starter; has pitched over 200 innings only once
22 *Steve Karsay, rhp, Blue Jays 180,000 1990 success came near his free agent years
11 *Shawn Estes, lhp, Mariners 332,500 1991 valuable major league player in his best years, despite walking many batters
4 *Kerry Wood, rhp, Cubs 1,265,000 1995 worth every penny, even though he was of no use to the Cubs for 1.5 years due to injury

Nugget
02-23-2006, 07:10 PM
Ochre from that list with a slight update that the statistics have changed. There is a Cy Young winner on that list and Wood may be moving to middle relief. Wright and Westbrook are now in rotations so statistics taken at any point in time will change.

Yes Bailey is a gamble but sometime you have to do that in baseball. Nurturing good pitching is something that the REDS have to learn to do. As a team the REDS are going to need to have some SP in their ranks as developing great positions players won't bring in great pitching because everyone wants it and its harder to get.

Pedro yes I would do it if I was laying down dollar bets and the return is 100 times that because in essence that is what the draft could produce.

westofyou
02-23-2006, 07:18 PM
Yes Bailey is a gamble but sometime you have to do that in baseball. Long shot gambling with what should be a money pick is a sure way to end up sleeping in the car in the back lot of the casino.

pedro
02-23-2006, 07:19 PM
Pedro yes I would do it if I was laying down dollar bets and the return is 100 times that because in essence that is what the draft could produce.

Sorry, your logic is wrong, #1 draft picks are not 1 dollar bets. They are expensive gambles.

I'm not saying that the Reds should never draft HS pitchers. I'm saying they shouldn't do it with their first pick.

Nugget
02-23-2006, 07:23 PM
Just a question - but wasn't Sowers a first round pick by the REDS. If so is the argument the REDS stuffed up by not actually being able to sign him or is it that they shouldn't have picked him?

Cyclone792
02-23-2006, 07:23 PM
I think some people on this message board just like to complain about things way to much and want to pick apart everything. In 2002 if the Reds took Scott Kazmir instead of Chris Gruler, no one on here would be talking about never draft a HS pitcher because they never turn out. Instead we got Gruler and Howington who in turn got hurt, and never came to the front. So now, anytime a Reds pitcher is drafted from high school, they are the next injury waiting to happen, or the next big flop. It doesnt always work that way, the Reds just have a bad history with it. History doesnt always repeat itself guys, have a little bit of faith would ya?
There is way to much negativity going on throughout these boards.

Doug, what pedro, Steel, ochre, etc. have been posting isn't negativity, but essentially objective research and analysis over years of amateur draft data. Taking HS pitchers in the first round of the draft is a foolish proposition the vast majority of the time, and research throughout every draft class bears that out.

I complain about many things this organization has done for several years, but that doesn't hold back my excitement for an upcoming baseball season. I can turn around right now and glance at my Larkin jersey hanging on a doorknob, ready to be proudly displayed at every baseball game I witness this season in person, be it in Cincinnati or somewhere else. I'll likely attend about two dozen games this season, including two games during the first week of the season, and I'll enjoy every minute of it (well, maybe not so much if we're getting blown out).

I want this team to win, I really do. I want it to win now, and I want it to win in the future. But I still cannot get carried away with false hopes and dreams in rarified air. When I sit back and objectively look at the 2006 Reds, I see a club that will win somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-75 games. Do I want them to contend this season? Of course, we all do. But at the same time I know this team simply cannot contend this season unless we get an entire pitching staff of BABIP hit lucky pitching. Good luck, and lots of it, is what it'll take for this team to win in 2006. The farm system isn't much different in that it just simply is in lousy condition. I would love for it to be in phenomenal shape, but the fact is it just isn't, and I can't get carried away hoping the prospects in our farm system go against the odds and turn into something we all wish and hope they morph into.

Right now, that's the status of the organization: wishes and hopes, with most of them being false hopes. It isn't taking things in a negative light, but rather, just an objective light. And when everybody, most notably the organization itself, begins to take things in an objective light, we are at least on the starting path to turning things around.

Until then, we'll be living in the ugly shadows of Marge Schott, Carl Lindner, Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien.

pedro
02-23-2006, 07:28 PM
Just a question - but wasn't Sowers a first round pick by the REDS. If so is the argument the REDS stuffed up by not actually being able to sign him or is it that they shouldn't have picked him?


Sowers was a college pitcher.

Nugget
02-23-2006, 07:34 PM
Sowers was a college pitcher.

Went off to do some research and it appears that Sowers was picked by the REDS in the first round at number 20 out of high school. He failed to sign with the REDS and went off to college. The Indians picked him at number 6 after his junior year at college.

So I go back to my question about Sowers did the REDS fail in not signing him out of high school or did they fail in actually picking him as a HS pitcher.

pedro
02-23-2006, 07:46 PM
Went off to do some research and it appears that Sowers was picked by the REDS in the first round at number 20 out of high school. He failed to sign with the REDS and went off to college. The Indians picked him at number 6 after his junior year at college.

So I go back to my question about Sowers did the REDS fail in not signing him out of high school or did they fail in actually picking him as a HS pitcher.


Then I'd say they shouldn't have drafted him, even if, in hind sight, it appears that it may have worked out OK. It's just a bad gamble.

Statistically speaking, picking Sowers after his junior year in college is a much different proposition than picking him out of high school.

One thing to consider is that college baseball seasons are only half as long as professional seasons and as such the risk of wear and tear on a young pitcher whose body is still developing is much less (at least theoretically) if he goes to college.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 07:54 PM
Doug, what pedro, Steel, ochre, etc. have been posting isn't negativity, but essentially objective research and analysis over years of amateur draft data. Taking HS pitchers in the first round of the draft is a foolish proposition the vast majority of the time, and research throughout every draft class bears that out.

Vast majority of the time, it doesnt pan out. Steels said it never panned out. Never means just that. Never. It has before.


I complain about many things this organization has done for several years, but that doesn't hold back my excitement for an upcoming baseball season. I can turn around right now and glance at my Larkin jersey hanging on a doorknob, ready to be proudly displayed at every baseball game I witness this season in person, be it in Cincinnati or somewhere else. I'll likely attend about two dozen games this season, including two games during the first week of the season, and I'll enjoy every minute of it (well, maybe not so much if we're getting blown out).

I want this team to win, I really do. I want it to win now, and I want it to win in the future. But I still cannot get carried away with false hopes and dreams in rarified air. When I sit back and objectively look at the 2006 Reds, I see a club that will win somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-75 games. Do I want them to contend this season? Of course, we all do. But at the same time I know this team simply cannot contend this season unless we get an entire pitching staff of BABIP hit lucky pitching. Good luck, and lots of it, is what it'll take for this team to win in 2006. The farm system isn't much different in that it just simply is in lousy condition. I would love for it to be in phenomenal shape, but the fact is it just isn't, and I can't get carried away hoping the prospects in our farm system go against the odds and turn into something we all wish and hope they morph into.

Which is fine. We arent talking about every prospect, we are mainly talking about 1 prospect, in Homer Bailey. Its just that it seems some guys on here who seem to know the future. No one knows what Bailey will do, but some sure want to point out that Ty Howington and Chris Gruler failed as HS drafted pitchers, so Bailey will too. Well, I cant buy into that garbage. What those two have to do with Homer Bailey and his future are not related at all. The same coaches arent around, they arent the same people.



Right now, that's the status of the organization: wishes and hopes, with most of them being false hopes.
Most of them being false hopes...possibly. Bailey was rated the 38th best prospect by a highly reputable source and most of what you see is, "he is overrated" "he will get hurt" "I would rather have so and so over him". The fact that after just one season in single A, at the age of 19, Homer Bailey was rated better than nearly every player in the minor leagues. Higher than guys who have been thrown around lately as guys who he should be traded for like Anthony Reyes, Jason Hirsch or even Jeremy Sowers and Troy Patton. I mean isnt every guy in the minors just wishes and hope? There is no sure fire thing. Until you get out there in the big leagues and prove yourself, its all hope and wishes. But with Bailey, around this board, there are some seriously negative things going on and its truthfully just gets on my nerves.



It isn't taking things in a negative light, but rather, just an objective light. And when everybody, most notably the organization itself, begins to take things in an objective light, we are at least on the starting path to turning things around.
Until then, we'll be living in the ugly shadows of Marge Schott, Carl Lindner, Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien.

I still say things are being taken in a negative light on here by some.

ochre
02-23-2006, 07:54 PM
Went off to do some research and it appears that Sowers was picked by the REDS in the first round at number 20 out of high school. He failed to sign with the REDS and went off to college. The Indians picked him at number 6 after his junior year at college.

So I go back to my question about Sowers did the REDS fail in not signing him out of high school or did they fail in actually picking him as a HS pitcher.
They drafted him largely to save money, as they knew he wouldn't sign. From what I have read they made some offers, but Sowers was set, and told people (scouts), he was going to college. I believe we've had a family member of his post here before. I might not remember it correctly, but I think the family expressed surprise that the Reds drafted him, as they (the Sowers) had made their intentions not to sign perfectly clear.

Nugget
02-23-2006, 07:57 PM
If he entered the draft I'm pretty sure he would of signed if a big enough cheque was dangled. If he was really planning on going to college he didn't need to enter the draft.

Pedro - noted. And I understand your point of view and it usually comes up around draft time. But I would say that if you had a really talented high school pick then you go for it. If the worry is the minor leagues is too straining then limit the pitch count, etc. That way you have at least bagged him. No use letting him head of to Indians - the REDS are the best team in Ohio.

ochre
02-23-2006, 07:59 PM
Sure BA is reputable. They are prone to over rating certain (toolsy) types of players from what I have seen though. The problems that many posters here have with Bailey aren't his tools so to speak. Its more of a results issue. The fact that a group like BA would rate a toolsy pitcher highly is not, in and of itself, a good endorsement of said players likely ML impact.

Ravenlord
02-23-2006, 08:00 PM
If he entered the draft I'm pretty sure he would of signed if a big enough cheque was dangled. If he was really planning on going to college he didn't need to enter the draft.
doesn't work in baseball the way it does for basketball or football.

Nugget
02-23-2006, 08:02 PM
doesn't work in baseball the way it does for basketball or football.


Sorry can you explain - Do all baseball players enter the draft. Or is it the money issue? I'll go off and see if there is anything else on it.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 08:04 PM
One thing to consider is that college baseball seasons are only half as long as professional seasons and as such the risk of wear and tear on a young pitcher whose body is still developing is much less (at least theoretically) if he goes to college.

While that may be true, most younger pitchers are on pitch counts. Sowers first year in college, he pitched 101 innings when he was 19. Bailey at 19, pitched 103 innings for Dayton. Bailey was on a relatively strict pitch count though, and it will be interesting to see what happens with him this upcoming season as far as a pitch count goes with him and limiting his innings. I would say by the age of 21 or so, if a HS pitcher is moving along in the minors and is at about High A, he will in all likelihood have more innings under his belt than a 21 year old college pitcher.

Ravenlord
02-23-2006, 08:04 PM
Sorry can you explain - Do all baseball players enter the draft. Or is it the money issue? I'll go off and see if there is anything else on it.
baseball players don't have to declare eligiability. if they're 18 and haven't played proball, they're eligable.

Nugget
02-23-2006, 08:09 PM
Thanks

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 08:13 PM
Nugget, they also, if in college, have to declare after they are a junior or senior. Unless they are in Junior College, where I believe, but could be wrong, can be drafted whenever, but dont have to sign if they choose so.

Cyclone792
02-23-2006, 08:13 PM
Vast majority of the time, it doesnt pan out. Steels said it never panned out. Never means just that. Never. It has before.

If you've got research that trumps Steel's, I'd certainly like to see it. Until then, it's safe to say that Steel's assumptions have been proven correct.


Which is fine. We arent talking about every prospect, we are mainly talking about 1 prospect, in Homer Bailey. Its just that it seems some guys on here who seem to know the future. No one knows what Bailey will do, but some sure want to point out that Ty Howington and Chris Gruler failed as HS drafted pitchers, so Bailey will too. Well, I cant buy into that garbage. What those two have to do with Homer Bailey and his future are not related at all. The same coaches arent around, they arent the same people.

Knowing the future and knowing the odds are two very different things. Nobody's saying Bailey will fail; they're saying the odds are more in favor of Bailey failing than they are in him succeeding. This has nothing to do with "buying into garbage," but everything to do with the actual results of all other previous high school pitchers drafted in the first round.


Most of them being false hopes...possibly. Bailey was rated the 38th best prospect by a highly reputable source and most of what you see is, "he is overrated" "he will get hurt" "I would rather have so and so over him". The fact that after just one season in single A, at the age of 19, Homer Bailey was rated better than nearly every player in the minor leagues. Higher than guys who have been thrown around lately as guys who he should be traded for like Anthony Reyes, Jason Hirsch or even Jeremy Sowers and Troy Patton. I mean isnt every guy in the minors just wishes and hope? There is no sure fire thing. Until you get out there in the big leagues and prove yourself, its all hope and wishes. But with Bailey, around this board, there are some seriously negative things going on and its truthfully just gets on my nerves.

Bailey was known as a pitcher with outstanding control in high school, and in his first season in low-A Ball his control goes haywire. To say that's alarming would be an understatement. Should Bailey be written off entirely? Of course not, but seeing how his BB rate jumped sure as heck isn't a point in his favor and is a massive cause for concern.


I still say things are being taken in a negative light on here by some.

If making objective observations about the status of a lousy baseball organization is considered negative, then so be it. Riding on assumptions that guys such as Homer Bailey will be mound saviors certainly won't do much of anything to change the direction of this franchise.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 08:32 PM
If you've got research that trumps Steel's, I'd certainly like to see it. Until then, it's safe to say that Steel's assumptions have been proven correct. Scott Kazmir. High school pitcher. at age 21 last year, his ERA was under 4. Zach Duke. High school pitcher, at the age of 22, went 8-2 last year, 1.81 ERA. So yeah, that would trump SteelsD saying they NEVER pan out.




Knowing the future and knowing the odds are two very different things. Nobody's saying Bailey will fail; they're saying the odds are more in favor of Bailey failing than they are in him succeeding. This has nothing to do with "buying into garbage," but everything to do with the actual results of all other previous high school pitchers drafted in the first round.
Why does the data only show HS pitchers in the first round? Becuase they are most memorable at failing? What about all the ones who succeeded who were not drafted in round 1? Zach Duke was a 20th round pick out of HS.




Bailey was known as a pitcher with outstanding control in high school, and in his first season in low-A Ball his control goes haywire. To say that's alarming would be an understatement. Should Bailey be written off entirely? Of course not, but seeing how his BB rate jumped sure as heck isn't a point in his favor and is a massive cause for concern.
he had a 2-1 k/bb ratio last year. If it were somewhere along the lines of a Phil Dumatrait line, I would be worried. 2-1 strikeout to walk ratio isnt something for "massive concern".




If making objective observations about the status of a lousy baseball organization is considered negative, then so be it. Riding on assumptions that guys such as Homer Bailey will be mound saviors certainly won't do much of anything to change the direction of this franchise.

my negative rant wasnt speaking soley on this thread, but moreso every other post of every thread I happen to read.

ochre
02-23-2006, 08:36 PM
The point about them being first rounders is that teams should be looking for sure things there. Its premium money. If you are taking longshots there, regardless of the projected ceilings, they better have mad bank.

Last time I checked the Reds bank was somewhat less than mad.

ochre
02-23-2006, 08:36 PM
Outside of the last month or so, what has there been to be positive about?

Doc. Scott
02-23-2006, 08:48 PM
Why does the data only show HS pitchers in the first round? Becuase they are most memorable at failing? What about all the ones who succeeded who were not drafted in round 1? Zach Duke was a 20th round pick out of HS.

This is Pedro's point. First-round picks cost millions of dollars in bonuses. 20th-round picks don't; sometimes the bonus is pennies and sometimes it's sizable, but it's still dwarfed by what you pay first-round picks. Strictly from a money perspective, you want to hedge bets in the first round by selecting a higher-percentage player- a college pitcher or high school position player, depending on what's available- then go for some HS pitchers as draft-and-follows or lower-round picks. And if your scouts have done their homework, you'll go after HS guys you know you have a solid shot at signing for a reasonable, non-Homer Bailey-level bonus.

Cyclone792
02-23-2006, 08:49 PM
Scott Kazmir. High school pitcher. at age 21 last year, his ERA was under 4. Zach Duke. High school pitcher, at the age of 22, went 8-2 last year, 1.81 ERA. So yeah, that would trump SteelsD saying they NEVER pan out.

Scott Kazmir has exactly 14 career pitching win shares. Zach Duke sits at 13. Here's Steel's post ...


If you think that's underwhelming, take a look at the list of the long-term MLB ace-level HS pitchers from the first ten picks of the first round who weren't unquestionably the best pitcher available in the draft:

1. ---Your query returned no results matching the criteria selected---

If Homer Bailey stays healthy, fixes his severe command issues, and performs at the level of a true #1 Starting Pitcher in the Show over the long haul, his name will BEGIN the list.

In short, Bailey wouldn't be AN exception, he'd be THE exception. The only one. And yet, we keep hearing about what a smart idea it is to continue selecting guys whose long-term "ceiling" hasn't been reached by anyone else who fits the same profile. Not one guy.

Just as Steel stated, a grand total of 27 career pitching win shares certainly doesn't qualify as long-term ace potential. Not only that, but a 20th round draft pick certainly doesn't qualify for a top 10 pick that Steel outlined in his post.


Why does the data only show HS pitchers in the first round? Becuase they are most memorable at failing? What about all the ones who succeeded who were not drafted in round 1? Zach Duke was a 20th round pick out of HS.

Zach Duke is an outstanding draft pick out of the 20th round. The difference here is the 20th round isn't costing you millions of dollars like the early rounds - especially the first round - can cost. The difference between 1st round and 20th round is astronomical.

Here's more actual data ...

http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1811682


Rob Neyer is on vacation. Two guest columns will run in his place on Thursday and Friday of this week.

In The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (2001), James writes,

The most phenomenal fact of life in baseball today is that major league teams continue to use first-round draft picks for high school pitchers ... It has been obvious for twenty years that this is a stupid, stupid gamble ... yet every year, four to seven first-round picks are invested in these turkeys.

But if you think the issue is a dead horse, you're wrong.

The high schoolers have their advocates. In the spring of 2003, Jim Callis published a study in which he concluded that while collegians are slightly more likely to become major league regulars, high schoolers are about as likely as collegians to become stars, and significantly more likely to become better than average major leaguers.

High school pitchers have their advocates in front offices, too. James' estimate was a little on the low side; the last 10 drafts have averaged roughly seven high-school pitchers drafted in the first round. And with the amateur draft coming soon, I figured this might be a good time to look again at the issue.

The question is quantifiable, and when Bill James published his book about Win Shares, he contemplated using the method to study the draft. With the help of Tangotiger, whose work includes a thorough analysis of Win Shares, I devised a study that would bring some objectivity to the subject.

Win Shares is designed to measure a player's contribution to his team's performance. That contribution is translated to a "claim" on his team's victories. Each Win Share is worth a third of a win, so three Win Shares equals a win. Fifteen Win Shares (five wins) is a good season, and 30 Win Shares gets a player into the MVP mix (or should).

Our goal was to treat both classes of pitchers fairly. I plan to post (somewhere) a longer article, later this summer, that will explain our methodology in more detail, but here are its outlines:

* We considered the first 10 high-school pitchers drafted in the 1982 through 1991 drafts, and the first 10 college pitchers drafted in the 1985 through 1994 drafts (the latter group starts three years later because college draftees are essentially three years older than high schoolers);

* We looked at each pitcher's total contributions through age 30, because most pitchers will have peaked by then;

* We allowed for "early bloom" years between the Age 18 and 21 seasons for high schoolers.

* Cutting to the chase ... This new study confirmed what Bill James found a long time ago: college pitchers yield a much higher return on the investment than high schoolers.

* 5 percent of the collegians earned at least one Win Share through their Age 30 seasons; only 41 percent of the high schoolers did the same.

* Seven of the top 10 Win Shares earners through Age 30 were collegians.

* The collegians account for 64 percent of all Win Shares earned by these two groups (again, through their Age 30 seasons).

The high-school draftees earned an average of 15 Win Shares through age 30. Their college counterparts earned 26 Win Shares, a 65 percent lead over the high schoolers. (That difference of 11 Win Shares equals roughly four victories.)

Even if we consider only the pitchers who reached the majors, the collegians still do better: an average of 41 Win Shares for the college guys, 37 for the high schoolers.

We broke the pitchers down by which slot they were taken. If a player was the first college pitcher taken in a draft, we put him in Slot No. 1; if he was the ninth, he got Slot No. 9. To make the data a little easier to handle, we broke the slots down into groups of three. The top three college pitchers went into the College 1 group, and so on.



Group Win Shares
College 1 1,302
College 2 736
College 3 420
High Sc. 1 1,037
High Sc. 2 415
High Sc. 3 146

College pitchers in Group 3 were just as valuable as the high-school pitchers in Group 2. What's more, the value of the first three high-school pitchers drafted (1,037) is right in the middle of college pitchers one through six (an average of 1,019).

There were seven years of overlap in our study: 1985-1991. Based on what we found, of the first 15 pitchers selected in a draft, six of the first nine should have been college pitchers, and the next six should have been balanced between high schoolers and collegians. This would give us a 60/40 split. What we saw was that of the first nine pitchers taken in those seven drafts, 40 were from college and 23 were from high school. That's very close to what we would have expected (42/21). Of picks 10 through 15, 22 were from college and 20 from high school. Again, this is close to what we expected (21/21). Our conclusion is that from 1985-1991, teams' scouting philosophies and expectations regarding high school and college pitchers were in line with what actually transpired. We had equilibrium.

What about individual performances? The top Win Shares earner by far was Greg Maddux, who was in the high school group. He finished with 205 by age 30. He's in a class by himself (and more about him in a minute).

The next tier was split, two high schoolers and two collegians, and the spread among them was small:

Doc Gooden, high school, 154
Kevin Appier, college, 148
Mike Mussina, college, 143
Tom Glavine, high school, 141

After that, the collegians dominated the field, with more of them earning 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 Win Shares.

In almost every category, the collegians are the better bet. But does Maddux's performance show that the high-school pick might be worth the risk? He was, after all, easily the top Win Shares earner. And he and Doc Gooden were the only two pitchers from this collection of 200 pitchers to post a season with at least 30 Win Shares (they each did it once).

In light of how much the collegians dominated this study, it would be hard to argue that a 0.5 percent chance of landing the one true Hall of Famer from this group would justify going with the high schoolers. Consider, too, that if we changed the parameters of the study just a little, moving the college draft class back a couple of years, that group would have picked up Roger Clemens, who easily would have been the top earner overall. He is also the last pitcher to net 30 Win Shares in a season. There's just nothing in the data to support the proposition that high schoolers yield a higher reward when they do make it, so they're worth the risk of a first-round pick. In truth, you're just as likely to land a Clemens as a Maddux.

Based on this study, the collegians appear to give you two times the return on your investment, and the difference is most pronounced in the early picks. It's the same disparity Bill James found 20 years ago.

Are high schoolers a stupid gamble? Occasionally a pick like Maddux, Gooden, or Glavine comes along, and for some organizations this might justify the risk. And since we found equilibrium in the overlap sample, it looks like the teams themselves, at least as a group, have figured this out. As for spending a first-round pick on a high schooler, it's worth noting that Maddux and Glavine were second rounders. It's probably true that some high-school pitchers are worth a first-round pick. But it's also probably true that nobody really knows which high-school pitchers those are.

Keith Scherer is an analyst for Baseball Prospectus and an attorney with the Air Force JAG Corps. You can send him e-mail at kscherer@baseballprospectus.com

Nugget
02-23-2006, 08:55 PM
I guess the point I ask is whether or not if at any time there would be a high school pitcher you would like the REDS to take. As anybody will tell you whether its a High Schooler or a College pitcher there are no guarantees. Statistics and odds would say that you have a better chance of succeeding with a college pitcher. The fact that you succeed with a high school pitcher is less probable. But scouting tells you that a particular high school pitcher is a great prospect, a potential number 1, etc. then do you still not take him.

That's where I say that if you have your scouts and you trust them and they say take him, even though the odds say he won't pan out then you should. Its no use always driven by numb3rs.

IslandRed
02-23-2006, 09:00 PM
The point about them being first rounders is that teams should be looking for sure things there. Its premium money. If you are taking longshots there, regardless of the projected ceilings, they better have mad bank.

And that's it, in a nutshell. First round, millions of dollars at stake, the board wide open... it's not good enough to just think about how good a guy can be. The odds of it ever happening have to be considered as well. Baseball isn't like the NFL or NBA, the odds aren't great for anyone, but that doesn't mean all the odds are equally long. Of the four groupings -- HS hitters, HS pitchers, college hitters, college pitchers -- HS pitchers are the longest shot in the first round, and it's not close.

Now, I've never seen a serious argument made that a team shouldn't take high school pitchers EVER. It's a long draft, lots of places to take a chance on a kid. Giving one millions of dollars in the first round is where history nudges us and says "that's probably not a good idea."

cincyinco
02-23-2006, 09:04 PM
I'll post this again, which I think all the No HS Pitchers in the 1st round naysayers should read.. and carefully.

Risk With High School Righties Overstated
by Jim Callis
July 13, 2004
HOUSTON--It's one of the Ten Commandments of the statistical revolution:

Thou shalt not draft high school righthanders in the first round.

Allow me to blaspheme.

While I don't blindly buy into the complete cult of "Moneyball," I will acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned from the book, most notably the value of exploiting market inefficiencies. And I do believe statistics are a crucial part of the evaluation process for prospects.

A year ago, a prominent national columnist wrote that general managers know statistics prove that they can get a major league starting righthander out of high school in the 20th round as in the first.

There are just two problems with that statement. There wasn't a single righty drafted out of high school in the 20th round or later that was in a big league rotation at the time. And statistics prove no such thing.

In a study of the first 10 rounds of the 1990-97 drafts last year, I found that regardless of round or position, high schools held their own versus colleges in terms of producing talent. The colleges' only pronounced edge came in the number of cup-of-coffee players who reached the majors. With significant players, the two crops were virtually even, and high schools generated more star-caliber talent (4.3 to 2.3 percent).

Don't just take my word for it, however. A club official recently examined the performance of all pitchers drafted in the first round from 1990-98 and sent me the results--which reinforced mine.

Numbers Don't Lie

Fifty righthanders were drafted and signed out of colleges in the first round, compared to 35 from the prep ranks. Forty-one (82 percent) of the college pitchers reached the majors, while 25 (71 percent) of the high schoolers made it to the top.

Filter out the fringe players, and high school righthanders have a slightly better chance of having a significant career. That's not a misprint. Eleven (31 percent) of the high schoolers became average or better major leaguers, as opposed to 15 (30 percent) of the collegians.

Colleges did yield more above-average righthanders, with five (10 percent): Billy Koch (OK, the club official might have been feeling a bit charitable), Brad Lidge, Matt Morris, Mike Mussina and Aaron Sele. Just two high schoolers (6 percent) became stars, though Kerry Wood and Roy Halladay may accomplish more than anyone in the college group with the possible exception of Mussina.

Teams do win with stars, but how big is the difference? If a club decided to take a college righty in the first round every year, it would come up with an additional blue-chip pitcher once every 25 years than if it went with a prep righthander each time.

Also contrary to popular belief, the high schoolers aren't more likely to break down than the older and more physically mature collegians. I compiled medical data and found that 18 (51 percent) of the prep righties needed an elbow or shoulder operation within five years of being drafted. The college righthanders went under the knife with arm problems nearly as often, with 23 (46 percent) requiring surgery.

'You Just Don't Know'

If I were running a draft, I'd feel a little safer going with a college righthander than a high school righty. There's less projection involved with college pitchers, and they've faced much tougher competition. No question.

But looking at recent drafts, there's no statistical basis for running away from high school righthanders. They might have paled in comparison to their college counterparts in the early days of the draft, but not any longer.

Bill James once studied the top 50 picks in the 1965-83 June regular drafts and found that college players returned twice the value of high schoolers, though that's an entirely different era from today. The single June draft as we know it today didn't exist until 1987.

I haven't studied the 1980s draft results, and it wouldn't surprise me if college righthanders left prep righties in their dust during that decade. Again, however, that was a vastly different era. Teams weren't aggressive signing premium high school picks and the NCAA had yet to institute scholarship and coaching cutbacks, so the talent level in college was at an all-time high.

This isn't the 1980s. And high school righthanders have continued to make a name for themselves in the first rounds of recent drafts.

Josh Beckett, anyone? Is there a team out there that wouldn't want Zack Greinke? Jeremy Bonderman and Adam Wainwright already have fetched a bundle on the trade market, and Chad Billingsley, Matt Cain, Clint Everts and Gavin Floyd would do the same--if their clubs would part with them.

Cain, Everts and Floyd were on hand at the Futures Game, showcasing their dazzling stuff. All were puzzled by the notion that high school righthanders would be a notably higher risk than any other demographic.

"If you're ready out of high school, go ahead and get your career started," said Everts, the fifth overall pick in 2002 draft. "There's always a chance you can go to college and you could hurt yourself, or you could get a lot better. But that's three years from now and you just don't know."

Amen. You just can't know with any degree of certainty what you'll get out of the draft. Keeping an open mind only can help.

MikeS21
02-23-2006, 09:18 PM
Which is fine. We arent talking about every prospect, we are mainly talking about 1 prospect, in Homer Bailey. Its just that it seems some guys on here who seem to know the future. No one knows what Bailey will do, but some sure want to point out that Ty Howington and Chris Gruler failed as HS drafted pitchers, so Bailey will too. Well, I cant buy into that garbage. What those two have to do with Homer Bailey and his future are not related at all. The same coaches arent around, they arent the same people.

It is fair to bring Howington and Gruler into the converstaion, because 3-4 years ago, I was one of the idiots who thought Howington, Aramboles, and Gruler were going to be the saviors of this franchise. I bought in to all the hype. Best I remember, going into the 2002 draft, BA actually ranked Chris Gruler higher in that draft (Number 5 overall) than they did Homer Bailey (Number 6 overall) coming out of high school in the 2004 draft. I remember folks like M2, MWM, chili, and others, chiding me and warning me to stop believing the hype and look for performance. And when I started looking at actual numbers, the only "big" number Howington and Gruler put up where days spent on the DL.

There is a difference between being negative and being realistic. Based on the track record of other HS pitchers who have been hyped - including Howington and Gruler (and Seattle's Ryan Anderson, and others), the chances that Bailey will ever throw one pitch for the Reds is probably 1 in 10. The crying shame is that some hjgher-up in the organization will decide that rushing Bailey to Cincinnati will be good PR sometime around mid-July when the Reds are out of it and fan interest goes into its annual hibernation.

Highlifeman21
02-23-2006, 09:31 PM
Scott Kazmir. High school pitcher. at age 21 last year, his ERA was under 4. Zach Duke. High school pitcher, at the age of 22, went 8-2 last year, 1.81 ERA. So yeah, that would trump SteelsD saying they NEVER pan out.


2 pitchers that between them have 27 career pitching win shares, not to mention the fact you're going to base your "success" argument off the ridiculously small sample size of 2 pitchers. 2. Uno, dos. 1, 2. I believe this is a direct violation of the Hasty Generalization fallacy of logical arguments, or rather you're committing Hasty Generalization. Sure, you could foolishly counter and say SteelsD is wrong b/c you found 2 guys to falsify his NEVER statement. Oh wait, you already did that...



he had a 2-1 k/bb ratio last year. If it were somewhere along the lines of a Phil Dumatrait line, I would be worried. 2-1 strikeout to walk ratio isnt something for "massive concern".

2:1 K:BB isn't something for massive concern?! Maybe my drive from Cincy to Philly today left me woozy and I think a 2:1 K:BB ration is acceptable... No, that's definitely not the case. A 2:1 K:BB ratio is downright horrible and you know it, so stop trying to downplay the concern that Bailey forgot how to find the strikezone from HS to A ball. Bailey WAS a bad pick for the Reds and there's no negativity about it, as you claim everyone on the board is jumping on the bad news bandwagon. We all want to see Bailey pan out and turn into something positive and useable, but the odds are against him HIGHLY.

IslandRed
02-23-2006, 10:32 PM
I'll throw one more in here, having gone back and read some of Rany J.'s draft research from last year on Baseball Prospectus. His conclusion was that high-school pitchers are still the riskiest picks in the first round, but in the last 10-12 years they were not nearly as big a risk relative to college pitchers as they were in earlier years, such as when Bill James did his original studies. Kind of going from "thou shalt not" to "thou probably shouldn't."

One reason for it is fairly simple: with signing bonuses having grown so huge, it's rare for a highly drafted prep to pass up pro ball and go to college*, which cuts down the premium talent coming out of college down the line.

* Unless he's drafted by a team that's punting the pick on purpose. :rolleyes:

M2
02-23-2006, 10:35 PM
Vast majority of the time, it doesnt pan out. Steels said it never panned out. Never means just that. Never. It has before.

You've completely misunderstood what he said. You should go back and read it.

What he said was that if you look at HS pitchers selected in the top 10 who weren't widely considered the best overall pitcher in the draft, not a one of them has panned out.

Kerry Wood and Josh Beckett were considered the best overall pitchers in their drafts. So was Scott Kazmir (selected 15th in 2003), whom the Reds convinced themselves out of for monetary reasons and then he feel to the Mets who got him for less than the Reds paid Chris Gruler.

I don't mind doing some fishing in the back end of the first round where your hit rates get dramatically lower, but with a top 10 pick you need to be investing and not playing a lottery no one wins.

Though if you look at HS arms taken in the first round during the 1990s, pretty much only Kerry Wood and Roy Halladay delivered anything for the teams that picked them. After that you're looking at one-hit wonders like Justin Thompson and Jeff D'Amico. You think the Blue Jays were high-fiving each other when Chris Carpenter won his Cy Young? No, for them Carpenter was a guy who never quite blossomed, then got injured, then latched on with St. Louis where he finally stepped up at age 29.

M2
02-23-2006, 10:46 PM
As for spending a first-round pick on a high schooler, it's worth noting that Maddux and Glavine were second rounders. It's probably true that some high-school pitchers are worth a first-round pick. But it's also probably true that nobody really knows which high-school pitchers those are.

Thanks for posting that article Cyclone. In a nutshell, that's it.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 11:50 PM
It is fair to bring Howington and Gruler into the converstaion, because 3-4 years ago, I was one of the idiots who thought Howington, Aramboles, and Gruler were going to be the saviors of this franchise. I bought in to all the hype. Best I remember, going into the 2002 draft, BA actually ranked Chris Gruler higher in that draft (Number 5 overall) than they did Homer Bailey (Number 6 overall) coming out of high school in the 2004 draft.
That means nothing, two different draft classes.



I remember folks like M2, MWM, chili, and others, chiding me and warning me to stop believing the hype and look for performance. And when I started looking at actual numbers, the only "big" number Howington and Gruler put up where days spent on the DL.
I dont see the relevance this has to Homer Bailey.



There is a difference between being negative and being realistic. Based on the track record of other HS pitchers who have been hyped - including Howington and Gruler (and Seattle's Ryan Anderson, and others), the chances that Bailey will ever throw one pitch for the Reds is probably 1 in 10. The crying shame is that some hjgher-up in the organization will decide that rushing Bailey to Cincinnati will be good PR sometime around mid-July when the Reds are out of it and fan interest goes into its annual hibernation.
The odds that any player drafted in the first round of any draft will play at the major league level is about the same.

dougdirt
02-23-2006, 11:55 PM
I don't mind doing some fishing in the back end of the first round where your hit rates get dramatically lower, but with a top 10 pick you need to be investing and not playing a lottery no one wins.

Drafting is all a lottery. 10% of the players drafted from any given year will make the big leagues. Even less than that will be more than a footnote in a box score. Its all a big freaking lottery that everyone screws up.

Nugget
02-24-2006, 12:01 AM
I guess the relevance to Bailey is was he considered to be the "best overall pitcher" in the draft. I gues not given that Sowers went higher and was more widely considered a better pitcher.

But I go to another question Sowers was selected by the REDS as a high schooler and for certain reasons didn't sign or was never going to sign. Now if Bailey in three years (from the draft time) was a college pitcher and was the
best overall pitcher" and is signed by another team - is that a failure on the part of the REDS?

I would say yes as having scouted him and for a variety of reasons having put him as a potential MLB pitcher and having had the chance to select him passed him over and he is now signed and listed as a great prospect for another team.

I agree that mathematically the odds are stacked against drafting a HS pitcher in the first round. But if your scouting and your guts say sign him then sign him.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 12:02 AM
I'll post this again, which I think all the No HS Pitchers in the 1st round naysayers should read.. and carefully.

Risk With High School Righties Overstated
by Jim Callis
July 13, 2004
HOUSTON--It's one of the Ten Commandments of the statistical revolution:

Thou shalt not draft high school righthanders in the first round.

Allow me to blaspheme.

While I don't blindly buy into the complete cult of "Moneyball," I will acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned from the book, most notably the value of exploiting market inefficiencies. And I do believe statistics are a crucial part of the evaluation process for prospects.

A year ago, a prominent national columnist wrote that general managers know statistics prove that they can get a major league starting righthander out of high school in the 20th round as in the first.

There are just two problems with that statement. There wasn't a single righty drafted out of high school in the 20th round or later that was in a big league rotation at the time. And statistics prove no such thing.

In a study of the first 10 rounds of the 1990-97 drafts last year, I found that regardless of round or position, high schools held their own versus colleges in terms of producing talent. The colleges' only pronounced edge came in the number of cup-of-coffee players who reached the majors. With significant players, the two crops were virtually even, and high schools generated more star-caliber talent (4.3 to 2.3 percent).

Don't just take my word for it, however. A club official recently examined the performance of all pitchers drafted in the first round from 1990-98 and sent me the results--which reinforced mine.

Numbers Don't Lie

Fifty righthanders were drafted and signed out of colleges in the first round, compared to 35 from the prep ranks. Forty-one (82 percent) of the college pitchers reached the majors, while 25 (71 percent) of the high schoolers made it to the top.

Filter out the fringe players, and high school righthanders have a slightly better chance of having a significant career. That's not a misprint. Eleven (31 percent) of the high schoolers became average or better major leaguers, as opposed to 15 (30 percent) of the collegians.

Colleges did yield more above-average righthanders, with five (10 percent): Billy Koch (OK, the club official might have been feeling a bit charitable), Brad Lidge, Matt Morris, Mike Mussina and Aaron Sele. Just two high schoolers (6 percent) became stars, though Kerry Wood and Roy Halladay may accomplish more than anyone in the college group with the possible exception of Mussina.

Teams do win with stars, but how big is the difference? If a club decided to take a college righty in the first round every year, it would come up with an additional blue-chip pitcher once every 25 years than if it went with a prep righthander each time.

Also contrary to popular belief, the high schoolers aren't more likely to break down than the older and more physically mature collegians. I compiled medical data and found that 18 (51 percent) of the prep righties needed an elbow or shoulder operation within five years of being drafted. The college righthanders went under the knife with arm problems nearly as often, with 23 (46 percent) requiring surgery.

'You Just Don't Know'

If I were running a draft, I'd feel a little safer going with a college righthander than a high school righty. There's less projection involved with college pitchers, and they've faced much tougher competition. No question.

But looking at recent drafts, there's no statistical basis for running away from high school righthanders. They might have paled in comparison to their college counterparts in the early days of the draft, but not any longer.

Bill James once studied the top 50 picks in the 1965-83 June regular drafts and found that college players returned twice the value of high schoolers, though that's an entirely different era from today. The single June draft as we know it today didn't exist until 1987.

I haven't studied the 1980s draft results, and it wouldn't surprise me if college righthanders left prep righties in their dust during that decade. Again, however, that was a vastly different era. Teams weren't aggressive signing premium high school picks and the NCAA had yet to institute scholarship and coaching cutbacks, so the talent level in college was at an all-time high.

This isn't the 1980s. And high school righthanders have continued to make a name for themselves in the first rounds of recent drafts.

Josh Beckett, anyone? Is there a team out there that wouldn't want Zack Greinke? Jeremy Bonderman and Adam Wainwright already have fetched a bundle on the trade market, and Chad Billingsley, Matt Cain, Clint Everts and Gavin Floyd would do the same--if their clubs would part with them.

Cain, Everts and Floyd were on hand at the Futures Game, showcasing their dazzling stuff. All were puzzled by the notion that high school righthanders would be a notably higher risk than any other demographic.

"If you're ready out of high school, go ahead and get your career started," said Everts, the fifth overall pick in 2002 draft. "There's always a chance you can go to college and you could hurt yourself, or you could get a lot better. But that's three years from now and you just don't know."

Amen. You just can't know with any degree of certainty what you'll get out of the draft. Keeping an open mind only can help.


Just wanted to quote this again so maybe some people will read it.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 12:04 AM
I guess the relevance to Bailey is was he considered to be the "best overall pitcher" in the draft. I gues not given that Sowers went higher and was more widely considered a better pitcher.
Well according to Baseball America, Bailey is a better prospect than Sowers right now.

Nugget
02-24-2006, 12:07 AM
Well according to Baseball America, Bailey is a better prospect than Sowers right now.

But according to SteelSD's criteria that doesn't count. You had to be widely considered to be the "best overall pitcher" in the draft.;)

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 12:14 AM
2:1 K:BB isn't something for massive concern?! Maybe my drive from Cincy to Philly today left me woozy and I think a 2:1 K:BB ration is acceptable... No, that's definitely not the case. A 2:1 K:BB ratio is downright horrible and you know it, so stop trying to downplay the concern that Bailey forgot how to find the strikezone from HS to A ball. Bailey WAS a bad pick for the Reds and there's no negativity about it, as you claim everyone on the board is jumping on the bad news bandwagon. We all want to see Bailey pan out and turn into something positive and useable, but the odds are against him HIGHLY.
You know what Nolan Ryans career strikeouts to walks were? 5714 to 2795. Nearly 2-1 for his entire career. But hey, I guess Nolan Ryan was pretty horrible right? Bailey is a 19 year old with a 2-1 strikeout ratio, strikes out nearly 11 guys per 9 innings, gives up less than 8 hits per 9 innings. Yeah, he walks some people. He is 19 years old! Do you want him to be a finished product by the age of 19? That is what this thing called the minor leagues is for. It is for developement. To develop into a better pitcher.

There is a ton of negativity flying all over the place about Bailey on this board. Bailey was named the 2nd best prospect in his league, struck out nearly 11 guys per 9 innings, didnt have an arm injury and yet everyone wants to downplay it all becuase "high school pitchers never pan out". College pitchers dont either. No group of players ever pans out. a handful of the 100 at each position ever make it anywhere. The stats show it. But guys want to come in here pimping this stat like its golden.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 12:16 AM
But according to SteelSD's criteria that doesn't count. You had to be widely considered to be the "best overall pitcher" in the draft.;)
Well of course not, he had to limit his critera so his point could be made that high school pitchers suck. Data shows that every player at every position has a ridiculously small chance of ever being anyone. High school pitcher or college pitchers. High school catchers or college catchers, it doesnt make a difference. It is all a crapshoot.

Nugget
02-24-2006, 12:24 AM
That's the beauty of mathematics as long as you set the boundaries right you can prove anything.

But I would agree with SteelSD and the other posters in that taking HS pitchers as opposed to college pitchers is a greater gamble. However, as long as you have scouted the player properly then you should pick the guy you think is best for you as the differential compared to upside is minimal.

And I agree that at this point in time Bailey is a good pick for the REDS, but I would like to see him go through this year and next year without serious injury before I praise the REDS system as that is also an area it has broken down recently.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 12:27 AM
Scott Kazmir. High school pitcher. at age 21 last year, his ERA was under 4. Zach Duke. High school pitcher, at the age of 22, went 8-2 last year, 1.81 ERA. So yeah, that would trump SteelsD saying they NEVER pan out.

As others have aptly noted, you need to go back and re-read the words I typed- this time with a focus on what I was saying rather than what you think I was saying. To recap:

---Begin what SteelSD posted---

If you think that's underwhelming, take a look at the list of the long-term MLB ace-level HS pitchers from the first ten picks of the first round who weren't unquestionably the best pitcher available in the draft:

1. ---Your query returned no results matching the criteria selected---

---End what SteelSD posted---

Your retort contained two pitchers (Kazmir, Duke) who didn't fit the search parameters for multiple reasons (starting with draft position) and nothing else. Not Zach Greinke- who we heard was the certain exception after small sample size success in 2004. Not even John Patterson- who took 8 years to represent something resembling success with his 2nd MLB franchise.

In short, you completely missed the two examples you should be clinging to and, instead, honed in on two guys who shouldn't be in the conversation for various reasons.

And that's one of the problems with this particular discussion. The "pro-HS" contingent tends to broadly overgeneralize and, often, completely misrepresent the opposing position.

For example, I've never once said that a team should NEVER take a HS pitcher in the first round. If a successful MLB team can afford the risk of selecting a HS arm in the first round while not over-drafting him, then go for it.

For example, the New York Yankees grabbed Philip Hughes with the 23rd pick in the first round in 2004. He's currently rated ONE slot behind Homer Bailey on Baseball America's "look Ma', I have tools" list. One slot. And you presume to think that Homer Bailey wasn't over-drafted at slot #7?

Of course you don't think that Bailey was over-drafted because he's in the Reds system and because you don't understand the context of the discussion. Again.


Well of course not, he had to limit his critera so his point could be made that high school pitchers suck. Data shows that every player at every position has a ridiculously small chance of ever being anyone. High school pitcher or college pitchers. High school catchers or college catchers, it doesnt make a difference. It is all a crapshoot.

That's a complete fabrication of what I've posted. COMPLETE fabrication.

I'm going to warn you against doing that again.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 12:39 AM
I'm going to warn you against doing that again.

Warn me of what? Having a seperate opinion of you?

M2
02-24-2006, 12:54 AM
Just wanted to quote this again so maybe some people will read it.

I read it when it first came out. If you pay close attention, Callis actually finds HS pitchers are a lousy investment and tries to cover it up by first mashing up the HS pitchers with the HS players in order to increase the HS success rate. Then he takes three slices of pitchers (not explaining his methodology or showing the complete results at any juncture), two of which show college arms to be superior investments.

If you want to see what an actual study with a clear methodology, explicit findings and no agenda looks like, take a look at the one Cyclone posted.

M2
02-24-2006, 01:11 AM
I guess the relevance to Bailey is was he considered to be the "best overall pitcher" in the draft. I gues not given that Sowers went higher and was more widely considered a better pitcher.

BA rated Bailey the 4th best pitching prospect in that draft, which is as high as he appeared on any list. He wound up being the 7th player drafted. I can tell you right now that a lot of folks thought he had no business getting ranked in front of guys like Justin Verlander, Jeremy Sowers and Thomas Diamond.

For anyone crowing about Bailey being ranked by BA at this moment in front of Sowers I guarantee you that you could put Mark Shapiro in stitches offering him Bailey for Sowers.


But I go to another question Sowers was selected by the REDS as a high schooler and for certain reasons didn't sign or was never going to sign. Now if Bailey in three years (from the draft time) was a college pitcher and was the best overall pitcher" and is signed by another team - is that a failure on the part of the REDS?

The Reds were picking 20th when they took Sowers. There's a big difference in terms of hit rates for top ten picks and 15-25 picks (except for HS arms taken in the top 10, which have a horrible hit rate). I thought the Dodgers got a good pick with Scott Elbert in 2004 at #17. He was every bit as good a prospect as Bailey (in fact he throws a good change and he's more athletic), he cost $725K less and to date he's been the superior pitcher of the two. The key is knowing when to invest in a HS arm, when that becomes a gamble worth taking.

As for what if Bailey went to college and emerged from there as a stud, well then that would be three years of exceptionally high risk that you no longer had to carry.

Cyclone792
02-24-2006, 01:15 AM
Here's a Neyer article in which he corresponds with Callis on this issue ...

http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1967044


Spurred by "The Great Debate," I've studied, once again, the relative worth of draft picks spent on high school pitchers vs. college pitchers (this seems to come up every time a scout gets locked into a room with a sabermetrician).

I decided to examine the first round of 10 drafts for each class of pitcher: 1989 through 1998 for high school pitchers, 1992 through 2001 for college pitchers. Why stagger the ranges of years? Because I wanted to compare roughly the same ages, and college pitchers are typically three years older, when drafted, than high school pitchers. Next, I entered each pitcher's major league wins, innings, earned runs, and career Win Shares (a measure of quality that adjusts for the differences in leagues and ballparks, and gives a bit of extra credit for saves).

Again, this is just the first round, but I stopped there because 1) that's where so much of the money is spent, and 2) going much deeper would have meant a few more days of data entry.

The results:

Of the 53 high school pitchers in the study, 33 (62 percent) have reached the majors. Of the 91 college pitchers, 63 (69 percent) have reached the majors. Slight edge to the collegians, but not particularly meaningful. Why? Because college pitchers are older, and thus teams are more likely to give them a quick look in their second or third (or fourth, etc.) season.

They've earned almost exactly the same number of Win Shares per pick: 16.9 for the high schoolers, 16.7 for the collegians. Even.

High school pitchers have combined for a 4.75 ERA in the majors; college pitchers have combined for a 4.46 ERA. Decent edge for the college guys (and by the way, we're talking about a lot of innings: more than 40,000 between the two groups), though the edge would be smaller if two of the high school pitchers hadn't pitched significant numbers of innings for the Rockies.

When healthy, Roy Halladay is among the game's top pitchers. Those 53 first-round picks spent on high school pitchers have resulted in two stars: Kerry Wood and Roy Halladay. The 91 first-round picks spent on college pitchers have resulted in four stars: Billy Wagner, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Matt Morris. Small (and essentially meaningless) edge for the college guys.

I also identified "solid" pitchers, those who aren't stars but have earned at least 40 career Win Shares or might reasonably be expected to do so. Of course, everybody's going to have his own idea of what "reasonably" means; I was conservative, though slightly less so when predicting the futures of the high school pitchers (with the hope of balancing any subconscious bias that might be nestling in my brain stem).

"Solid" high schoolers: Shawn Estes (59 Win Shares), Chris Carpenter (54), Steve Karsay (52), C.C. Sabathia (50), Jamey Wright (48), Jon Garland (39), Jaret Wright (37), Adam Eaton (27), and Jake Westbrook (26).

"Solid" collegians: Rick Helling (74 Win Shares), Brian Anderson (67), Eric Milton (67), Dustin Hermanson (62), Jeff Weaver (60), Billy Koch (58), Paul Shuey (52), Braden Looper (50), Kip Wells (46), Jay Powell (43), Mark Redman (43), Ben Sheets (43), Kris Benson (42), Ron Villone (41), Darren Dreifort (39), Jason Jennings (36), Mark Prior (36), and Brad Lidge (26).

That's nine solid high schoolers, and 18 solid collegians. Again, slight edge for the college guys (when you figure there were a lot more of them drafted in the first round). But scan those names again. How many of the high school "solids" might turn into stars? Three or four, at most. Now look at the college "solids" again. Some might argue that Sheets and Prior are already stars, Billy Koch certainly looked like one for a few years, and I wouldn't bet against Jeff Weaver or Brad Lidge.

These names are particularly instructive because a common refrain among scouts is, "Yeah, the high school guys are risky. But they've got a higher upside, too." Otherwise known as The Colt Griffin Argument. Except there's no evidence that high school pitchers really do have a higher upside. At least no evidence that I've seen.

I sent the results of my study to Baseball America's Jim Callis, because he and I have been engaged in a friendly debate over these issues for a few years. Here's Jim's response:

Rob, I'm not surprised by the results. I've never felt high school pitchers had higher upside (and I don't think scouts in general feel that way), but my contention has been that their comparable value would make it silly to totally ignore them in the first round, or in the rest of the draft. Looking at your data, would you conclude it makes sense to shy away from them in the first round?

To be honest, when I did my study and took it 10 rounds deep, I expected the college players to have an edge over the high schoolers. I didn't think they'd blow them away, but I thought there would be a clear advantage for the obvious reasons (they're three years older, more track record, better idea of whether they'll get hurt, faced better competition, etc.). And while I'd still slightly prefer college players because they'll get there quicker (although the last time I looked, it wasn't three years quicker) and they're a little cheaper, I just don't see the point of completely ignoring high school players.

One thing that can't be measured is "market value." When I study an issue like this, I just factor (like you did) what the player ultimately accomplishes in the majors, and I think that's the way to go. But the trade value of first-round pitchers is huge. Before Brien Taylor got hurt in his fight, the Yankees could have traded him for a ton. So even if someone were to conclude that HS first-round pitchers were a bad risk in the long term, wouldn't it still make sense to draft them from time to time and deal them in the short term while they still held their market value? I don't think I've expressed this well, but a good example is that while Beane didn't want Jeremy Bonderman, he still was able to trade him for players he did want.

Obviously, that strategy can work. However, there's still a certain amount of risk involved, because of course you can't trade a player until a year after you've drafted him, and a lot of bad things can happen in that year. Jeremy Bonderman struck out 160 batters in 145 innings in his first season with A's; if instead he'd struck out 100 batters, he wouldn't have been as valuable on the trade market. More to the point, only a calculating GM like Billy Beane would actually trade a healthy, recent first-round pick, because most organizations have a great deal of financial and emotional capital invested in those guys.

Getting at the larger issue here, I don't think the dichotomy here is high school vs. college. It's old vs. new. Let's throw all these first-rounders into one big pot and stir. OK, now we've got 144 incredibly talented young pitchers, both young (17 and 18, mostly) and old (21 and 22) when they were drafted. How many of them have pitched even 100 innings in the major leagues?

Sixty-five of them. Granted, that number's going to get bigger. But not by much. My guess is that perhaps a dozen more of the pitchers in the study will join the 100-innings group. That would make 77 pitchers: 53.4 percent.

That's just not good enough. Or maybe it is, and that 53.4 percent "success rate" – and I use that term very loosely – can't be improved by much. Jim argues that you can't ignore high school pitchers because, if you do, you'll miss Kerry Wood and Roy Halladay. Of course you will, and that's regrettable.

But maybe if you ignore high school pitchers and focus solely on college pitchers, you won't miss Tim Hudson (sixth round) and Eric Gagne (not drafted out of junior college). Jim, there's just no way around it: You're going to miss some good pitchers. The key is to figure out which strategy will result in missing the fewest of them. And it might be that ignoring high school pitchers would result in missing fewer of them. Or it might be that ignoring college pitchers would result in missing fewer of them (though most GMs simply don't have the time to wait for high school pitchers to develop). I'm not advocating one strategy or the other. I'm saying that what's happening today probably isn't optimal; if it were, half the first-round picks wouldn't essentially be wasted.

Or, to echo something Paul DePodesta likes to say, "If we weren't already doing it this way, is this how we would do it?"

M2
02-24-2006, 01:27 AM
Well of course not, he had to limit his critera so his point could be made that high school pitchers suck. Data shows that every player at every position has a ridiculously small chance of ever being anyone. High school pitcher or college pitchers. High school catchers or college catchers, it doesnt make a difference. It is all a crapshoot.

No, that's wrong and only someone who hasn't done their homework would make such an assertion.

The draft has its fault lines to be sure, but if you've got a top 10 pick then you are NOT in a crapshoot. You've got about a 50% chance of landing a solid major leaguer with a top 10 pick. And the 2002 and 2004 drafts were pretty good ones. It's not like the 2000 draft where it was just an invitation to throw away your money.

No pick is ever an automatic winner, but top 10 picks in strong drafts are the sort of thing a struggling club like the Reds can't afford to miss on.

Nugget
02-24-2006, 01:37 AM
As for what if Bailey went to college and emerged from there as a stud, well then that would be three years of exceptionally high risk that you no longer had to carry.

You wouldn't carry the risk but you also wouldn't have the reward.

There are a number of issues about drafting but also keeping HS pitchers on the right track. If the REDS succeed with Bailey then good for them and I for one would love to see it happen. It hasn't yet but then it hasn't been a complete bust yet either.

I would love for the REDS to turn Bailey into a stud (I was going to say Kerry Wood or Roy Halladay but even they haven't had longevity at the top of the Show). There is still the possibility of doing so - fingers crossed and I will be following his progress and may hopefully get to watch him make his debut with Junior in CF and hitting the HR to take the win.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 01:38 AM
Warn me of what? Having a seperate opinion of you?

You were warned.

Here's a list of the players who fit the search criteria you scoff at from 1965-2000 in choronological order:

Les Rohr
Joe Coleman
Rick James
Wayne Twitchell
Dean Burk
Michael Biko
Mike Garman
Jon Matlack
Brian Bickerton
Wayne Simpson
Pete Broberg
Randy Sterling
Robert Mayer
Mike Martin
Randy Scarbery
Jim Haller
Jay Franklin
Roy Branch
Roy Thomas
Roger Quiroga
David Sloan
Larry Christenson
Larry Payne
Lew Olsen
Tommy Boggs
Butch Edge
Larry Monroe
Mike Lentz
Richard O'Keefe
Pat Underwood
Bill Bordley
Herm Segelke
Steve Trout
Bob James
Bill Gullickson
Tim Cole
Kevin Richards
Richard Dotson
Mike Morgan
Andy Hawkins
Phil Lansford
John Bohnet
Steve Buechele
Mark Grant
Jimmy Jones
Dwight Gooden
Bob Kipper
Duane Ward
Jackie Davidson
Kent Mercker
Chris Meyers
Dan Opperman
Steve Avery
Roger Salkeld
Kurt Miller
Ron Walden
Kenny Henderson
Kirk Presley
Doug Million
Jaret Wright
John Patterson
Matt White
Geoff Goetz
Jon Garland
Josh Girdley
Bobby Bradley
Mike Stodolka
Matt Harrington
Matt Wheaton
Mark Phillips
Joe Torres

The pitchers who were left off that list because they were obviously the best arms in their respective drafts are David Clyde, Tim Belcher, Brien Taylor, Willie Banks, Kerry Wood, and Josh Beckett. I might be missing a couple there, but who cares because none of the rest panned out at the level you suggest they should be capable of. EVER.

You take a look at that list. Look REAL hard. The closest thing you get to what you demand Homer Bailey has the potential to be is Dwight Gooden. That's IT. Drafted nearly 25 years ago. One guy. Only truly dominant for two, maybe three, seasons during his career. But Gooden did get the ROY and Cy Young award during that magical 1985 season.

To put that in perspective, 1998 and 1999 garnered Mark Mulder, Ben Sheets, and Barry Zito. TWO DRAFTS. All chosen in the first ten picks. That would be enough to blow your "HS upside" argument to smithereens. But it goes further than that. It completely atomizes your position that the draft is a "crapshoot". It's not. The MLB draft is a percentage and probability game. Play the right percentages and you'll do well. Play longshots for the sake of hoping beyond hope that you'll be the guy to find the first of a list that doesn't exist and you'll lose constantly.

You need to, at some point, figure out that I don't disagree with you because you're you. I disagree with you because you're hopelessly wrong.

Nugget
02-24-2006, 01:48 AM
OK five pages and I think the last three have been kind of going on about the same thing.

SteelSD is correct to say that on average and by results if you have a draft pick in the top ten and you take a HS pitcher he is less likely to be successful than if you take any other player. The only proviso SteelSD had was that a HS pitcher isn't included in that statistic if he was widely regarded as being the "best overall pitcher" in the draft. I can seem to find whether or not Steel thought it was or was not a good idea for the REDS to draft Homer but I guess he thinks it isn't.

The question I have is that it would appear that Homer was regarded as being the best pitcher in the draft so doesn't that mean that the probability of him being successful in the show is more comparable to Wood, Halliday et al?

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 01:52 AM
Here's a Neyer article in which he corresponds with Callis on this issue ...

http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1967044

LOL.. I dont know about you, but this is what I got from it:


That's nine solid high schoolers, and 18 solid collegians. Again, slight edge for the college guys (when you figure there were a lot more of them drafted in the first round). But scan those names again. How many of the high school "solids" might turn into stars? Three or four, at most. Now look at the college "solids" again. Some might argue that Sheets and Prior are already stars, Billy Koch certainly looked like one for a few years, and I wouldn't bet against Jeff Weaver or Brad Lidge.

Koch is certainly no star.. Weaver? Meh. Look at those names again Rob Neyer. You said three or four at most HS players from your lists are stars.. but then I look at the number of college players you listed as stars and I see.. what.. three or four? SHOCKING!

Again.. all I hear is "slight edge" to the collegians.. 7 percent differences.. a 1/2 run ERA..

I hear this:


"Solid" collegians: Rick Helling (74 Win Shares), Brian Anderson (67), Eric Milton (67), Dustin Hermanson (62), Jeff Weaver (60), Billy Koch (58), Paul Shuey (52), Braden Looper (50), Kip Wells (46), Jay Powell (43), Mark Redman (43), Ben Sheets (43), Kris Benson (42), Ron Villone (41), Darren Dreifort (39), Jason Jennings (36), Mark Prior (36), and Brad Lidge (26).

And I'm underwhelmed. Helling? haha! Milton? He has 67 win shares, he MUST be good! Right? Dustin Hermanson? A valueable bullpen arm, but by no means a star. Jeff Weaver? Serviceable pitcher, but not a star. Koch? Faded into nothing.. Shuey? Injuries? Looper? LOL! Wells? Regression.. Redman, solid, but not a star. Benson? Please. Villone? Love the guy, but no star. Dreifort? ouch!@ jennings? Coors effect.

Sheets, Lidge, Prior.. maybe Weaver. Thats about it. I dont see what the big fuss is about. Look, I understand that drafting a collegian is considered a safter risk, but there are still risks on both sides of the coin. And its just MY personal philosphy, but if I'm drafting, I draft for the best overall talent on the board.. regardless of position..regardless of college vs highschool, and regardless of timetable. I want VALUE - you draft for talent.. not for need.

Now, if Homer Bailey was the best value at his pick, is certainly debateable M2.. but to write him off, simply becuase he's a highschool arm, drafted in the top 10 picks, is absolutely absurd in my mind. The Reds obviously saw something in him, as did just about every other scout on the planet.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 01:55 AM
The draft has its fault lines to be sure, but if you've got a top 10 pick then you are NOT in a crapshoot. You've got about a 50% chance of landing a solid major leaguer with a top 10 pick.
1995-1999 Top 10 Draft picks who turned into a solid major leaguer.

1995
1. Darin Erstad
3. Jose Cruz
4. Kerry Wood
8. Todd Helton
9. Geoff Jenkins

Only two of which have ever been Stars. Hardly solid top 10 drafting.

1996
1. Kris Benson
2. Travis Lee
3. Braden Looper
5. John Patterson
9. Mark Kotsay
10. Eric Chavez

I would say Chavez is the best out of all of those guys, but not a single Star in the group. Not the best top 10 draft ever.

1997

2. J.D. Drew - But Drew never signed
3. Troy Glaus
5. Vernon Wells
10. Jon Garland

3 out of 10 turned out to be decently good players.

1998
1. Pat Burrell
2. Mark Mulder
3. Corey Patterson
5. J.D. Drew
7. Austin Kearns
8. Felipe Lopez

I guess you can count Kearns and Patterson....but again, aside from Mulder, have any of them ever been Stars?

1999
2. Josh Beckett
9. Barry Zito
10. Ben Sheets

Three guys there....all pitchers.

For having a shot at all of the guys listed, it seems nearly every team missed out. So yea, it is a crapshoot.




No pick is ever an automatic winner, but top 10 picks in strong drafts are the sort of thing a struggling club like the Reds can't afford to miss on.

You make absolutely no sense. Bailey is already labeled as a miss? Are you kidding me?

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 02:01 AM
OK five pages and I think the last three have been kind of going on about the same thing.

SteelSD is correct to say that on average and by results if you have a draft pick in the top ten and you take a HS pitcher he is less likely to be successful than if you take any other player. The only proviso SteelSD had was that a HS pitcher isn't included in that statistic if he was widely regarded as being the "best overall pitcher" in the draft. I can seem to find whether or not Steel thought it was or was not a good idea for the REDS to draft Homer but I guess he thinks it isn't.

The question I have is that it would appear that Homer was regarded as being the best pitcher in the draft so doesn't that mean that the probability of him being successful in the show is more comparable to Wood, Halliday et al?

Homer Bailey was NOT regarded as the best overall pitcher in the 2004 draft. Not by anyone using any criteria.

What folks need to do is separate the concept of "Never draft a HS arm" from "Never over-draft a HS arm".

That's why you see such a low success rate with those kind of pitchers- they're consistently over-drafted by organizations who really don't know any better. Furthermore, it IS about need.

The Yankees can afford to draft a Philip Hughes late in the first round because they don't have the immediate need at the MLB level and realize they can swap Hughes to better the MLB product if need be. The Dodgers (with DePo running the show no less) can draft a HS arm in the middle of the first round because quickly-advancing starting pitching isn't a desperate need.

Spending that pick on Homer Bailey was a stupid idea. Pure dumb. Hope he pans out. Still pure dumb.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 02:13 AM
You take a look at that list. Look REAL hard. The closest thing you get to what you demand Homer Bailey has the potential to be is Dwight Gooden. That's IT. Drafted nearly 25 years ago. One guy. Only truly dominant for two, maybe three, seasons during his career. But Gooden did get the ROY and Cy Young award during that magical 1985 season.
From the age of 19 until he was 28, Gooden racked up 154 wins, 81 losses, that is a .655 winning percentage. He had a 3.03 ERA over that time, while striking out 7.76 batters per 9. I would say that would put him at or near your #1 starter.
The point that you arent getting is why are you limiting this to just top 10 picks? Why not compare Homer Bailey to all high school pitchers drafted? Becuase he signed for a little bit more money than others did? Thats make no sense. Why couldnt Bailey, come to fruition like other drafted high school pitchers? Is it becuase he was a top 10 pick rather than a second round pick? If Bailey was taken in the 2nd round, does that increase the odds that he will succeed? Of course not. Your arguement does not make sense.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 02:14 AM
Homer Bailey was NOT regarded as the best overall pitcher in the 2004 draft. Not by anyone using any criteria.

What folks need to do is separate the concept of "Never draft a HS arm" from "Never over-draft a HS arm".

Whoops...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/2004draft/top200.html

Homer Bailey was ranked as the 6th best overall talent in the draft, that includes both positional and pitching prospects. Out of pitchers, he was the 4th best overall rated talent heading into the draft.

Who was ahead of him?

1. Jared Weaver - Reds wouldn't dream of it, and apparently neither would 13 other teams. But the big money angels would..
2. Jeff Niemann - Taken ahead of the Reds.. uh oh.
3. Phil Humber - Whoops, taken by the Mets ahead of the Reds..

So, of all the highest rated pitchers left on the board - it was Homer or Weaver. I know which one the Reds take, and it aint the hard to sign Weaver. Just Imagine if the reds COULDN'T agree to terms with weaver after they did the same with Sowers. Reds fans would be livid.

So, you can talk all you want about how no one rated Homer as one of the top pitchers in the draft Steele, but it just aint so. BTW, Verlander was ranked behind bailey due to his command issues. Funny how things work out isn't it?

At the pick, #7 - Bailey was at least by one source, and a pretty reputable one although I know a lot of you stat heavy guys dont like it - ranked as one of the top overall talents and pitchers in the draft. And when it came time to draft - m2 - aside from Jeff Weaver who represented a debacle - Homer was certainly one of the best there. Should the Reds have gone with Verlander? At the time he's a bigger question than Homer. has the arm, but no control.

Hindsight is always 20/20.. but dont go spitting crap that just aint true Steele.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 02:18 AM
Homer Bailey was NOT regarded as the best overall pitcher in the 2004 draft. Not by anyone using any criteria.

What folks need to do is separate the concept of "Never draft a HS arm" from "Never over-draft a HS arm".

That's why you see such a low success rate with those kind of pitchers- they're consistently over-drafted by organizations who really don't know any better. Furthermore, it IS about need.

The Yankees can afford to draft a Philip Hughes late in the first round because they don't have the immediate need at the MLB level and realize they can swap Hughes to better the MLB product if need be. The Dodgers (with DePo running the show no less) can draft a HS arm in the middle of the first round because quickly-advancing starting pitching isn't a desperate need.

Spending that pick on Homer Bailey was a stupid idea. Pure dumb. Hope he pans out. Still pure dumb.

So getting a 15 game winner 2 years sooner is better than waiting 2 years and getting a 20 game winner? I understand that its been a while since the Reds have done much, but come on now.
You see such low success rate of ALL types of pitchers. High school or college. Plain and simple.
I also find it dumb how you say that if Homer Bailey pans out it was still a dumb draft pick. How on earth would it be a dumb thing if he pans out? That makes absolutely no sense.

M2
02-24-2006, 02:28 AM
You wouldn't carry the risk but you also wouldn't have the reward.

There are a number of issues about drafting but also keeping HS pitchers on the right track. If the REDS succeed with Bailey then good for them and I for one would love to see it happen. It hasn't yet but then it hasn't been a complete bust yet either.

I would love for the REDS to turn Bailey into a stud (I was going to say Kerry Wood or Roy Halladay but even they haven't had longevity at the top of the Show). There is still the possibility of doing so - fingers crossed and I will be following his progress and may hopefully get to watch him make his debut with Junior in CF and hitting the HR to take the win.

As Steel noted, the reward for guys with Bailey's profile has been 0%. You've got absolute studs like Wood and Beckett and Kazmir and then you've got a layer of highly-touted failures. It's not until you get a little lower to guys like Halladay (taken 17th behind such legends as Andy Yount and Joe Fontenot) where you start to see some successes again. But there does seem to be a definitive mirage layer in there.

Why do guys like Josh Girdley, Bobby Bradley, Ty Howington, Jason Stumm, J.M. Gold, Geoff Goetz, Matt White, Bobby Seay, Andy Yount, Doug Million, Jayson Peterson, Kirk Presley, Matt Drews, Brien Taylor, Kenny Henderson, Tyrone Hill, Kurt Miller and Ron Walden never make a dent?

All those guys were prep arms who went in the top 15 in the 1990s.

Then you've got your top 15 prep arms who never did anything worthwhile for the teams that drafted them like Todd Van Poppel, Todd Ritchie, Shawn Estes, John Patterson, Adam Eaton (who arguably never much helped his second club either) and Jon Garland. None of those guys fetched anything worthwhile in trade either.

Then you've got two guys who did a little for the clubs that drafted them, but not much, taking until their late 20s with other organizations to realize something akin to their original potential: Chris Carpenter and Jaret Wright. Both of those guys got cut loose from the clubs that drafted them after suffering major injuries.

Then you've got Kerry Wood and Josh Beckett. That's two top 15 prep arms for an entire decade who actually delivered big for the clubs that drafted them. 28 didn't, two did.

And Wood and Beckett were considered hands-down the best pitchers in their drafts. To be fair, so were Taylor and Van Poppel. So you've got a 50% hit rate on the megastuds and 0% (for the drafting team) on the other 26.

Like you, I'm hoping Homer breaks the trend, but that's what the Reds bought into when they drafted him. Those are the odds they played.

I will say this, it looks like teams are smarter about first round pitchers (HS or college) than they were in the early '90s ... at least the late '90s netted better results on both fronts and we'll see if the aughts follow suit.

ochre
02-24-2006, 02:39 AM
Whoops...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/2004draft/top200.html

Homer Bailey was ranked as the 6th best overall talent in the draft, that includes both positional and pitching prospects. Out of pitchers, he was the 4th best overall rated talent heading into the draft.

Who was ahead of him?

1. Jared Weaver - Reds wouldn't dream of it, and apparently neither would 13 other teams. But the big money angels would..
2. Jeff Niemann - Taken ahead of the Reds.. uh oh.
3. Phil Humber - Whoops, taken by the Mets ahead of the Reds..

So, of all the highest rated pitchers left on the board - it was Homer or Weaver. I know which one the Reds take, and it aint the hard to sign Weaver. Just Imagine if the reds COULDN'T agree to terms with weaver after they did the same with Sowers. Reds fans would be livid.

So, you can talk all you want about how no one rated Homer as one of the top pitchers in the draft Steele, but it just aint so. BTW, Verlander was ranked behind bailey due to his command issues. Funny how things work out isn't it?

At the pick, #7 - Bailey was at least by one source, and a pretty reputable one although I know a lot of you stat heavy guys dont like it - ranked as one of the top overall talents and pitchers in the draft. And when it came time to draft - m2 - aside from Jeff Weaver who represented a debacle - Homer was certainly one of the best there. Should the Reds have gone with Verlander? At the time he's a bigger question than Homer. has the arm, but no control.

Hindsight is always 20/20.. but dont go spitting crap that just aint true Steele.
for the record, "one of the best" != "the best".

M2
02-24-2006, 02:42 AM
For having a shot at all of the guys listed, it seems nearly every team missed out. So yea, it is a crapshoot.

You need to learn how to do basic math. I said roughly 50% of the top 10 work out and in the five drafts you picked you listed 24 picks that were placed on solid players. That's a 48% hit rate and a 1-in-2 chance of success is no crapshoot. Though not knowing the difference is what separates the good teams from the others.


You make absolutely no sense. Bailey is already labeled as a miss? Are you kidding me?

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was "No pick is ever an automatic winner, but top 10 picks in strong drafts are the sort of thing a struggling club like the Reds can't afford to miss on." That does not mean Homer Bailey is already a miss. It does mean that knowing the odds that are stacked against Bailey, it was a dumb pick and now we're hoping for a longshot to pay off. We're left with wishing on good things to come from bad policy.

ochre
02-24-2006, 02:42 AM
The thing that seems to be overlooked here is the condition of the Reds major league product (the only thing that really matters in any discussion). They have a solid offense. 0 pitching. No high level prospects, marketable, or otherwise.

Obvious answer to that is to draft a high school pitcher that is 4+ years away from helping the team? 3 or so if you plan to spin him?

When examined from that angle, I'm not sure it matters what Bailey's ceiling might be. The Reds need(ed) something a bit more immediate.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 02:45 AM
From the age of 19 until he was 28, Gooden racked up 154 wins, 81 losses, that is a .655 winning percentage. He had a 3.03 ERA over that time, while striking out 7.76 batters per 9. I would say that would put him at or near your #1 starter.

Winning percentage? A 7.76 K rate? Are those the straws you're grasping?

Dwight Gooden posted exactly two seasons EVER where he posted 200 IP and an ERA+ of 115 or higher while pitching in a pitcher's park. The league average ERA until Gooden's 28-year old season fluctuated between 3.21 and 3.93 and was above 3.60 exactly four times during that span. It appears that you don't understand that context of Gooden's performance.

But hey, if it gives you warm fuzzies to consider Gooden your "long-term ace-level starter" (a title you now seem unwilling to assign to him), then go for it. Y'know what that means? It means that you'd have a hit rate of about 1.4%. Wow. Good odds there. One guy in 40 years who you don't even seem to feel comfortable identifying as that one guy.


The point that you arent getting is why are you limiting this to just top 10 picks? Why not compare Homer Bailey to all high school pitchers drafted? Becuase he signed for a little bit more money than others did? Thats make no sense. Why couldnt Bailey, come to fruition like other drafted high school pitchers? Is it becuase he was a top 10 pick rather than a second round pick? If Bailey was taken in the 2nd round, does that increase the odds that he will succeed? Of course not. Your arguement does not make sense.

Again we see your lack of ability to understand context. I have, quite clearly, layed out the who, when, and why for you. Multiple times. In response, you've done nothing but attempt to misrepresent my position and have demonstrated a clear unwillingness to consider factual material that compromises your own position.

Your issue isn't that you can't understand the point- it's that you're unwilling to consider the reality of what history is telling us. I've plainly stated what history tells us. In fact, I spelled it out for you in no uncertain terms. Gave every example in the history of the draft. There's no way you could misunderstand a word I've written.

The key word is "over-drafted". I'd think you might glean a bit of insight from BA's list considering that a player (Philip Hughes) who was taken 23rd in the SAME ROUND as Homer Bailey is ranked right there with Bailey. But noooo. Instead, you sit back, attempt to change the context of the discussion in the hopes that you can somehow demonstrate that Homer Bailey is the most likely of the unlikely in the history of the draft to begin a list that doesn't exist.

Cyclone792
02-24-2006, 02:47 AM
So, you can talk all you want about how no one rated Homer as one of the top pitchers in the draft Steele, but it just aint so. BTW, Verlander was ranked behind bailey due to his command issues. Funny how things work out isn't it?

At the pick, #7 - Bailey was at least by one source, and a pretty reputable one although I know a lot of you stat heavy guys dont like it - ranked as one of the top overall talents and pitchers in the draft. And when it came time to draft - m2 - aside from Jeff Weaver who represented a debacle - Homer was certainly one of the best there. Should the Reds have gone with Verlander? At the time he's a bigger question than Homer. has the arm, but no control.

Hindsight is always 20/20.. but dont go spitting crap that just aint true Steele.




Minor League Statistics, A-Ball and Higher

Player K/BB K/9 BB/9 HR/9

Bailey 2.02 10.85 5.38 0.43
Verlander 5.23 9.56 1.97 0.30


Verlander, out of college, was drafted 2nd overall by Detroit. Sure looks like a darn good pick to me, and may the Tigers consider themselves fortunate that they ignored BA's advice. Verlander's supposed "command problem" in college wasn't any worse than Mark Prior in 2000 at USC. Homer Bailey, on the other hand, has seen his supposed "top talent" turn into a 5.38 BB/9 ratio in low A ball.

The most telling stat? Verlander has already reached the Majors, while Homer Bailey should be spending the entire 2006 season in high A ball.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 02:51 AM
Whoops...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/2004draft/top200.html

Homer Bailey was ranked as the 6th best overall talent in the draft, that includes both positional and pitching prospects. Out of pitchers, he was the 4th best overall rated talent heading into the draft.

Who was ahead of him?

1. Jared Weaver - Reds wouldn't dream of it, and apparently neither would 13 other teams. But the big money angels would..
2. Jeff Niemann - Taken ahead of the Reds.. uh oh.
3. Phil Humber - Whoops, taken by the Mets ahead of the Reds..

So, of all the highest rated pitchers left on the board - it was Homer or Weaver. I know which one the Reds take, and it aint the hard to sign Weaver. Just Imagine if the reds COULDN'T agree to terms with weaver after they did the same with Sowers. Reds fans would be livid.

So, you can talk all you want about how no one rated Homer as one of the top pitchers in the draft Steele, but it just aint so. BTW, Verlander was ranked behind bailey due to his command issues. Funny how things work out isn't it?

At the pick, #7 - Bailey was at least by one source, and a pretty reputable one although I know a lot of you stat heavy guys dont like it - ranked as one of the top overall talents and pitchers in the draft. And when it came time to draft - m2 - aside from Jeff Weaver who represented a debacle - Homer was certainly one of the best there. Should the Reds have gone with Verlander? At the time he's a bigger question than Homer. has the arm, but no control.

Hindsight is always 20/20.. but dont go spitting crap that just aint true Steele.

Not true? The only thing that rings untrue here is your misrepresentation of my position. I'm getting AWFULLY tired of that.

Was Homer Bailey the obvious best pitcher in the 2004 MLB entry draft?

No.

Period. Exclamation point.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 02:56 AM
for the record, "one of the best" != "the best".

I'm sorry, but I'm sure if he's ranked at the 4th by Baseball America that there were SOME teams that thought he was THE BEST... it depends on how you value prospects, which is all subjective in the first place.

He was THE BEST AVAILABLE when it was the Reds turn to pick, aside from Weaver, who I would argue would have been even a riskier proposition for a team like the Reds.

And, unlike M2 stated, according to this list, he was NOT overdrafted, as he was by this list the concensus 6th best talent in the draft, and we picked.. what.. 7th?

You can't have it both ways. You want the Reds to take pitching, but not THE BEST talent for the "sure thing" - which as we all know is still by no means of the defenitio a sure thing. Who would you have them take?

Verlander? Taken at the top. Humber? Taken before the reds. Niemann. Also gone. Sowers? 1 pick to late. Townsend? perhaps... but man what a pissed off Reds Nation we'd have after he re-entered the '05 draft. Diamond? Call me unimpressed at this stage of his career. And rated by BA as lower than Bailey.

Aside from Jared Weaver, Homer Bailey was THE BEST PITCHER AVAILABLE according to Baseball America. I don't think the Reds drafted dumb. They took a consensus TOP TALENT in the draft.. And they were lucky enough that talent happened to fall within one of their primary needs - pitching. You draft for talent, not need. And obviously, at the time, Reds brass felt Bailey represented the top talent available when it came time to pick. I dont disagree with this assesment.

And just to point one more thing out.. you talk about injury risks.. well lets look at the "big 3" from rice.. ALL of them now have some type of question mark related to their respective arms. Shoulder issues, elbow issues, what have you... Injury knows NO bias.. it will strike you if you're a collegian level athlete, or if you're a high school athlete.. it will strike you if you're a positional prospect, and it will strike you if you're a pitching prospect. It does not matter. Injuries are part of this game - it happens to anyone. At least Homer has been relatively healthy compared to every college pitcher aside from Verlander who was taken ahead of him.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 02:57 AM
The most telling stat? Verlander has already reached the Majors, while Homer Bailey should be spending the entire 2006 season in high A ball.

Verlander is much older than Bailey, making it to the majors sooner is hardly a relevant arguement, especially when considering Bailey is just 19 years old.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 02:58 AM
I also find it dumb how you say that if Homer Bailey pans out it was still a dumb draft pick. How on earth would it be a dumb thing if he pans out? That makes absolutely no sense.

Let's say you're playing blackjack...

You have an 18. The dealer has a 6 showing. You decide to hit on the 18 anyway. You get a 3 to win.

Do you really think that the positive result of that decision means that said decision was smart?

No. Of course not. You did a dumb thing regardless of the outcome. Even you should be able to figure that out.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:00 AM
The thing that seems to be overlooked here is the condition of the Reds major league product (the only thing that really matters in any discussion). They have a solid offense. 0 pitching. No high level prospects, marketable, or otherwise.

Obvious answer to that is to draft a high school pitcher that is 4+ years away from helping the team? 3 or so if you plan to spin him?

When examined from that angle, I'm not sure it matters what Bailey's ceiling might be. The Reds need(ed) something a bit more immediate.

I disagree. Winning teams are winners because they take the best overall talent.

Would you take LA's farm system? How about the Angels? How about Arizona's? How about Milwuakee's? They have a blend of both highschool and collegiate talent. They did not draft for need, they drafted best overall talent. These are teams that look to be strong for a long time to come. They can go out and get that ace becuase they have the pieces to trade.

Sorry, but I'm with the camp that you draft for talent, not for need. The Reds shouldn't draft someone looking at how they can help the club immedietly. Look what happened with Ryan Wagner.

You consisitently draft the top talent available to you, and pretty soon your farm system does a fine job of supplanting your needs at the ML level and you dont have to look at the draft to do it. Thats the problem with the Reds though, they haven't been anything close to good consistently with the draft. JB was poor at drafting.. Obie was miles ahead of JB IMO, and thats really not saying much... more of a knock on how pathetic JB left the state of the Reds in.

M2
02-24-2006, 03:03 AM
Now, if Homer Bailey was the best value at his pick, is certainly debateable M2.. but to write him off, simply becuase he's a highschool arm, drafted in the top 10 picks, is absolutely absurd in my mind. The Reds obviously saw something in him, as did just about every other scout on the planet.

The Reds have seen a lot of stuff in all sorts of failed players. I know the odds and the only thing that strikes me as absurd is that a withering franchise like the Reds would choose to buck them.

BTW, on some of the guys you rather hastily dismissed:

From 1998-2001 Helling topped 215 IP every season while going 61-42 for the Rangers.

From 1997-99 Hermanson put up three quality years as a starter with the Expos, followed it up with two mediocre years as a starter and last year played a significant role for the World Series winner.

Milton did all right for the Twins before his knee problem. More importantly he helped fetch the leadoff hitter for the Yankee juggernaut of 1998-2000. I'm guessing New York wound up pleased with the pick.

Benson delivered two quality seasons for the Pirates before his arm troubles. He's now pitched over 1,000 IP in his career and still boasts an above average career ERA.

Talk all you want about drafting stars. Problem is they aren't coming from prep arms on high draft picks. So if that was your aim then Bailey's coming from the least likely pile. That other groups, on top of delivering better star power, also deliver more consistent value only works in their favor. Truth of the matter is, Homer Bailey will do well to have a career as good as Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Eric Milton or Kris Benson.

IMO, it's an odd stance for a beggar to turn down a sandwich because he thinks there might be a steak buried in the mud.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:04 AM
The key word is "over-drafted". I'd think you might glean a bit of insight from BA's list considering that a player (Philip Hughes) who was taken 23rd in the SAME ROUND as Homer Bailey is ranked right there with Bailey. But noooo. Instead, you sit back, attempt to change the context of the discussion in the hopes that you can somehow demonstrate that Homer Bailey is the most likely of the unlikely in the history of the draft to begin a list that doesn't exist.

Right there with Bailey?

Ranked 8 spots below Bailey in the top 100 pitchers. Not exactly "right there"

Ochre, if Bailey is Right there with Hughes, I dont think I was grasping as saying Bailey was "right there" with the top pitching prospects of Weaver, Niemann, and Humber..

Steele, I'm trying to understand why you are limiting sample size to the top 10 picks in a draft. Why the limits?

Its an honest question, I'm just trying to understand, so if you could address that I would appreciate it.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 03:09 AM
Aside from Jared Weaver, Homer Bailey was THE BEST PITCHER AVAILABLE according to Baseball America. I don't think the Reds drafted dumb.

Listen to yourself. Really.

Except for taking a better pitcher who was closer to the Show, the Reds drafted Homer Bailey.

"Obvious best arm in the draft" doesn't mean "best arm available at your selection", nor does it mean "best arm available except for the better arm(s) available".

Think about it.


You consisitently draft the top talent available to you, and pretty soon...

Stop right there. "Pretty soon"? There's nothing at all "pretty soon" about drafting HS arms. NADA.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:09 AM
Minor League Statistics, A-Ball and Higher

Player K/BB K/9 BB/9 HR/9

Bailey 2.02 10.85 5.38 0.43
Verlander 5.23 9.56 1.97 0.30


Verlander, out of college, was drafted 2nd overall by Detroit. Sure looks like a darn good pick to me, and may the Tigers consider themselves fortunate that they ignored BA's advice. Verlander's supposed "command problem" in college wasn't any worse than Mark Prior in 2000 at USC. Homer Bailey, on the other hand, has seen his supposed "top talent" turn into a 5.38 BB/9 ratio in low A ball.

The most telling stat? Verlander has already reached the Majors, while Homer Bailey should be spending the entire 2006 season in high A ball.

Hindsight.. Hindsight.. HINDSIGHT!!! :)


Scouting Report: Verlander might have the best pure stuff in the draft, and looks like a good bet to go in the first three picks. Dozens of scouts, crosscheckers and scouting directors turned out in mid-April when Verlander faced off against Justin Orenduff, and Verlander was dominant as he punched out 16 batters and flashed consistent mid-90s heat. The dominance continued all spring, with a 7-5, 3.19 record and 145 strikeouts in 99 innings. He broke his own Old Dominion season strikeout record of 139, set last year, and his 421 (and counting) career strikeouts are a school and Colonial Athletic Association record. He has a lean, lanky frame with long arms and legs, and room for added strength. He has a tall, upright delivery with a lighting-quick arm, and a fastball that tops out at 99 mph with hard run and sink. He complements it with a curveball that has good late depth and sharp bite, and a deceptive changeup that has fastball arm speed and late fade and sink. Verlander's biggest obstacle is his lack of command. He rushes his body and lands on a stiff front side as he struggles to repeat his delivery.

And no mention of control issues with Homer


Scouting Report: Bailey and Maryland righthander Nick Adenhart were running neck and neck as the top prep prospects in the draft before Adenhart succumbed to elbow problems, leaving Bailey as the undisputed class among the nation's high school crop. Even with an increasing bias against prep righties in the first round‹only two went that high in 2003‹Bailey is certain to be selected with one of the first 5-10 choices. A University of Texas recruit, he threw 94 mph in his first scrimmage this spring and has been lights out every time he has taken the mound. He was 12-1, 0.39 on the season with 10 walks and 168 strikeouts in 72 innings. He has the best fastball (92-96 mph), the best righthanded breaking ball (a hard downer curveball), the best command and the most polish among high schoolers in the draft. He still has plenty of room for projection at 6-foot-4 and 185 pounds, and though he throws effortlessly the ball explodes out of his hand. Bailey will need to improve his changeup and get stronger, but that's true of almost every prep pitcher.

Like I said, its funny how things work out.. thats why MLB teams have scouts. The Tigers obviously felt Verlander was a good gamble, and they won. I still think the Reds COULD NOT have picked a better pitcher at the time their slot was up, based on all scouting reports GOING INTO THE DRAFT. you can look back all you want, but put yourself in that moment, at that time. Bailey was the consensus best available pitcher on the board, aside from jared weaver, at the time the Reds went on the clock. Thats the facts.

Whats further, I would EXPECT Verlander to be MLB or close to ready, given that he pitched in college. Bailey, and its understandable, is going to need some development time in the majors.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 03:11 AM
Let's say you're playing blackjack...

You have an 18. The dealer has a 6 showing. You decide to hit on the 18 anyway. You get a 3 to win.

Do you really think that the positive result of that decision means that said decision was smart?

No. Of course not. You did a dumb thing regardless of the outcome. Even you should be able to figure that out.

That was the worst attempt at making some correlation to something I have ever seen. A 3, in that situation, doesnt mean you win always though. The dealer could still hit 21, since you didnt have BJ, you dont get paid for hitting 21. You have to score higher than the dealer.

How that relates to drafting a 21 year old college pitcher over an 18 year old high school pitcher, I have no idea.

I mean lets take your BJ scenario.
You have 18, dealer has a 6 showing. You hit and get that 3. There is your 21. The dealer flips over a 3. Dealer now has 9. Next card is a 2. There is 11, dealer hits again. King. There is 21. You dont win. Lets say you didnt hit that 3, and stayed with 18. Dealer flips over a 3 to go with that 6. There is 9. Hits, there is your 3 you didnt get. there is 12. Here is that 2 now, dealer hits 14. Here comes that king. Bust, you rake in your winnings.

Does that relate to baseball at all? Of course not. But it debunks your theory of blackjack.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:11 AM
Not true? The only thing that rings untrue here is your misrepresentation of my position. I'm getting AWFULLY tired of that.

Was Homer Bailey the obvious best pitcher in the 2004 MLB entry draft?

No.

Period. Exclamation point.

LOL.. again, you say he's not the best, yet you insist on grouping Phil Hughes with Bailey, as not being far apart, when they're a lot farther apart than Bailey from the top trio.. I dont understand how you can have it both ways Steele.

Let me ask you this:

Who, was the best consesus talent left on the draft board, at the time the Reds selected 7th overall in the 2004 draft? Who should the Reds have selected?

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 03:14 AM
Right there with Bailey?

Ranked 8 spots below Bailey in the top 100 pitchers. Not exactly "right there"

Ochre, if Bailey is Right there with Hughes, I dont think I was grasping as saying Bailey was "right there" with the top pitching prospects of Weaver, Niemann, and Humber..

Steele, I'm trying to understand why you are limiting sample size to the top 10 picks in a draft. Why the limits?

Its an honest question, I'm just trying to understand, so if you could address that I would appreciate it.

Go to the link dd posted to start this thread off. Here, I'll re-post it for you. check out who #38 and #39 are.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/060223top100c.html

And the reason we're limiting sample size to the top 10 picks in a draft is because history tells us that's where HS pitchers are most likely to be over-drafted.

M2
02-24-2006, 03:17 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm sure if he's ranked at the 4th by Baseball America that there were SOME teams that thought he was THE BEST... it depends on how you value prospects, which is all subjective in the first place.

BA overvalued him, like it always overvalues prep arms. And he was their 4th ranked PITCHER, not their 4th ranked prospect.


He was THE BEST AVAILABLE when it was the Reds turn to pick, aside from Weaver, who I would argue would have been even a riskier proposition for a team like the Reds.

Actually there were three guys on the BA list ranked in front of him still on the board when he got drafted.


I don't think the Reds drafted dumb. They took a consensus TOP TALENT in the draft.. And they were lucky enough that talent happened to fall within one of their primary needs - pitching. You draft for talent, not need. And obviously, at the time, Reds brass felt Bailey represented the top talent available when it came time to pick. I dont disagree with this assesment.

You realize you're throwing your lot in with a regime that just got sacked due to its gross incompetence, right? Forget for a moment that BA's success rate on identifying successful teenage arms is putrid, you're now claiming the talent assessment of the folks who brought you the 2004-2005 Reds, folks who would have done well to achieve at the "dumb" level is a mark in Bailey's favor. What those folks "felt" doesn't strike me a very good supporting evidence.

M2
02-24-2006, 03:18 AM
Verlander is much older than Bailey, making it to the majors sooner is hardly a relevant arguement, especially when considering Bailey is just 19 years old.

Verlander also has the added bonus of being a far more awesome pitcher.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:20 AM
The Reds have seen a lot of stuff in all sorts of failed players. I know the odds and the only thing that strikes me as absurd is that a withering franchise like the Reds would choose to buck them.

BTW, on some of the guys you rather hastily dismissed:

From 1998-2001 Helling topped 215 IP every season while going 61-42 for the Rangers.

From 1997-99 Hermanson put up three quality years as a starter with the Expos, followed it up with two mediocre years as a starter and last year played a significant role for the World Series winner.

Milton did all right for the Twins before his knee problem. More importantly he helped fetch the leadoff hitter for the Yankee juggernaut of 1998-2000. I'm guessing New York wound up pleased with the pick.

Benson delivered two quality seasons for the Pirates before his arm troubles. He's now pitched over 1,000 IP in his career and still boasts an above average career ERA.

Talk all you want about drafting stars. Problem is they aren't coming from prep arms on high draft picks. So if that was your aim then Bailey's coming from the least likely pile. That other groups, on top of delivering better star power, also deliver more consistent value only works in their favor. Truth of the matter is, Homer Bailey will do well to have a career as good as Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Eric Milton or Kris Benson.

IMO, it's an odd stance for a beggar to turn down a sandwich because he thinks there might be a steak buried in the mud.

Oh Rick Helling.. that of a 4.69 career ERA and 1.38 WHIP. I see year upon year of 4+ ERA. The great one who has about a 2:1 career K/BB ratio, that which Homer is getting beat up about.. Sorry if that doesn't excite me in the least bit. And we all know how relevant W/L are to a pitcher's worth right? Otherwise we'd have a gem in Eric Milton, the vet who "knows how to win".

And that Kris Benson - the guy who's NEVER lived up to expectations.. the guy who's been injured more times than I know about.. he of a career 4.25 ERA and 1.37 WHIP.

Talk all you want about their careers.. they're servicable, but they're not anything that colors me impressed.


IMO, it's an odd stance for a beggar to turn down a sandwich because he thinks there might be a steak buried in the mud.

Interesting way to look at it, but I dont think thats entirely fair. I dont think the Reds were seeing mud and thinking "hey, they're might be steak under there.." .. They were already seeing the steak...

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 03:20 AM
That was the worst attempt at making some correlation to something I have ever seen. A 3, in that situation, doesnt mean you win always though. The dealer could still hit 21, since you didnt have BJ, you dont get paid for hitting 21. You have to score higher than the dealer.

How that relates to drafting a 21 year old college pitcher over an 18 year old high school pitcher, I have no idea.

I mean lets take your BJ scenario.
You have 18, dealer has a 6 showing. You hit and get that 3. There is your 21. The dealer flips over a 3. Dealer now has 9. Next card is a 2. There is 11, dealer hits again. King. There is 21. You dont win. Lets say you didnt hit that 3, and stayed with 18. Dealer flips over a 3 to go with that 6. There is 9. Hits, there is your 3 you didnt get. there is 12. Here is that 2 now, dealer hits 14. Here comes that king. Bust, you rake in your winnings.

Does that relate to baseball at all? Of course not. But it debunks your theory of blackjack.

Well, no. What it tells us is that you shouldn't ever play blackjack.

It also gives us a clear picture that you don't have so much as a middling understanding of something we call "probability" or how it relates to productive decision-making.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:22 AM
Listen to yourself. Really.

Except for taking a better pitcher who was closer to the Show, the Reds drafted Homer Bailey.

"Obvious best arm in the draft" doesn't mean "best arm available at your selection", nor does it mean "best arm available except for the better arm(s) available".

Think about it.



Stop right there. "Pretty soon"? There's nothing at all "pretty soon" about drafting HS arms. NADA.

There is a reason Jared Weaver lasted as far down as he did.. even though he was the consensus best pitcher in the draft. I dont think the Reds were stupid for passing him up. So take him out of the equation.. Yes, the Reds drafted the best pitcher AND the best talent available to them in the draft..

"pretty soon" is a relative term. that might mean 2 years for you... but I'm a patient man. I recognize that baseball is truely in every sense of the word, a "timeless" sport. Things do NOT happen overnight in this game, the sooner you accept that the better. A draft can turn a franchise around in 3.. 4 years alone if done right. See the Milwuakee Brewers...

Cyclone792
02-24-2006, 03:25 AM
Hindsight.. Hindsight.. HINDSIGHT!!! :)

And no mention of control issues with Homer

Like I said, its funny how things work out.. thats why MLB teams have scouts. The Tigers obviously felt Verlander was a good gamble, and they won. I still think the Reds COULD NOT have picked a better pitcher at the time their slot was up, based on all scouting reports GOING INTO THE DRAFT. you can look back all you want, but put yourself in that moment, at that time. Bailey was the consensus best available pitcher on the board, aside from jared weaver, at the time the Reds went on the clock. Thats the facts.

Whats further, I would EXPECT Verlander to be MLB or close to ready, given that he pitched in college. Bailey, and its understandable, is going to need some development time in the majors.

I know where each player was ranked before the draft. I know where each player was drafted. I also know how each player has performed since being drafted. You're telling me stuff I already know.

Verlander supposedly had control problems. Where'd those control problems go? Verlander's lack of command due to his delivery is a scout's opinion. Meanwhile a sub 2 BB/9 ratio in the minor leagues is a plain fact.

Bailey supposedly had impeccable control. What happened to it? Claiming that Homer Bailey had the best command of high schoolers in the draft is a scout's opinion. You can cling onto his 1.25 BB/9 ratio in high school all you want, but you better be able to put his high school stats into the proper context for league difficulty, and that's very difficult to do. What I know is that a near 6 BB/9 ratio in the minor leagues is a plain fact.

You keep repeating over and over that a specific scouting publication had Bailey, Verlander and others in their own unique ranking list with their own scouting information. And my point is that the scouting information regarding the command of both Verlander and Bailey has so far been proven flat wrong.

I don't want the Reds to listen to a bunch of scouts on an issue and get it wrong because that's what they've been doing continually for many years now. I want them to actually get it right.

So far, the Detroit Tigers got it right with Verlander. Homer Bailey, on the other hand, hasn't proven anything yet showing that the Reds actually got it right.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:26 AM
Go to the link dd posted to start this thread off. Here, I'll re-post it for you. check out who #38 and #39 are.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/060223top100c.html

And the reason we're limiting sample size to the top 10 picks in a draft is because history tells us that's where HS pitchers are most likely to be over-drafted.

Wow..

Try THIS link.. http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/2004draft/top200.html

your link is NOW.. not entering the draft in 2004, as my link is.. which is what you should use for your argument. Back THEN when the Reds drafted Bailey.. he was more highly thought of than Hughes. Hindsight is always 20/20 Steele.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 03:27 AM
Well, no. What it tells us is that you shouldn't ever play blackjack.
I do just fine at the blackjack tables, thank you very much.



It also gives us a clear picture that you don't have so much as a middling understanding of something we call "probability" or how it relates to productive decision-making.
Here is the probability. Every draft pick has a very low success rate, VERY VERY LOW. I mean really, I guess the Yankees have it right, forget about developing guys, just bring in all the Free Agents you need every year, the probability of a draft pick turning out are so miniscule its not worth the time.

M2
02-24-2006, 03:30 AM
Hindsight.. Hindsight.. HINDSIGHT!!! :)

FWIW, a number of folks on this board were adamant that if you could have had one pitcher in the 2004 draft, Verlander was the guy to get.


And no mention of control issues with Homer

In fact BA rated Homer as having the best control of any HS pitcher in the draft. It's a perfect example of how full of it folks like BA can be with prep arms.


Like I said, its funny how things work out.. thats why MLB teams have scouts. The Tigers obviously felt Verlander was a good gamble, and they won. I still think the Reds COULD NOT have picked a better pitcher at the time their slot was up, based on all scouting reports GOING INTO THE DRAFT. you can look back all you want, but put yourself in that moment, at that time. Bailey was the consensus best available pitcher on the board, aside from jared weaver, at the time the Reds went on the clock. Thats the facts.

No, but it is the worldview to which you're desperately clinging. For instance, if you're aware of the massive failure rate of highly drafted HS arms then you might begin to regard those kids with some suspicion and look past the hype that gets heaped on them. We've been having this discussion on the board for months now and the pure, unadulterated fact of the matter is that Homer Bailey is not the guy he was hyped as being. He might still become a very good pitcher, but he's not nearly as polished as billed, not nearly as advanced as billed, nor does he throw as hard as billed. Now there's some folks around here who weren't buying the hype on him even prior to the 2004 draft. It really all depends on how you regard snake oil and miracle tonics.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 03:30 AM
There is a reason Jared Weaver lasted as far down as he did.. even though he was the consensus best pitcher in the draft. I dont think the Reds were stupid for passing him up. So take him out of the equation.. Yes, the Reds drafted the best pitcher AND the best talent available to them in the draft..

You can't take a more talented player out of the equation just to get your guy to be the most talented. Doesn't work that way.


"pretty soon" is a relative term. that might mean 2 years for you... but I'm a patient man. I recognize that baseball is truely in every sense of the word, a "timeless" sport. Things do NOT happen overnight in this game, the sooner you accept that the better. A draft can turn a franchise around in 3.. 4 years alone if done right. See the Milwuakee Brewers...

You think the Milwaukee Brewers are being "turned around" by High School arms they drafted?

Uh. Sorry. No.

And yeah, you can turn your fortunes around in two years if you're a smart team. The fact that you're patient has nothing to do with invalidating that. It just means you have lower expectations.

And you're right. Baseball is "timeless". But a small market team's window of opportunity isn't. If you want to win, you'd better gameplan for everything to line up at the right time. Your preferred method is nothing more than throwing darts at a board while blindfolded. You might hit something eventually, but that's just plain random chance.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:33 AM
BA overvalued him, like it always overvalues prep arms. And he was their 4th ranked PITCHER, not their 4th ranked prospect.

Hello.. I realize he's the 4th best PITCHER on the list.. 6th best overall talent.


Actually there were three guys on the BA list ranked in front of him still on the board when he got drafted.

Weaver, Drew, and Chris Nelson.. only Weaver being a pitcher. You CANNOT discount the Boras factor. I'm sorry, you just can't. Not given the backlash the Reds suffered over the Sowers debacle. They couldn't risk that again with Weaver or Drew. So that leaves Nelson.. look how well he's done...



You realize you're throwing your lot in with a regime that just got sacked due to its gross incompetence, right? Forget for a moment that BA's success rate on identifying successful teenage arms is putrid, you're now claiming the talent assessment of the folks who brought you the 2004-2005 Reds, folks who would have done well to achieve at the "dumb" level is a mark in Bailey's favor. What those folks "felt" doesn't strike me a very good supporting evidence.[/QUOTE]

No, no i'm not. You're doing that for me. I'm simply saying that AT THE TIME, and given the undeniable circumstances surrounding the Boras Clients - the Reds picked what was, by at least one reputable publication, one of the best pitching prospects available in that draft. 4th best pitcher, 6th best overall talent. Taken at #7.

You can try to spin this as BA gets it wrong.. and thast not somtehing I'm going to dispute, but the fact remains, Homer Bailey was one of the best pitching prospects available in the draft, a def top 10 talent, and I'm willing to bet by more than BA's publication.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 03:34 AM
I do just fine at the blackjack tables, thank you very much.

Right. Because you constantly hit on 18's a lot when the dealer has a six showing. Sure.


Here is the probability. Every draft pick has a very low success rate, VERY VERY LOW. I mean really, I guess the Yankees have it right, forget about developing guys, just bring in all the Free Agents you need every year, the probability of a draft pick turning out are so miniscule its not worth the time.

Bunk. Doing stupid things with draft picks creates incredibly low success rates. Do smart things and you'll have better success rates.

Not a difficult concept for most folks to grasp. You, however, don't appear to know the difference.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:34 AM
Verlander also has the added bonus of being a far more awesome pitcher.

At the time of the 2004 draft, there were big questions about where Verlander would be picked. Go look up some mock drafts by "the experts" - you can see him at the top and at the bottom of lists.

Scouts were wrong about Verlander having bad control.

They were also wrong about Homer having good control.

You're looking at how things are now, not how the picture was at the time the draft event took place.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 03:37 AM
Wow..

Try THIS link.. http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/2004draft/top200.html

your link is NOW.. not entering the draft in 2004, as my link is.. which is what you should use for your argument. Back THEN when the Reds drafted Bailey.. he was more highly thought of than Hughes. Hindsight is always 20/20 Steele.

I haven't used hindsight yet on this thread. I'd suggest you figure out the difference.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 03:39 AM
I don't want the Reds to listen to a bunch of scouts on an issue and get it wrong because that's what they've been doing continually for many years now. I want them to actually get it right.

So far, the Detroit Tigers got it right with Verlander. Homer Bailey, on the other hand, hasn't proven anything yet showing that the Reds actually got it right.
No one gets it right. If they did, all of the players drafted would turn out to be Arod and Clemens and Griffey. What has Verlander shown at the major league level? That he can get absoluetly rocked? Yeah, it was just 11 innings, but he gave up 15 hits, walked 5 guys and struck out just 7. He also gave up 9 runs. I am willing to bet Bailey could put up that statline in 11 innings with the Reds. today. Verlander has torn apart single A and double A, at the age of 22. Let Homer pitch in Sarasota in 3 years and see what he does. That is the part you arent grasping with that comment. Verlander is 22 years old. He has a grand total of 9 starts above single A. I would say that having a guy in the top 40 prospects in all of baseball, shows that the Reds did something right by drafting Bailey. No one else drafted ahead of him is ranked that high with the exception of Verlander. Only Mark Rogers is even in the top 50.

M2
02-24-2006, 03:43 AM
Oh Rick Helling.. that of a 4.69 career ERA and 1.38 WHIP. I see year upon year of 4+ ERA. The great one who has about a 2:1 career K/BB ratio, that which Homer is getting beat up about.. Sorry if that doesn't excite me in the least bit. And we all know how relevant W/L are to a pitcher's worth right? Otherwise we'd have a gem in Eric Milton, the vet who "knows how to win".

Helling threw in a hitter's park during some of the highest scoring seasons in MLB history, but posted ERA+ numbers of 110, 104 and 114 from 1998-2000. He won because he pitched better than average and chewed up a pile of innings. Thanks for making my point though about how Homer might also have a Helling in in that nebulous future of his.

While Helling's run with the Rangers may not excite you, it beats the snot out of nothing. And that's the point, something beats nothing. If in 1999-2000 you had a staff of Helling, Benson, Milton and Hermanson, you'd have been a serious contender. In fact, the Reds might have won two divisions with that crew. That would have excited me.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 03:47 AM
Right. Because you constantly hit on 18's a lot when the dealer has a six showing. Sure.

Where on earth did I say I would ever hit while on 18 with the dealer having a 6 showing?



Bunk. Doing stupid things with draft picks creates incredibly low success rates. Do smart things and you'll have better success rates.

Not a difficult concept for most folks to grasp. You, however, don't appear to know the difference.

And it is just your opinion that drafting Bailey was a "stupid thing". I think it was a "smart thing". Therefore I am going to say it is going to be a better success than having drafted say, Wade Townsend. Becuase by your theory, he would have been the "smart thing", coming from college, right? Yeah, goodluck selling me on that one. 1.73 WHIP and a 5.49 ERA in single A. He was drafted just one spot behind Bailey, was a college guy, more mature, more experience against better competition....the "smarter choice".

M2
02-24-2006, 03:49 AM
At the time of the 2004 draft, there were big questions about where Verlander would be picked. Go look up some mock drafts by "the experts" - you can see him at the top and at the bottom of lists.

Scouts were wrong about Verlander having bad control.

They were also wrong about Homer having good control.

You're looking at how things are now, not how the picture was at the time the draft event took place.

Actually, I'm looking at it the exact same way I did then. I thought Verlander was the bomb and that Bailey, like most prep arms, would have some major warts that people missed. You can go back and look at the draft thread from that season. I wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid on Bailey.

You're the one playing catch-up, not me (and, for the record, a large number of other folks on this board sniffed out that Bailey was going to have his share of issues).

Cyclone792
02-24-2006, 03:52 AM
No one gets it right. If they did, all of the players drafted would turn out to be Arod and Clemens and Griffey.

And this is your problem. You're willing to accept "being wrong" whereas everyone here advocating the objective use of draft research is not willing to accept that, otherwise you'd actually look at all the data.


What has Verlander shown at the major league level? That he can get absoluetly rocked? Yeah, it was just 11 innings, but he gave up 15 hits, walked 5 guys and struck out just 7. He also gave up 9 runs.

Small sample size.


I am willing to bet Bailey could put up that statline in 11 innings with the Reds. today. Verlander has torn apart single A and double A, at the age of 22. Let Homer pitch in Sarasota in 3 years and see what he does. That is the part you arent grasping with that comment. Verlander is 22 years old. He has a grand total of 9 starts above single A.

And it's nine more starts than Homer Bailey. Meanwhile Verlander is likely to see even more time in Detroit this season, actually giving the Tigers positive value on the mound. Wouldn't that be a phenomenal concept if we drafted a top pitching prospect in 2004 that we'd already be projecting to give our big league ballclub positive value in 2006?


I would say that having a guy in the top 40 prospects in all of baseball, shows that the Reds did something right by drafting Bailey. No one else drafted ahead of him is ranked that high with the exception of Verlander. Only Mark Rogers is even in the top 50.

And being ranked in the top 40 prospects right now gives the Reds market value with Bailey in 2006, not actual results based value. He will not be giving this team any value at the big league level in 2006, and likely will not in 2007. The probability of Homer Bailey giving the Reds any positive value PERIOD is just not a very good bet, and that's been a fact that a half dozen people have been trying to tell you for the past 12 hours. Verlander IS a good bet to give the Tigers positive value, and give them that positive value now.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:59 AM
I know where each player was ranked before the draft. I know where each player was drafted. I also know how each player has performed since being drafted. You're telling me stuff I already know.

Verlander supposedly had control problems. Where'd those control problems go? Verlander's lack of command due to his delivery is a scout's opinion. Meanwhile a sub 2 BB/9 ratio in the minor leagues is a plain fact.

Bailey supposedly had impeccable control. What happened to it? Claiming that Homer Bailey had the best command of high schoolers in the draft is a scout's opinion. You can cling onto his 1.25 BB/9 ratio in high school all you want, but you better be able to put his high school stats into the proper context for league difficulty, and that's very difficult to do. What I know is that a near 6 BB/9 ratio in the minor leagues is a plain fact.

You keep repeating over and over that a specific scouting publication had Bailey, Verlander and others in their own unique ranking list with their own scouting information. And my point is that the scouting information regarding the command of both Verlander and Bailey has so far been proven flat wrong.

I don't want the Reds to listen to a bunch of scouts on an issue and get it wrong because that's what they've been doing continually for many years now. I want them to actually get it right.

So far, the Detroit Tigers got it right with Verlander. Homer Bailey, on the other hand, hasn't proven anything yet showing that the Reds actually got it right.

Wow.. you just proved my point FOR me. The SCOUTS got it WRONG. **** like this happens ALL THE TIME in baseball. You cannot make this argument though, knowing the facts NOW. You're trying to make an argument based on facts that were realized LONG AFTER THE DRAFT. Given the time of the actual event of the draft, and ALL THE SCOUTING INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, which is what is essential to the point you're trying to make.

You can't have it both ways man. Even so, Verlander was taken way ahead of the Reds selection, so what would you have had the Reds do? Who would you have had them take? Answer me that question. Put yourself inside the shoes of the Reds on draft day, pick #7, knowing only the 6 talents taken ahead of you, and whats left on the board. Who do you pick?

Here's the facts Cyclone, your'e telling me facts that I already know. I already KNOW Verlander is NOW a better pick than Bailey. I already KNOW Verlander had a better debut than Homer. But I also know that at the time of the draft, on the surface Verlander was more of an unknown quantity while Homer was not. These are the facts.

You dont want the Reds to listen to scouts and get it wrong? Well, neither do I! And I dont think its fair to label Homer in the "wrong" category based off 1 year of results in a questioanble tandem starter system, and I think its unfair to label him an automatic bust becuase he's a HS arm and a top 10 pick. Its absurd. History might be against him, but I dont care. Until he actually busts, he's not a bust. 1 year of possibly "skewed" results from a 19 year old pitcher do not worry me. Now if he shows no improvement in a few more years, then I'll have something to worry about. But until then, I'm not writing him off. Maybe thats just me, but I'm happy to have that outlook. I think your's, Steele's and M2's are a bit shortsighted.

M2
02-24-2006, 04:01 AM
No one gets it right.

Except for the roughly 50% who do. Subtract out the 12 prep arms who weren't Kerry Wood, Josh Beckett and Brien Taylor and you're hitting at 52% on top 10 picks in the 1990s. It's 46% if you don't subtract them out.

Pull it out to the top 15 picks each year from the 1990s, subtract out the 26 HS arms who weren't Wood, Beckett, Taylor and Van Poppel and you hit 50% exactly.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 04:09 AM
Actually, I'm looking at it the exact same way I did then. I thought Verlander was the bomb and that Bailey, like most prep arms, would have some major warts that people missed. You can go back and look at the draft thread from that season. I wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid on Bailey.

You're the one playing catch-up, not me (and, for the record, a large number of other folks on this board sniffed out that Bailey was going to have his share of issues).

For the Record, I would have taken Verlander too.. but who cares about the Record.. I care about who was available for the Reds to take at the time their draft selection came up. Going on consensus best talent it was:

Weaver, Drew, Nelson, and Bailey. Out of that group, Bailey is the best pick IMO for the Reds, due to the fiasco that surrounded weaver and drew both getting signed. Nelson looks like a complete bust at this point.. while at least Bailey seems to have a future.

I'm not playing catch up. But it seems as if you wanted the Reds to magically take some talent at that spot, which based on rankings at the time of the draft, wasn't there.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 04:11 AM
I am begging someone on the other side of the argument to answer this question:

Who would you had them take? Answer me that question. Put yourself inside the shoes of the Reds on draft day, pick #7, knowing only the 6 talents taken ahead of you, and whats left on the board. Who do you pick? Based on the scouting information availalbe AT THE TIME, not the results of said players now.

M2
02-24-2006, 04:25 AM
I am begging someone on the other side of the argument to answer this question:

Who would you had them take? Answer me that question. Put yourself inside the shoes of the Reds on draft day, pick #7, knowing only the 6 talents taken ahead of you, and whats left on the board. Who do you pick? Based on the scouting information availalbe AT THE TIME, not the results of said players now.

Nelson was my pick at the time and, unlike Bailey, he's actually had a good season in the minors (.942 OPS in rookie ball). Last year he had those hammy problems and we'll see how he bounces back this season. Though Drew, Weaver, Diamond, Walker, Townshend or Purcey would have been fine by me too. Townshend's the only guy from that group who hasn't delivered anything, but his story might be far different had he signed.

Cyclone792
02-24-2006, 04:26 AM
Wow.. you just proved my point FOR me. The SCOUTS got it WRONG. Stuff like this happens ALL THE TIME in baseball. You cannot make this argument though, knowing the facts NOW. You're trying to make an argument based on facts that were realized LONG AFTER THE DRAFT. Given the time of the actual event of the draft, and ALL THE SCOUTING INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, which is what is essential to the point you're trying to make.

Right, I just proved your point that it's acceptable for the scouts to get it wrong. I mean, using the research and data that's actually available to use to eliminate the whole "getting it wrong" approach just doesn't seem to be supported by you.


You can't have it both ways man. Even so, Verlander was taken way ahead of the Reds selection, so what would you have had the Reds do? Who would you have had them take? Answer me that question. Put yourself inside the shoes of the Reds on draft day, pick #7, knowing only the 6 talents taken ahead of you, and whats left on the board. Who do you pick?

I take Drew or Weaver, and I sign them.

And I don't sign Eric Milton the following offseason. It really is amazing what you can do when you don't make a $25 million well-known mistake named Eric Milton.

Don't wanna go with the two big boys? Take Nelson.


Here's the facts Cyclone, your'e telling me facts that I already know. I already KNOW Verlander is NOW a better pick than Bailey. I already KNOW Verlander had a better debut than Homer. But I also know that at the time of the draft, on the surface Verlander was more of an unknown quantity while Homer was not. These are the facts.

On the surface from whom? BA's scouts? You're really going to try to claim that a pitcher who dominated college ball for three seasons was more of an unknown quantity than a HIGH SCHOOL pitcher? Please.

I'd like for you look at that massive list of pitchers Steel provided, and I'd like for you to tell me how many of those guys were accurately predicted as being very positive known quantities.


You dont want the Reds to listen to scouts and get it wrong? Well, neither do I! And I dont think its fair to label Homer in the "wrong" category based off 1 year of results in a questioanble tandem starter system, and I think its unfair to label him an automatic bust becuase he's a HS arm and a top 10 pick. Its absurd. History might be against him, but I dont care. Until he actually busts, he's not a bust. 1 year of possibly "skewed" results from a 19 year old pitcher do not worry me. Now if he shows no improvement in a few more years, then I'll have something to worry about. But until then, I'm not writing him off. Maybe thats just me, but I'm happy to have that outlook. I think your's, Steele's and M2's are a bit shortsighted.

Homer Bailey's going to have to improve that near 6 BB/9 ratio if he's ever going to do anything positive in the majors. If that walk ratio doesn't improve, Bailey's a likely bust. Nope, he's not a bust yet, but he's wanting to walk down that road of bustdom. For our sake, I hope he makes a U-turn and corrects his control problems.

ochre
02-24-2006, 09:51 AM
Here, I did some of the leg work for you guys:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=893371&postcount=17


06-07-2004, 09:36 AM #17
M2
Posting in Dynarama

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Boston
Posts: 15,655
Reputation: 1150

Re: Draft thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie-a-go-go
If they draft Bailey I'll ... I'll ... do something throroughly dramatic.

Me too. Maybe Homer Bailey turns out to be a superstar, but as of right now he's just a HS pitcher. The Reds can't afford to blow another high pick on one of those - Gruler, Sowers, Howington (none of whom are pitching live games for the Reds at this moment).

If they pass on Chris Nelson, and it looks like he might be there, I'm gonna cry. If they pass on Nelson and don't take a college pitcher (Verlander, Niemann, Humber, Townshend, Sowers or Diamond -- one of them will be there), I'm gonna break things.

Essentially, Terry Reynolds must NOT be Terry Reynolds. If he hasn't learned anything from the days when he killed the Dodgers' farm system, we (and by that I mean all the fine people who root for the Cincinnati Reds) are in trouble.

Second Round suggestions - J.P. Howell, LHP Texas and Michael Rogers, RHP N.C. State
__________________
Fact of the matter is Pete Rose had 4,342 hits and we just don't know how to count.
What do you call hindsight before the event?

TRF
02-24-2006, 10:06 AM
Long thread. passion from both sides. Its like watching Survivor. or Distraction.

Here is a point Steel hasn't made. High school pitchers are usually coming off a season where they have not only thrown a ton of innings, but also likely played in the field on days when they weren't pitching. Usually they are one of the best players on the team. After being drafted, they are usually assigned to a rookie level league.

College pitchers have less wear, but more overall innings. (being older has that effect) There workout regiment is more structured. They do not double as a right fielder, and they compete often (especially top 10 college pitchers as they are usually in a top 10 program) at a level HIGHER than rookie ball. A lot of COLLEGE pitchers taken in the first round are assigned to HIGH A or even higher. Their bodies AND minds are more mature and better suited to playing in front of large crowds. They are less likely to do something stupid, like overthrow to get a guy out. This tends to lead to things like TJ surgery. Or worse.

Basically the guy has been developed for 2-4 years by what amounts to a professional organization. Not one dime has been spent by the Reds to develop this player.

In contrast, how much has Howington and Aramboles cost the reds in surgeries and rehab alone. All this while only sniffing AA. Meanwhile the FO never learns and keeps going to the fridge for spoiled milk thinking "hey tomorrow it might be fresh."

MikeS21
02-24-2006, 10:17 AM
All of this discussion seems like deja vu from 2002, when we were discussing the merits of drafting Chris Gruler out of high school. Baseball America had ranked him high (#5 overall) as well (higher than they did Homer Bailey at #6 overall).

You have to take BA's rankings with a grain of salt. They tend to rank players according to hype, as opposed to actual performance. I subscribe to BA's print magazine. I have all of BA's Prospect Handbooks from 2001-2005, but I am hesitating purchasing the 2006 version. They do tend to overrate players. If you want a good laugh, BA even claimed that while he was in the Yankee's organization, Wily Mo Pena had potential to be a decent defensive CF. For $35, I'm wondering if there isn't a better prospect handbook out there.

For me, it all boils down to performance. To say that Homer Bailey is a future ace, is to put him in the same class with Josh Beckett, Kerry Wood, and other high school phenoms. Based on perfomance, you cannot do that. Homer Bailey has not put up ace-like numbers in the lower minors, where he should be cruising through if he is an ace. It's an extremely small sample size (only 4 games/ 17 innings), but even Chris Gruler, before he hurt his shoulder, was making hitters (many straight out of college) look bad in the Pioneer League - a much more advanced league. Bailey was being hit hard in the GCL.

By comparison to another ace, right out of HS, Josh Beckett skipped rookie ball altogther and went straight to low A-ball where he proceeded to post a 2.12 ERA in 59 innings. The next yeatr, he then went to high-A ball and posted a 1.23 ERA in 66 innings. And based on his numbers, he was moved to AA (21 years old), and posted a 1.82 ERA in 74 innings. Matt Belisle was a HS draft pick and even he put up better number than Bailey in rookie ball and low-A ball.

I know many dismiss ERA as a valid indicator of a pitcher's ability, but frankly, it still tells me most of what I want to know. WHIP, K/9, H/9, K/BB will all reflect in an ERA. If a pitcher keeps runners off base, the ERA will be lower. If a pitcher doesn't give up too many HR's, the ERA will be lower. If a pitcher strikes out more than he walks, the ERA will be lower. Bailey was very "un-ace-like" as far as his ERA number in the GCL and in low-A ball.

If Homer Bailey is a future ace, I don't want to have to be told by some publication. I want to be shown by actual performance. Because right now, the ONLY thing that sets Homer Bailey above the pack (the rest of the Reds' pitching prospects) is hype and some psuedo-ranking by a publication that has a poor track record projecting prospects when you compare them to Baseball Prospectus and John Sickles.

SteelSD
02-24-2006, 12:09 PM
Where on earth did I say I would ever hit while on 18 with the dealer having a 6 showing?

You've said it the entire thread.

Draft history tells us that HS pitchers drafted in the first 10 picks who aren't the obvious best overall arm in the draft have a 0% chance of turning into the "ace" you're so desperate for.

History tells us that your odds of winning that "hand" in the MLB entry draft are about 0%. Yet you advocate continually doing the same thing over and over again despite those odds.

It's quite clear that you have no interest whatsoever in understanding probability and how it relates to formulating a proper MLB entry draft selection plan. That's clear as day.


And it is just your opinion that drafting Bailey was a "stupid thing". I think it was a "smart thing". Therefore I am going to say it is going to be a better success than having drafted say, Wade Townsend. Becuase by your theory, he would have been the "smart thing", coming from college, right? Yeah, goodluck selling me on that one. 1.73 WHIP and a 5.49 ERA in single A. He was drafted just one spot behind Bailey, was a college guy, more mature, more experience against better competition....the "smarter choice".

Knowing that hitting on an 18 while the dealer has a 6 showing is a dumb thing to do isn't "opinion". It's demonstrated fact. Probability tells us this. History tells us it's a dumb thing to do. Understanding probability allows us to differentiate a good decision from a bad decision before the decision is ever made. Your response to that is to erroneously position the draft as nothing but a "crap shoot" so, therefore (in your mind), understanding probability doesn't matter.

Bunk. Teams that understand probability hit more often in the draft than teams who don't. Teams that properly translate what history is telling them in order to develop their draft philosophy do better than teams who don't. That's an uncontestable fact.

But instead of making the slightest effort to figure out how probability relates to the MLB entry draft, you continue to forward the concept that the draft is just a crap shoot so doing dumb things is par for the course and perfectly acceptable draft strategy. No rhyme or reason to any of it.

M2
02-24-2006, 12:23 PM
For apples to apples here, I just went back and looked at all four major draft types (college pitcher, college player, HS pitcher, HS player) for the first 15 picks of the 1990-99 drafts and put them up against the test of having delivered something positive on the field for their drafting organizations.

I've shifted Chris Carpenter into the plus side for HS arms, making it 3 of 30 that clicked there. Anyway, here's raw numbers and percentages in descending order from most to least successful:

College pitchers - 14/44, 32%
HS players - 11/40, 28%
College players - 9/38, 24%
HS pitchers - 3/30, 10%

As noted, the HS pitching 10% comprises of two guys who were widely regarded as the best pitchers in the draft and Chris Carpenter, who had a wishy-washy performance for the club that drafted him. So it's real easy to find the subset where you're likely to have success in that group, separating out the pretenders.

It should also be noted that unlike the HS pitcher pool, the other three groupings were littered with guys who fetched significant trade returns (e.g. Jason Grilli netted Livan Hernandez). I can't find one prep arm who turned into a quality trade for the team that drafted him. They either burned out or became marginal before teams thought to cash them in for real value. Factor that in and it increases the already massive discrepancy between HS arms and the three other groupings.

Anyway, looking at the 1990s, if at the top of the draft you stayed away from HS arms who weren't the top overall pitching talent in the draft, chances ran about 1/3 or better that you'd land someone who would provide help to your franchise or net you something in trade. Let me restate that in another way: Roughly 50 of the top 150 picks made in those drafts netted returns for the team drafting them. IMO, what smart organizations should be looking to do at the top of the draft is figure out which college pitchers, HS players and college players are the best bets on the board, only drafting from the HS pitching crop in the rarest of circumstances.

dougdirt
02-24-2006, 12:43 PM
I am done with this thread because its basically a waste of time. What I sttill dont understand is why that somehow there is absolutely no way that Homer Bailey can succeed just becuase he was drafted in the first round rather than being drafted after that.
M2 and Steelsd want to put these limitations on high school pitchers that any of them drafted in the top 10 or 15 neveer pan out, but there have been plenty of high school pitchers pan out just fine. This is my last post on this becuase I am seriously just tired of wanting to rip my hair out.

westofyou
02-24-2006, 12:50 PM
What I sttill dont understand is why that somehow there is absolutely no way that Homer Bailey can succeed just becuase he was drafted in the first round rather than being drafted after that.

Did anyone ever say there was no chance?

Paint the picture anyway you want, but the record shows that it's a high risk bet, and despite finger pointing the facts pretty much prove that it's a high risk pick that sometimes pays off.

M2
02-24-2006, 12:52 PM
I am done with this thread because its basically a waste of time. What I sttill dont understand is why that somehow there is absolutely no way that Homer Bailey can succeed just becuase he was drafted in the first round rather than being drafted after that.

It's not that there's no way it can happen, it's just that the chances of it happening are and always were exceptionally slim. It's not that HS arms don't ever succeed, it's that no one seems capable of identifying which ones will with any sort of accuracy.


M2 and Steelsd want to put these limitations on high school pitchers that any of them drafted in the top 10 or 15 neveer pan out, but there have been plenty of high school pitchers pan out just fine. This is my last post on this becuase I am seriously just tired of wanting to rip my hair out.

You've had it laid out right in front of your nose, plain as day. We've showed you how teams have wildly missed on highly drafted HS arms over the course of time. We've even defined the common denominator between the very small set of prep arms who succeeded for the teams that drafted them. You're now in Santayana's purgatory -- doomed to repeat a history you refuse to understand.

flyer85
02-24-2006, 12:52 PM
What I sttill dont understand is why that somehow there is absolutely no way that Homer Bailey can succeed just becuase he was drafted in the first round Not the point.

Can Bailey succeed? Yes

Will Bailey succeed? Don't know.

Probability he will succeed? In general, based on picking a high school arm ealy in the draft ... low.

DanO bucked the odds and drafted Bailey. History will decide whether he was right or wrong in this specific case. However, in general, people don't make a successful career of bucking the odds but this is just one case. If Bailey pans out it may end up being about the only thing DanO did right.

westofyou
02-24-2006, 12:55 PM
We've showed you how teams have wildly missed on highly drafted HS arms over the course of time.Now prove to me that catchers in the top rounds are a waste of a pick.

Because we know it's true....

princeton
02-24-2006, 12:59 PM
I think that all that Homer B. has shown in two years is that he's reasonably healthy, for now. And that's great.

But at some point, it's not enough to be simply young, talented, and healthy. We could have picked a player that actually played well and advanced and has more value right now, which the valueless Reds could really use.

it's important to maximize the value of this farm system, quickly. The years are just flying by.

it's also important to tip one's hat to, and learn from, better picks.

M2
02-24-2006, 01:03 PM
Now prove to me that catchers in the top rounds are a waste of a pick.

Because we know it's true....

I actually thought about separating catchers out from the other players, but it was more work than I felt like doing. If you take that subset out from the mix, you vastly increase your chances of hitting on a top draft pick. Then if you separate out finesse/pitchability college arms and position players with poor hitting skills, you've gotten yourself inside the sweet spot.

Highlifeman21
02-24-2006, 02:32 PM
You know what Nolan Ryans career strikeouts to walks were? 5714 to 2795. Nearly 2-1 for his entire career. But hey, I guess Nolan Ryan was pretty horrible right? Bailey is a 19 year old with a 2-1 strikeout ratio, strikes out nearly 11 guys per 9 innings, gives up less than 8 hits per 9 innings. Yeah, he walks some people. He is 19 years old! Do you want him to be a finished product by the age of 19? That is what this thing called the minor leagues is for. It is for developement. To develop into a better pitcher.

As soon as HB strikes out 5000 guys, then come talk to me. Nolan Ryan was the statistical outlier of being at the top of the career K list AND the career BB list. I would bet a lot of money right now that HB joins the list of high school pitchers drafted way too highly that become the dreaded "never was".

Cyclone792
02-24-2006, 02:34 PM
For apples to apples here, I just went back and looked at all four major draft types (college pitcher, college player, HS pitcher, HS player) for the first 15 picks of the 1990-99 drafts and put them up against the test of having delivered something positive on the field for their drafting organizations.

I've shifted Chris Carpenter into the plus side for HS arms, making it 3 of 30 that clicked there. Anyway, here's raw numbers and percentages in descending order from most to least successful:

College pitchers - 14/44, 32%
HS players - 11/40, 28%
College players - 9/38, 24%
HS pitchers - 3/30, 10%

As noted, the HS pitching 10% comprises of two guys who were widely regarded as the best pitchers in the draft and Chris Carpenter, who had a wishy-washy performance for the club that drafted him. So it's real easy to find the subset where you're likely to have success in that group, separating out the pretenders.

It should also be noted that unlike the HS pitcher pool, the other three groupings were littered with guys who fetched significant trade returns (e.g. Jason Grilli netted Livan Hernandez). I can't find one prep arm who turned into a quality trade for the team that drafted him. They either burned out or became marginal before teams thought to cash them in for real value. Factor that in and it increases the already massive discrepancy between HS arms and the three other groupings.

Anyway, looking at the 1990s, if at the top of the draft you stayed away from HS arms who weren't the top overall pitching talent in the draft, chances ran about 1/3 or better that you'd land someone who would provide help to your franchise or net you something in trade. Let me restate that in another way: Roughly 50 of the top 150 picks made in those drafts netted returns for the team drafting them. IMO, what smart organizations should be looking to do at the top of the draft is figure out which college pitchers, HS players and college players are the best bets on the board, only drafting from the HS pitching crop in the rarest of circumstances.

Outstanding research, M2! Thanks for the data! It just reinforces the countless other studies we've all seen showing that drafting high school pitchers in the first round - especially early in the first round - is a ridiculously dumb idea.

M2
02-24-2006, 02:41 PM
As soon as HB strikes out 5000 guys, then come talk to me. Nolan Ryan was the statistical outlier of being at the top of the career K list AND the career BB list.

Plus, you can count the number of seasons where he pitched enough innings to qualify for an ERA title with an above average ERA for the team that drafted him on exactly no fingers.

Plus plus, he was a 12th round pick, reinforcing that no one knows how to pick these horses at the gate.

westofyou
02-24-2006, 02:42 PM
Plus, you can count the number of seasons where he pitched enough innings to qualify for an ERA title with an above average ERA for the team that drafted him on exactly no fingers.

Plus plus, he was a 12th round pick, reinforcing that no one knows how to pick these horses at the gate.
All true... but you weren't to notice that stuff.

Highlifeman21
02-24-2006, 02:47 PM
Verlander is much older than Bailey, making it to the majors sooner is hardly a relevant arguement, especially when considering Bailey is just 19 years old.

So this means we have to wait until Bailey's 23 to see if he's gonna turn out to be something? 4 years is a lot of time for him to end up being a bust. Had we drafted a guy out of college in the 21-23 age range, we might be talking about our own Verlander making a name for himself in our rotation instead of Homer Bailey taking up space in A ball, AA if he's lucky.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 03:59 PM
Nelson was my pick at the time and, unlike Bailey, he's actually had a good season in the minors (.942 OPS in rookie ball). Last year he had those hammy problems and we'll see how he bounces back this season. Though Drew, Weaver, Diamond, Walker, Townshend or Purcey would have been fine by me too. Townshend's the only guy from that group who hasn't delivered anything, but his story might be far different had he signed.

Are you really saying it would have been wise for the Reds to go to negotiations with Drew or Weaver considering how both of them held out until the last possible moment and both were represented by Boras? Do you REALLY think under the Obie regime that they would have signed either of them? I don't. And I don't think that would have gone well with fans after the Sowers debacle.

Nelson had a great debut, but a horrible k/bb ratio, his k rate was through the roof.. which to a lot of people, spelled doom. And guess what he did last year? Hammy injuries may have played a part in that, and it might have also been an excuse.

M2, I live in colorado, I love the rockies - not as much as the reds mind you becuase for a good portion of my life there was no MLB baseball here... I hope Nelson lives up to the hype - but if I'm a betting man.. right now I take Bailey over Nelson. Here is a guy ranked in the top 40 of all prospects this year, and Nelson has fallen out of the top 100 completely and you'd still take him?

Personally, I'm glad we didn't. But perhaps thats just me. Nelson isn't worth a damn right now. At least Homer has some value.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 04:17 PM
All of this discussion seems like deja vu from 2002, when we were discussing the merits of drafting Chris Gruler out of high school. Baseball America had ranked him high (#5 overall) as well (higher than they did Homer Bailey at #6 overall).

You have to take BA's rankings with a grain of salt. They tend to rank players according to hype, as opposed to actual performance. I subscribe to BA's print magazine. I have all of BA's Prospect Handbooks from 2001-2005, but I am hesitating purchasing the 2006 version. They do tend to overrate players. If you want a good laugh, BA even claimed that while he was in the Yankee's organization, Wily Mo Pena had potential to be a decent defensive CF. For $35, I'm wondering if there isn't a better prospect handbook out there.

For me, it all boils down to performance. To say that Homer Bailey is a future ace, is to put him in the same class with Josh Beckett, Kerry Wood, and other high school phenoms. Based on perfomance, you cannot do that. Homer Bailey has not put up ace-like numbers in the lower minors, where he should be cruising through if he is an ace. It's an extremely small sample size (only 4 games/ 17 innings), but even Chris Gruler, before he hurt his shoulder, was making hitters (many straight out of college) look bad in the Pioneer League - a much more advanced league. Bailey was being hit hard in the GCL.

By comparison to another ace, right out of HS, Josh Beckett skipped rookie ball altogther and went straight to low A-ball where he proceeded to post a 2.12 ERA in 59 innings. The next yeatr, he then went to high-A ball and posted a 1.23 ERA in 66 innings. And based on his numbers, he was moved to AA (21 years old), and posted a 1.82 ERA in 74 innings. Matt Belisle was a HS draft pick and even he put up better number than Bailey in rookie ball and low-A ball.

I know many dismiss ERA as a valid indicator of a pitcher's ability, but frankly, it still tells me most of what I want to know. WHIP, K/9, H/9, K/BB will all reflect in an ERA. If a pitcher keeps runners off base, the ERA will be lower. If a pitcher doesn't give up too many HR's, the ERA will be lower. If a pitcher strikes out more than he walks, the ERA will be lower. Bailey was very "un-ace-like" as far as his ERA number in the GCL and in low-A ball.

If Homer Bailey is a future ace, I don't want to have to be told by some publication. I want to be shown by actual performance. Because right now, the ONLY thing that sets Homer Bailey above the pack (the rest of the Reds' pitching prospects) is hype and some psuedo-ranking by a publication that has a poor track record projecting prospects when you compare them to Baseball Prospectus and John Sickles.

Wow.. I think as someone who has subscribed to several publications, and BA as long as you have, I think you have a fairly bad understanding of how BA compiles its rankings. They aren't "BA's Scouts", these are MLB scouts that BA talks to. And not just one scout.. MANY scouts. A consensus is then formed...

Yes BA weighs more heavily on projection and what they feel will be value at the MLB level, and that might make them "wrong" or in what you term as "overvaluing" players quite a bit.. but to me that "going out on a limb" isn't such a bad thing. Of course you take it with a grain of salt. Its not the ONLY publication I read. But there was a consensus at the time of the draft that Homer Bailey was ace material. And its NOT like a 19 year old out of highschool can't thouroughly improve.

I mean, here are people writing off Homer Bailey due to his performance, but advocating they still would have taken Chris Nelson - and look at his results last year. Its laughable.

Cyclone792
02-24-2006, 04:34 PM
Are you really saying it would have been wise for the Reds to go to negotiations with Drew or Weaver considering how both of them held out until the last possible moment and both were represented by Boras? Do you REALLY think under the Obie regime that they would have signed either of them? I don't. And I don't think that would have gone well with fans after the Sowers debacle.

What's the big problem with going to negotiations with one of those two players? If they're clearly the best player available when it's your turn to draft, and they'd be a much better pick than Homer Bailey, you draft and sign them. What are you going to do, haggle over a couple million dollars?

Here you go, here's your couple million dollars to haggle with ...



Player 2005 Salary 2005 VORP

Graves $6.25 million -6.8
Ortiz $3.55 million -3.3
Milton $5.33 million -25.0
Wilson $3.60 million -12.2

Total $18.73 million -47.3


Take a nice, long look at that list. That's nearly $19 million in wasted salary spent on four players on the Reds roster in 2005 alone. All players that should have either A) never been acquired before 2005, or B) moved before 2005. Nearly $19 million for a grand total of -47.3 VORP. And if you'd like I can tack on Jimmah Haynes in 2004 with his $2.5 million salary and -7.4 VORP.

Grand total? $21.23 million for a -54.7 VORP given to five guys over the course of two seasons.

You see, when incompetence starts at the big league level in the front office, the ramifications trickle all the way down to the draft. Teams will gripe and moan about one or two million more to sign a clear stud in the draft, but then piss away over $21 million in complete garbage major league players. If your front office is actually intelligent enough to spend money wisely at the major league level, then suddenly having an extra bit of cash available to sign the clear best player available isn't a problem. But no, teams like the Reds continue to piss away a ridiculous sum of money, then draft players based on their so-called signability. It's absurd.

You keep referencing short-sighted. Well, that mess above is exactly what being short-sighted and incompetent is.

TRF
02-24-2006, 04:37 PM
Are you really saying it would have been wise for the Reds to go to negotiations with Drew or Weaver considering how both of them held out until the last possible moment and both were represented by Boras? Do you REALLY think under the Obie regime that they would have signed either of them? I don't. And I don't think that would have gone well with fans after the Sowers debacle.

Nelson had a great debut, but a horrible k/bb ratio, his k rate was through the roof.. which to a lot of people, spelled doom. And guess what he did last year? Hammy injuries may have played a part in that, and it might have also been an excuse.

M2, I live in colorado, I love the rockies - not as much as the reds mind you becuase for a good portion of my life there was no MLB baseball here... I hope Nelson lives up to the hype - but if I'm a betting man.. right now I take Bailey over Nelson. Here is a guy ranked in the top 40 of all prospects this year, and Nelson has fallen out of the top 100 completely and you'd still take him?

Personally, I'm glad we didn't. But perhaps thats just me. Nelson isn't worth a damn right now. At least Homer has some value.

If he won't say it, I will. Especially Weaver. Though Drew/FeLo would be great trade bait Since FeLo blossomed last year.

Boras shouldn't scare the Reds. If Weaver really sat out, then the Reds get a comp pick next year. It isn't the same as the Sowers situation as the Reds we determined to sign their first round pick this time.

Weaver was in AA last year, likely to start there or AAA this year. Man would that suck to have that guy. Plus with the Reds offense + pitching woes, He'd be challenging for a rotation spot this year in Cincinnati. Boras knows that. weaver would be getting his payday pretty darn quick.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 04:40 PM
Let me ask you guys something.. Would you complain about having any of these guys in your system?

Brandon Wood - HS, Scottsdale AZ
Nick Adenhart - HS, Williamsport MD
Justin Upton - HS
Chad Billingsley - HS, Defiance OH
Jon Broxton - HS, Waynesboro GA
Scott Elbert - HS, Seneca MO
Blake Dewitt - HS, Sikeston MO
Matt Kemp - HS, Midwest City, OK
Matt Cain - HS, Germantown, TN
Cole Hamels - HS, San Diego, CA
Jon Lester - HS, Puyallup WA
Delmon Young - HS, Camarillo CA

The list goes on and on and on.. Elijah Dukes, BJ upton, Hayden Penn, Brandon Snyder, J.J Johnson, Brandon Erbe, Adam Miller, Ryan Sweeney, Billy Butler, Jason Kubel, Matt Moses, Anthony Swarzak, Denard Span, Jay Rainville, Adam Jones, John Danks, Eric Hurley, Troy Patton, Prince Fielder, Mark Rogers, etc etc etc.

This is not even COUNTING guys like Francisco Liriano, Felix Hernandez, Joel Guzman... top prospects who came into their systems not through the draft, but still about the same age as someone from highschool.. sometimes even younger. Why are THEY not being talked about as being just as risky?

Anyone with any common sense would take any one of the above mentioned guys over some of the players we have in our system, and if you say thats not true, you're fooling only yourself. That is an extremely talented crop of talent, pitching or positional, but its all highschool. They may not have produced ML results yet, but a lot are on the cusp.

When you draft, you look for market inefficiencies, and look for the best talent available at the draft. If everyone is drafting college pitchers because its the safer bet and passing over a better HS talent... then I'm going to exploit the inefficiency and take the better talent. HS or college just does not matter.

Call me stupid or dumb in so many words as you all seem to like, but I'm not working in MLB and as far as I know, neither are most of you...

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 04:48 PM
What's the big problem with going to negotiations with one of those two players? If they're clearly the best player available when it's your turn to draft, and they'd be a much better pick than Homer Bailey, you draft and sign them. What are you going to do, haggle over a couple million dollars?

Here you go, here's your couple million dollars to haggle with ...



Player 2005 Salary 2005 VORP

Graves $6.25 million -6.8
Ortiz $3.55 million -3.3
Milton $5.33 million -25.0
Wilson $3.60 million -12.2

Total $18.73 million -47.3


Take a nice, long look at that list. That's nearly $19 million in wasted salary spent on four players on the Reds roster in 2005 alone. All players that should have either A) never been acquired before 2005, or B) moved before 2005. Nearly $19 million for a grand total of -47.3 VORP. And if you'd like I can tack on Jimmah Haynes in 2004 with his $2.5 million salary and -7.4 VORP.

Grand total? $21.23 million for a -54.7 VORP given to five guys over the course of two seasons.

You see, when incompetence starts at the big league level in the front office, the ramifications trickle all the way down to the draft. Teams will gripe and moan about one or two million more to sign a clear stud in the draft, but then piss away over $21 million in complete garbage major league players. If your front office is actually intelligent enough to spend money wisely at the major league level, then suddenly having an extra bit of cash available to sign the clear best player available isn't a problem. But no, teams like the Reds continue to piss away a ridiculous sum of money, then draft players based on their so-called signability. It's absurd.

You keep referencing short-sighted. Well, that mess above is exactly what being short-sighted and incompetent is.

I don't disagree with any of the above, and I can only hope as a long time reds fan such as yourself that the new regime isn't as daft as the last two. That still does not mean that we would have been able to sign a player such as Drew or Weaver. Yes they were better talents, but they were in almost everyone's mind, riskier talents(in terms of signability, thats why they fell to where they did..). And if you recall, both held out until about the last possible moment before signing with their respective clubs. Given the reds historical ineptitude and failure to sign draft picks, I think taking one of these guys would have been Sowers part Duex. Not what I would have liked to see them do.. I dont know about you but that still leaves a sower(heh) taste in my mouth. But thats just my opinion. We'll never really know.

I think Homer was less a risk in terms of signability, which the Reds seriously needed to consider at the time... I'm sure there would have been riots in the streets of Cincinnati had the Reds failed to sign another one of their first round draft picks...

TRF
02-24-2006, 04:48 PM
You have missed the point this entire thread. NOBODY ever said HS position players shouldn't be taken in the first round. Just HS pitchers. Kearns was a first round pick out of HS, and Dunn would have been had there not been questions about his role at UT. As for teenagers that get signed via international draft, that's a completely different animal.

Stick to the point. Pick 10 HS pitchers from the last 20 years that made a significant impact in MLB AND were selected in the first round.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 04:53 PM
If he won't say it, I will. Especially Weaver. Though Drew/FeLo would be great trade bait Since FeLo blossomed last year.

Boras shouldn't scare the Reds. If Weaver really sat out, then the Reds get a comp pick next year. It isn't the same as the Sowers situation as the Reds we determined to sign their first round pick this time.

Weaver was in AA last year, likely to start there or AAA this year. Man would that suck to have that guy. Plus with the Reds offense + pitching woes, He'd be challenging for a rotation spot this year in Cincinnati. Boras knows that. weaver would be getting his payday pretty darn quick.

Fair enough.. but that doesn't mean Weaver or Drew would haev signed with the Reds.. I particulary dont think Weaver would have signed with us, given his apparent "west coast bias" just like his older brother.

Despite that.. Weaver is more MLB ready, but is his ceiling as a true number 1? I'm not so sure. So my question to you is this:

As a franchise in dire need of GOOD pitching.. do you take whats behind door number 1 or door number 2?

Door #1 holds a nice new shiney pitcher, very little assembley required, ready in 2 years, but at most may only be a #3 pitcher on a MLB team.

Door #2 holds a nice new shiney pitcher, assembly required, ready in 3-4 years, and could possibly be a true #1 ace on a MLB team.

Door #1 is more a sure thing, but door #2 is much more valuable in the long run. Its a hard question to answer for a lot of people. I already know your answer, and I already know mine. I take door #2 everytime. But hey, thats just me.

TRF
02-24-2006, 04:59 PM
Door number two is not ready in 3-4 years. Door number 2 might be ready in 3-4 year or never. see Howington, Ty.

Door number one has more value the day you draft him. the very first day. He's quicker to the show, which makes him valuable to both you and any potential trading partners.

Guys like Weaver get traded for guys like Mulder and Hudson. See Haren, Dan.

What is Homer Bailey worth? I mean really worth, to the Reds and to potential suitors?

Bailey might be ready for big league experience in 2008. He likely won't be truly successfull until 2009-2010, if he stays healthy.

Assuming health for Weaver as well, Jared Weaver will have pitched 700+ MLB innings by 2010.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 05:01 PM
You have missed the point this entire thread. NOBODY ever said HS position players shouldn't be taken in the first round. Just HS pitchers. Kearns was a first round pick out of HS, and Dunn would have been had there not been questions about his role at UT. As for teenagers that get signed via international draft, that's a completely different animal.

Stick to the point. Pick 10 HS pitchers from the last 20 years that made a significant impact in MLB AND were selected in the first round.

Stick to the point? My point was you take the best overall talent, regardless of Position, regardless of College vs. HS, regardless of slot in the round - IF THEY ARE THE BEST(or one of) TALENT ON THE BOARD AT YOUR PICK.

So which is it.. Just dont take HS pitchers in the 1st round? Then why even take them AT ALL? What does the 1st round have to do with the later rounds. You state becuase they are being overvalued and should be taken later? I dont buy that.

You limit data to the first 10 picks in the first round.... then its the first round completely.. when does it stop? This is a poor way to draft in my mind. Exploit the market weakness. Bottom effing line.

And I REALLY dont see whats so far fetched about signings guys who are teenagers via FA from the dominican, venezualen or puerto rican leagues. Why is it that a guy who's 18 and is a top talent, but taken in the first round, doomed to fail? Just becuase he went through a draft? Why is THIS such a whole different animal? Cause they weren't drafted? What makes Felix Hernandez special? Becuase he's not a top 10 pick? Thats absolutely laughable. They're comparable age wise and maturity wise aside from a few obvious thing.. Its a legitamite question.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 05:04 PM
Door number two is not ready in 3-4 years. Door number 2 might be ready in 3-4 year or never. see Howington, Ty.

Door number one has more value the day you draft him. the very first day. He's quicker to the show, which makes him valuable to both you and any potential trading partners.

Guys like Weaver get traded for guys like Mulder and Hudson. See Haren, Dan.

What is Homer Bailey worth? I mean really worth, to the Reds and to potential suitors?

And Door #1 could just as easily NEVER see the light of day. Injury knows no bias my friend. It does not discriminate against college athelete vs. highscool athelete. It just doesn't and to think that way is insane in my mind.

I dont care about who has more value WHEN I draft them.. I care about who has more value LONG TERM, to a MLB level club. Its the same way I pick a stock. I dont care how much its going to be worth when I buy into it, I care about how much its going to be worth down the line. And I think most all of the 30 MLB ballclubs in existance do as well.

TRF
02-24-2006, 05:17 PM
Ok Limit it to the first round completely. First round HS pitchers over the last 25 years. Give me a list of the absolute stud pitchers. I'll be stunned if you name 5.

The difference between the first round and round 15 is about 2 million dollars in some cases. that's the difference. its called limiting your risk. Howington cost the Reds 1.75 mil. Gruler cost 2.5 mil. I doubt either will ever throw a pitch at the major league level. College pitchers have already had 2-4 years being developed by an organization. They play at a high level. They are physically and mentally more mature (on average) Since they are closer to the show, your risk is limited.

Now to international players. Most on here woul agree the rules need to be changed, and allow an international draft. But aside from that you really seem to be talking about latin players. Most of these kids live at baseball academies run by former players and coaches. they are taught every day how to play the game, and are also often the subjects of abject poverty. Baseball means something completely different to them. It means a way off the island. The stars of their countries are revered in a way ours were in the 20's and 30's. Would I take a chance on a 17 year old pitcher from the dominican? I would be willing to spend more on him than i would a HS pitcher from the states. But then I would never plop 2 mil on a Chris Gruler.

The reasoning is they just treat the game differently.

TRF
02-24-2006, 05:21 PM
And Door #1 could just as easily NEVER see the light of day. Injury knows no bias my friend. It does not discriminate against college athelete vs. highscool athelete. It just doesn't and to think that way is insane in my mind.

I dont care about who has more value WHEN I draft them.. I care about who has more value LONG TERM, to a MLB level club. Its the same way I pick a stock. I dont care how much its going to be worth when I buy into it, I care about how much its going to be worth down the line. And I think most all of the 30 MLB ballclubs in existance do as well.

The difference is 1.75 isn't all the Reds spent on Howington. There is wasted development time. there is rehab. there is surgery. All of this could have happened to him in College. And had it happened there he would be finishing his degree, and getting a job in the world.

Injuries do happen, and they don't discriminate. But the reality is, and you have yet to refute this in any way: If you have 2 players both rated about the same (as Weaver and Bailey were), then you take the college pitcher. He's closer to the show, and closer to paying off the investment of his signing bonus and subsequent development in your system.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 05:40 PM
The difference is 1.75 isn't all the Reds spent on Howington. There is wasted development time. there is rehab. there is surgery. All of this could have happened to him in College. And had it happened there he would be finishing his degree, and getting a job in the world.

Injuries do happen, and they don't discriminate. But the reality is, and you have yet to refute this in any way: If you have 2 players both rated about the same (as Weaver and Bailey were), then you take the college pitcher. He's closer to the show, and closer to paying off the investment of his signing bonus and subsequent development in your system.

I have yet to refute it in any way? Yes, I have. I take whoever has the higher ceiling.. period. I dont take the guy with a ceiling of a #3 when I can take a guy who has a ceiling of a #1. Maybe thats just me... Call me stupid, dumb, wrong, idiotic.. whatever you want. I take the guy with the best long term ceiling, who has a good chance of reaching that ceiling.

Everyone is writing off Homer Bailey after 1 full year of performance becuase it wasn't up to "expectations." Its as if a 19 year old has no room for improvement. He still has plenty of chance to reach his ceiling, just not as quickly as the other guy.

If you take stock A, and its going to perform well.. give you a 10% return in year 1... and an APY of 13 or so over its lifetime, do you take that over Stock B who gives you a 5% return in year 1, but a 17/20 APY over its lifetime? I think any immediete gain you are talking about is being shortsighted when it comes to building a winning franchise.

You all talk about getting value, but if the better value is in stock B, I take it, even if it takes a bit longer to realize it.

IslandRed
02-24-2006, 05:48 PM
So which is it.. Just dont take HS pitchers in the 1st round? Then why even take them AT ALL? What does the 1st round have to do with the later rounds. You state becuase they are being overvalued and should be taken later? I dont buy that.

You limit data to the first 10 picks in the first round.... then its the first round completely.. when does it stop? This is a poor way to draft in my mind.

It stops when the pan-out ratios of HS pitchers versus college pitchers starts to equalize. That happens earlier in the draft than you'd think from listening to us harp about it. It just isn't in the first round. There's nothing wrong with taking chances on prep pitchers in rounds 2+ when the premium talent has gone off the board and the risk/reward levels out among pitchers and position players, preps and collegians. That's really the point -- prep pitchers are a crapshoot pretty much throughout the draft, the occasional Kerry Wood excepted, while the other groups have a higher level of predictability at the very top of the draft.

But Round 1 is where the biggest money goes and the opportunity cost of missing on the pick is highest. That's the argument for making the first-round pick from the groups offering better odds.

TRF
02-24-2006, 05:49 PM
Except that both Weaver and Bailey were rated at about the same pick. both were expected to go top 10. And since Weaver was considered the best pitcher in college by most publications, your point is moot. You consider him to be a #3 pitcher. Just you.

BTW both Gruler and Howington were considered to be stud front of the rotation starters too. As was Mark Prior. Hmm. now who would I rather have? Prior or Howington? Yeah, Prior went with the number 2 pick, but he was the concensus #1. And Minnesota passed because they were to scared to haggle. or too cheap.

M2
02-24-2006, 05:53 PM
Are you really saying it would have been wise for the Reds to go to negotiations with Drew or Weaver considering how both of them held out until the last possible moment and both were represented by Boras? Do you REALLY think under the Obie regime that they would have signed either of them? I don't. And I don't think that would have gone well with fans after the Sowers debacle.

We now know the Reds had $3M extra in pocket after the 2004 season (which got spent on Eric Milton). I always thought Boras was going to get his bluff called on those guys and he did. Neither made anything near what he demanded and had the Reds been the ones doing it, it turns out they had the cash to do it. Would I rather have spent that cash on one of those two and have a a far more advanced prospect than Bailey and Milton? Yep.


Nelson had a great debut, but a horrible k/bb ratio, his k rate was through the roof.. which to a lot of people, spelled doom. And guess what he did last year? Hammy injuries may have played a part in that, and it might have also been an excuse.

Hey, you know what's funny? Homer Bailey's got a bad K/BB ratio too.


M2, I live in colorado, I love the rockies - not as much as the reds mind you becuase for a good portion of my life there was no MLB baseball here... I hope Nelson lives up to the hype - but if I'm a betting man.. right now I take Bailey over Nelson. Here is a guy ranked in the top 40 of all prospects this year, and Nelson has fallen out of the top 100 completely and you'd still take him?

Yep, I'd still take him. Seems to me he and Bailey are at just about the same place right now. Though I'll concede Bailey has more market value at the moment, but are the Reds willing to sell high?

TRF
02-24-2006, 06:00 PM
Yep, I'd still take him. Seems to me he and Bailey are at just about the same place right now. Though I'll concede Bailey has more market value at the moment, but are the Reds willing to sell high?

I don't think they are at the same level at all. Weaver was at AA last year. That's light years from Low A. Bailey might get overpromoted to AA, but likely he'll be in Sarasota. Weaver could be in the 'pen for the Angels, or he could be at AAA. Possibly he repeats AA, but I doubt it.

pedro
02-24-2006, 06:01 PM
9 pages of drivel and I have yet to see a single argument explaining why it is a good investment to draft a high school pitcher in the first round.

pedro
02-24-2006, 06:03 PM
I don't think they are at the same level at all. Weaver was at AA last year. That's light years from Low A. Bailey might get overpromoted to AA, but likely he'll be in Sarasota. Weaver could be in the 'pen for the Angels, or he could be at AAA. Possibly he repeats AA, but I doubt it.


I think M2 was talking about Nelson not Weaver.

TRF
02-24-2006, 06:03 PM
9 pages of drivel and I have yet to see a single argument explaining why it is a good investment to draft a high school pitcher in the first round.

Yeah, but i don't get to get in on these arguements to often, so it's been fun for me. :p:

TRF
02-24-2006, 06:03 PM
I think M2 was talking about Nelson not Weaver.

RIGHT!

never mind M2

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 06:09 PM
Except that both Weaver and Bailey were rated at about the same pick. both were expected to go top 10. And since Weaver was considered the best pitcher in college by most publications, your point is moot. You consider him to be a #3 pitcher. Just you.

BTW both Gruler and Howington were considered to be stud front of the rotation starters too. As was Mark Prior. Hmm. now who would I rather have? Prior or Howington? Yeah, Prior went with the number 2 pick, but he was the concensus #1. And Minnesota passed because they were to scared to haggle. or too cheap.

Its not just me who thinks he's a #3.. it was well documented before the draft occured that weaver was not a #1 type pitcher.. did not have #1 type stuff..


Weaknesses:
Weaver's command is more notable than his stuff, and some scouts think he's more of a No. 3 starter than a headliner. He's an extreme flyball pitcher—his 0.4 ground/fly ratio was the second-lowest in the minors—and is vulnerable to homers. His slider grades as an above-average pitch at times but lack consistency. He often over-rotates in his delivery and gets around his slider, hanging it. A free spirit, he loses his cool at times.

Scouts think this.. not just me... He may have been valued as highly as Homer due to his appearance as being MLB ready, but that was not true either. And an extreme fly ball pitcher? You'd really want that in GAB? I've had enough of Milton.

If all things are really truely equal, of course I'll take Prior over Howington. Thats a no brainer. But all things are not equal - again.. I still take who i believe has the higher ceiling long term. And thats the point you guys like to ignore. You dont care about long term, you care about NOW.

M2
02-24-2006, 06:11 PM
Let me ask you guys something.. Would you complain about having any of these guys in your system?

Brandon Wood - HS, Scottsdale AZ - no
Nick Adenhart - HS, Williamsport MD - no, 14th round pick
Justin Upton - HS - no
Chad Billingsley - HS, Defiance OH - no, #24 pick
Jon Broxton - HS, Waynesboro GA - no, second round pick
Scott Elbert - HS, Seneca MO - no, #17 pick
Blake Dewitt - HS, Sikeston MO - no
Matt Kemp - HS, Midwest City, OK - no, but I think he's overrated
Matt Cain - HS, Germantown, TN - no, #25 pick
Cole Hamels - HS, San Diego, CA - yes, I've alway thought he was overdrafted and overrated
Jon Lester - HS, Puyallup WA - no, 2nd round pick
Delmon Young - HS, Camarillo CA - no
Elijah Dukes - no
BJ upton - no
Hayden Penn - no, 5th round pick
Brandon Snyder - I'm lukewarm about him and I'm glad the Reds picked Bruce instead
J.J Johnson - the guy in the Cubs' system? No thanks
Brandon Erbe - no, 3rd round pick
Adam Miller - no, #31 pick, though I think he's overrated
Ryan Sweeney - no
Billy Butler - no
Jason Kubel - no
Matt Moses - no
Anthony Swarzak - no, second round pick
Denard Span - no, but I'm not all that high on him either
Jay Rainville - no, #39 pick
Adam Jones - no
John Danks - yes, overdrafted
Eric Hurley - no, #30 pick
Troy Patton - no, 9th round pick
Prince Fielder - no
Mark Rogers - yes, overdrafted

Now this is hysterical. You just listed 32 prep prospects you clearly like and only two of them (two you didn't run into until the bottom of your list) were arms taken in the top 10. Anyone with common sense would be able to look at the historical evidence and then be able to look at his/her own list of above prospects and connect the dots.

M2
02-24-2006, 06:12 PM
I don't think they are at the same level at all. Weaver was at AA last year. That's light years from Low A. Bailey might get overpromoted to AA, but likely he'll be in Sarasota. Weaver could be in the 'pen for the Angels, or he could be at AAA. Possibly he repeats AA, but I doubt it.

I was talking about Nelson.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 06:15 PM
We now know the Reds had $3M extra in pocket after the 2004 season (which got spent on Eric Milton). I always thought Boras was going to get his bluff called on those guys and he did. Neither made anything near what he demanded and had the Reds been the ones doing it, it turns out they had the cash to do it. Would I rather have spent that cash on one of those two and have a a far more advanced prospect than Bailey and Milton? Yep.

You're making the assumption that Weaver would have signed with us. I cannot make that same assumption. Sorry but I cant.



Hey, you know what's funny? Homer Bailey's got a bad K/BB ratio too.

Hey, you know whats funny? Homer is still a top 40 prospect by most accounts where Nelson has fallen off the map completely, and has already been labled bust by some.




Yep, I'd still take him. Seems to me he and Bailey are at just about the same place right now. Though I'll concede Bailey has more market value at the moment, but are the Reds willing to sell high?

Then we can agree to disagree. Bailey and Nelson couldn't be FARTHER apart, as evidenced by Nelson's dissapearing act as being considered a top prospect. He's already labed a Bust, ala Matt Bush. Bust isn't even a word used in the same breath as Bailey expect by folks like yourself.

Go talk to scout. Go read scout opinions. Dont take stats at face value. Stats are great, but there's a lot more to baseball than numbers. And thats the truth.

M2
02-24-2006, 06:20 PM
Stick to the point? My point was you take the best overall talent, regardless of Position, regardless of College vs. HS, regardless of slot in the round - IF THEY ARE THE BEST(or one of) TALENT ON THE BOARD AT YOUR PICK.

And in the end analysis we can see that those highly drafted HS arms weren't the best talent on the board. You seem to think BA ratings are indicative of actual ability and ceilings. Clearly they aren't.

BTW, since I've been good enough to answer some of your questions, now it's time for you to answer one of mine: Now that you've been shown exactly how poorly top 15 HS arm selections turned out for teams in the 1990s and how poorly its gone for people taking them in the top 10 picks since the inception of the draft, how do you not take that into account when considering who to spend a top pick on? I mean, isn't it clear that scouts have spent decades getting this nothing but wrong?

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 06:22 PM
Brandon Wood - HS, Scottsdale AZ - no
Nick Adenhart - HS, Williamsport MD - no, 14th round pick
Justin Upton - HS - no
Chad Billingsley - HS, Defiance OH - no, #24 pick
Jon Broxton - HS, Waynesboro GA - no, second round pick
Scott Elbert - HS, Seneca MO - no, #17 pick
Blake Dewitt - HS, Sikeston MO - no
Matt Kemp - HS, Midwest City, OK - no, but I think he's overrated
Matt Cain - HS, Germantown, TN - no, #25 pick
Cole Hamels - HS, San Diego, CA - yes, I've alway thought he was overdrafted and overrated
Jon Lester - HS, Puyallup WA - no, 2nd round pick
Delmon Young - HS, Camarillo CA - no
Elijah Dukes - no
BJ upton - no
Hayden Penn - no, 5th round pick
Brandon Snyder - I'm lukewarm about him and I'm glad the Reds picked Bruce instead
J.J Johnson - the guy in the Cubs' system? No thanks
Brandon Erbe - no, 3rd round pick
Adam Miller - no, #31 pick, though I think he's overrated
Ryan Sweeney - no
Billy Butler - no
Jason Kubel - no
Matt Moses - no
Anthony Swarzak - no, second round pick
Denard Span - no, but I'm not all that high on him either
Jay Rainville - no, #39 pick
Adam Jones - no
John Danks - yes, overdrafted
Eric Hurley - no, #30 pick
Troy Patton - no, 9th round pick
Prince Fielder - no
Mark Rogers - yes, overdrafted

Now this is hysterical. You just listed 32 prep prospects you clearly like and only two of them (two you didn't run into until the bottom of your list) were arms taken in the top 10. Anyone with common sense would be able to look at the historical evidence and then be able to look at his/her own list of above prospects and connect the dots.

Whats hysterical is that you completely missed the point.

It doesn't matter where they were drafted, they are still prep arms. And if they were drafted later, and considering how good they are now, dont you think some of these guys were at the time UNDERVALUED? should have been selected higher? My point is, you take any of these guys, pick them in the top 10, and you look good.

I'm saying, the top 10 doesn't friggin matter, as you would like us to believe. It just doesn't matter where you are picked, or when. if you have the talent, you have the talent. Bottom line. Saying a guy is doomed to failure based on where he was picked in a draft is just asinine.

Scouts get paid to do their jobs. Sometimes they find a gem, sometimes they find a no brainer.. and sometimes they get it wrong. its not an exact science. Not much in baseball is.. there are therories about everything. Limiting yourself to not taking a HS arm in the top 10 picks is absolutely foolish. And thats exactly what you're doing if you automatically dismiss a prep player becuase you have a top 10 pick. Limiting yourself. Keep all optiosn open, keep an open mind. Take what you feel is the best available talent, every time.

BTW JJ Johson is not a cubbie, he's a O'bird. ;)

M2
02-24-2006, 06:29 PM
You're making the assumption that Weaver would have signed with us. I cannot make that same assumption. Sorry but I cant.

You're making the assumption that Weaver wouldn't have taken the same money from the Reds as what he got in favor of making far less by entering the 2005 draft.


Hey, you know whats funny? Homer is still a top 40 prospect by most accounts where Nelson has fallen off the map completely, and has already been labled bust by some.

Yeah, he might be labeled that by skittish types. If he plays well in 2006, that'll change. Meanwhile, if Bailey continues to put too many on and allow too many to score the skittish types will quickly sour on him. Like I said, I don't doubt who has more market value at the moment. Which one will actually reach the majors and be a better player? Well, I'm hardly convinced Bailey's got a leg up in that category.


Then we can agree to disagree. Bailey and Nelson couldn't be FARTHER apart, as evidenced by Nelson's dissapearing act as being considered a top prospect. He's already labed a Bust, ala Matt Bush. Bust isn't even a word used in the same breath as Bailey expect by folks like yourself.

Go talk to scout. Go read scout opinions. Dont take stats at face value. Stats are great, but there's a lot more to baseball than numbers. And thats the truth.

Like I give a hang about the opinions of folks who are epidemically fickle. I don't take stats at face value, but I don't put a lot of stock in folks who rate a guy as all-world one year and knife him the next.

I really don't care what terms scouts use to describe Bailey. To date they've missed the mark on him. These are the same scouts who didn't pick up his control issues and who inflated his working velocity. Find me someone who provided an accurate up front portrayal of what Bailey would deliver and I'll take that person's opinion into account in terms of what to expect from him in the future.

cincyinco
02-24-2006, 06:31 PM
And in the end analysis we can see that those highly drafted HS arms weren't the best talent on the board. You seem to think BA ratings are indicative of actual ability and ceilings. Clearly they aren't.

BTW, since I've been good enough to answer some of your questions, now it's time for you to answer one of mine: Now that you've been shown exactly how poorly top 15 HS arm selections turned out for teams in the 1990s and how poorly its gone for people taking them in the top 10 picks since the inception of the draft, how do you not take that into account when considering who to spend a top pick on? I mean, isn't it clear that scouts have spent decades getting this nothing but wrong?

I dont seem to think BA ratings are the holy grail as to a players ability. But I take a scouts word more than I do some guy on a message board rambling off stats.. sorry, but I do. These guys do it for a living, while you're just an armchair GM like me.

If your ideas are true and novel, why dont you go apply your efforts to a MLB franchise? I just dont get it.

I've seen the data, doesn't mean that finding the prep gem can't be done, and it doesn't mean it wont ever. I think you've acknowleged that. I will in no way dispute that drafting HS arms has not gone well. Failure can strike any player, college or prep. What I will dispute is WHY it didn't go well. Its not because the player was selected in the first 10 picks. That is absurd. its becuase the player just didn't have it, for whatever reason.

So yes, perhaps some guys are overdrafted, and fail. Thats a risk a club was willing to take. Its a risk I would take too. Its a difference of drafting philosophies. Some people take the sure thing. Some people take the risk. I will contend that the risk isn't as great as you'd like to make it seem.

Look at college vs prep as a whole.. look at success and failure rates. That is the true data in my opinion. Its not a huge difference if you look at the draft as a whole. There are reasons players fail, and its NOT because they were a prep arm taken in a top 10 pick. Read that statement again.

A player fails due to various reasons.. personal issues, lack of talent, lack of instructors, lack of coaches. The reds have failed because they've been bad at a lot of things.

My point is that if Homer fails, its not going to fail becuase he was selected in the top 10.. it was because of something else..

pedro
02-24-2006, 06:38 PM
Nobody said that HS pitchers will fail because they were drafted in the first 10 picks of the first round. Nobody.

What has been said repeatedly is that drafting HS pitchers in the first round (in particular in the first 10 picks) is a notoriously bad investment and that there is a ton of historical statistical evidence to back up that claim.

What I'm not seeing from the folks who are in favor of drafting HS pitchers in the first round is any corresponding evidence backing up why it is a good investment.

M2
02-24-2006, 06:48 PM
Whats hysterical is that you completely missed the point.

It doesn't matter where they were drafted, they are still prep arms. And if they were drafted later, and considering how good they are now, dont you think some of these guys were at the time UNDERVALUED? should have been selected higher? My point is, you take any of these guys, pick them in the top 10, and you look good.

Except its clear that no one's ever been able to figure out WHICH prep arms really deserve to be top 10 picks outside of the guys who were in the very first seat of the class. These guys weren't undervalued, they're just representative of how the system clearly doesn't work in regards to how HS pitchers get selected. I don't know which ones will pan out. You don't know which ones will pan out. Scout and MLB organizations clearly don't know which ones will pan out.


I'm saying, the top 10 doesn't friggin matter, as you would like us to believe. It just doesn't matter where you are picked, or when. if you have the talent, you have the talent. Bottom line. Saying a guy is doomed to failure based on where he was picked in a draft is just asinine.

No one said he was doomed to failure. Pretending that someone has, now that's asinine in spades. Top 10 clearly does matter. Folks have taken the time to show just how much it matters and how bad those investments have been. The Reds played against those odds and at no juncture was that a smart thing to do.


Scouts get paid to do their jobs. Sometimes they find a gem, sometimes they find a no brainer.. and sometimes they get it wrong. its not an exact science.

They get paid and it's been explicitly defined for you where they AREN'T finding gems. Since we know where they've consistently gotten it wrong how about applying a little scientific method? You know, if you keep turning up the same result in a test then maybe you ought to recognize that's the likely outcome.



Limiting yourself to not taking a HS arm in the top 10 picks is absolutely foolish. And thats exactly what you're doing if you automatically dismiss a prep player becuase you have a top 10 pick. Limiting yourself. Keep all optiosn open, keep an open mind. Take what you feel is the best available talent, every time.

I think I've been pretty clear about the circumstances under which I'd select a HS arm in the top 10. Scott Kazmir in 2002 would have worked for me just fine. If I were a scouting director and I had a scout making a case for a HS arm who wasn't as highly rated in those top 10 picks all I'd ask is that I be made to see Jesus. Otherwise, I'd be looking to make a smarter investment with that pick. It's 20 months later and Homer's still not making me see Jesus.


BTW JJ Johson is not a cubbie, he's a O'bird.

Ah, it's that J.J. Johnson. He was also a 2001 5th round pick.

Aronchis
02-24-2006, 06:56 PM
If a topic hasn't worn out its welcome(at least for now;) ), it is Homer Bailey.

The draft like many things is a crapshoot.

1.He fails: oh, he was just another HS pitcher failure. I will make sure to pass over them in the future. Will the Reds ever get it right?
2.He succeeds: Yeah, teams missed the boat with Bailey, he was best HS pitching prospect since Josh Beckett. The Reds are on the verge of a dynasty!!!

ochre
02-24-2006, 06:59 PM
Again, you are ignoring the premium (read that is dollars for clarity's sake) associated with drafting any player in the first round.

M2
02-24-2006, 07:00 PM
I dont seem to think BA ratings are the holy grail as to a players ability. But I take a scouts word more than I do some guy on a message board rambling off stats.. sorry, but I do. These guys do it for a living, while you're just an armchair GM like me.

If your ideas are true and novel, why dont you go apply your efforts to a MLB franchise? I just dont get it.

I like being a fan. And if fans can spot this stuff without too much effort that that doesn't speak well for the ability of the supposed pros.


I've seen the data, doesn't mean that finding the prep gem can't be done, and it doesn't mean it wont ever. I think you've acknowleged that. I will in no way dispute that drafting HS arms has not gone well. Failure can strike any player, college or prep. What I will dispute is WHY it didn't go well. Its not because the player was selected in the first 10 picks. That is absurd. its becuase the player just didn't have it, for whatever reason.

Boy, that's a cop out. The absurdity here is you being unable to identify a reason for why this was a good idea on Bailey outside of claiming the folks who've spent decades getting this wrong thought it was good idea.


So yes, perhaps some guys are overdrafted, and fail.

Perhaps nothing. You've been shown specifically who and where the failure occurs.


Thats a risk a club was willing to take. Its a risk I would take too. Its a difference of drafting philosophies. Some people take the sure thing. Some people take the risk. I will contend that the risk isn't as great as you'd like to make it seem.

It's the difference between a draft philosophy that works and one that doesn't. The risk is what the history shows it is. Run from that all you want. Strive like crazy to beat it, but the only way that's going to happen is if you come up with a better way of identifying which HS arms will thrive prior to the draft. As far as I'm aware, no one's come up with anything like that. If all you're going to do is replicate the same processes, I can tell you what results to expect.


Look at college vs prep as a whole.. look at success and failure rates. That is the true data in my opinion.

You mean conduct an unfocused, meaningless study that nets you no particularly useful or actionable results? No thanks. I prefer good data and targeted action.


My point is that if Homer fails, its not going to fail becuase he was selected in the top 10.. it was because of something else..

Why Homer might fail is one issue. That he was a bad bet to begin with is another.

Raisor
02-24-2006, 07:43 PM
9 pages of drivel and I have yet to see a single argument explaining why it is a good investment to draft a high school pitcher in the first round.


most of them look good in jeans?

That's all I got.

Doc. Scott
02-24-2006, 08:06 PM
It seems like the fundamental disconnect here is between people arguing that Bailey shouldn't be completely written off because he might still succeed (which is correct) and people arguing that drafting him was unwise because it's an extreme risk with an expensive draft pick (also correct).

Everyone keeps telling each other they're missing the point because they're talking about different scales. One argument is micro, the other macro.

No, it was not wise to spend a top-10 draft pick on Homer Bailey. But he might still succeed. (But probably not.)

Can we fast forward to the part where we just root for him and find out? And hope the Reds' front office makes wiser drafting decisions this coming June?

Great, thanks.

gonelong
02-24-2006, 08:12 PM
It seems like the fundamental disconnect here is between people arguing that Bailey shouldn't be completely written off because he might still succeed (which is correct) and people arguing that drafting him was unwise because it's an extreme risk with an expensive draft pick (also correct).

Everyone keeps telling each other they're missing the point because they're talking about different scales. One argument is micro, the other macro.

No, it was not wise to spend a top-10 draft pick on Homer Bailey. But he might still succeed. (But probably not.)

Can we fast forward to the part where we just root for him and find out? And hope the Reds' front office makes wiser drafting decisions this coming June?

Great, thanks.

Party pooper. ;)

GL

MikeS21
02-24-2006, 09:18 PM
Wow.. I think as someone who has subscribed to several publications, and BA as long as you have, I think you have a fairly bad understanding of how BA compiles its rankings. They aren't "BA's Scouts", these are MLB scouts that BA talks to. And not just one scout.. MANY scouts. A consensus is then formed...

Yes BA weighs more heavily on projection and what they feel will be value at the MLB level, and that might make them "wrong" or in what you term as "overvaluing" players quite a bit.. but to me that "going out on a limb" isn't such a bad thing. Of course you take it with a grain of salt. Its not the ONLY publication I read. But there was a consensus at the time of the draft that Homer Bailey was ace material. And its NOT like a 19 year old out of highschool can't thouroughly improve.

I mean, here are people writing off Homer Bailey due to his performance, but advocating they still would have taken Chris Nelson - and look at his results last year. Its laughable.
Yes, I've "heard" how they rank these prospects. Someone from this board sent my comments to Jim Callis and he lambasted me simply because I questioned their rankings. But if you actually read BA's coverage of the Reds' prospects, it sounds suspiciously like a a PR list handed out by Tim Naehring and Jim Bowden/Dan O'Brien.

And its funny that the "consensus" at the time of the draft said Bailey was ace material, when neither Sickles nor BP has ever rated Bailey that high.

In fact, if Bailey doesn't even fit BA's definition of a #1 starter. BA lists a projected #1 starter as a pitcher with a) two plus pitches; b) average third pitch; c) Plus-plus command ; and d) Plus make-up. Baily has a great fastball, and a tick better than average curve. But his third pitch has NEVER been average. And now, his supposed "plus-plus" command has left him, and when he says baseball is more of a job than a game, then I have to question his "plus" make-up as well.

KronoRed
02-24-2006, 09:26 PM
9 pages of drivel and I have yet to see a single argument explaining why it is a good investment to draft a high school pitcher in the first round.
it's only 7 on 30 posts per page ;)

M2
02-24-2006, 11:12 PM
Can we fast forward to the part where we just root for him and find out? And hope the Reds' front office makes wiser drafting decisions this coming June?

Well June is the complicating matter in all of this. For the third time this decade the Reds have a top 10 pick and hopefully the Reds decide not to gamble on a HS arm this time around.

Nugget
02-24-2006, 11:35 PM
OK rehashing some old wounds here but since I kind of weighed in at the start I just wanted to float a few other issues out there.

1. I think it was M2 who came up with the statistics about the four types of players that were drafted 90-99 and the percentage big league help they gave. There is just one issue with the statistics. I think if you are going to be completely fair the college contribution should only be compared between 92-99 as they are in all likelyhood going to be further along in their development and are likely to be in the big leagues earlier.

2. There is also a fundamental difference in what some people see the draft as being for. Some would draft the players most likely to help the big league club in the shortest amount of time whilst others see that it may be good to get the best potential player available as he may be a great player in the future. I think that depending on how you see the draft it will affect your opinion on the REDS picking HS pitchers.

3. I still hope Bailey makes it to the REDS and turns out to be a good signing. Just because it was DanO who made the call should not affect how we see the signing going.

TeamBoone
02-25-2006, 12:16 AM
02/24/2006 4:00 PM ET
Draft pick Bailey at first Spring Training
Nineteen-year-old right-hander gets first taste of Majors
By Mark Sheldon / MLB.com

SARASOTA, Fla. -- In a Reds organization parched for pitching prospects going on well over a decade, Homer Bailey doesn't appear to be just a mirage.
Bailey, who was Cincinnati's first-round draft pick (seventh overall) in 2004, is participating in his first big league Spring Training as a non-roster player. It's not a bad place to be for someone who is still only a teenager.

The right-hander is 19 years old.

"I can get a feel of what things would be like for me and where I stack up against the guys who have been in the Major Leagues a few years now," Bailey said.

By the look of it, he stacks up pretty well. In a recent live batting practice session, Bailey was dealing mid-90s mph fastballs and had hitters flailing. Pitchers usually have an advantage over rusty hitters this early in camp, but you got the impression there would be little difference in the results if it were later in spring.

All of the indications were there. The kid can definitely pitch.

"I think he's a couple of years away, but I like him," said former Reds ace Mario Soto, who's in camp as an instructor.

Reds manager Jerry Narron got his first look at Bailey pitching for a couple of innings last fall during an instructional league game in Florida.

"He dominated," Narron said. "He's going to be very good."

That seems to be the consensus around the game. After Bailey went 8-4 with a 4.56 ERA for a last-place Class A Dayton team in 2005, Baseball America named him the second-best prospect in the Midwest League. The publication listed him at No. 38 among all Minor League prospects in its 2006 preseason rankings. Still finalizing its list for publication next month, MLB.com will have Bailey among its top 50 list of prospects, too.

"Last year I didn't have any goals. It was, 'Let's see what professional baseball is all about,'" said Bailey, who was limited to 103 2/3 innings last season because Dayton's pitchers were limited to a pitch count of 60 under an organizational rule that has since been changed. "I wanted to get my feet underneath me and see what I was getting myself into. Over the whole year, I learned a lot."

Cincinnati hasn't drafted and developed a solid Major League pitcher of its own since Tom Browning in the 1980s. Years of bad luck -- whether it was via poor drafting, guys not signing or injuries -- have left the cupboard bare of promising young pitchers.

That could put Bailey on the express lane to soon working at Great American Ball Park.

"The way I see it, the organization is low on pitching. I'm a pitcher. It's like an open gate," said Bailey, a native of LaGrange, Texas. "They're looking for anybody that can get the job done. Obviously, I'm just another pitcher. I'd like to step in and take a big role."

"When he's ready to pitch in the Major Leagues, we'll bring him up, if that's April 1 of this year or its April 1, 2008," Narron said. "My whole thing is if you're ready, not how much time you've spent in the Minors."

Like most other young pitchers, there is room for improvement. The organization would like Bailey to sharpen his fielding skills and be better holding runners on base. His release time throwing to home plate could be quickened. All are areas that will be addressed in camp and during the regular season, where he could likely begin in high Class A.

"Obviously, I'm just like everybody else," Bailey said. "I want to get there as soon as possible. I think everybody in the Minor League system does. That's out of my control. All I can do is win games and do the best I can. The rest will take care of itself. If I get people out and do my job, I'll move up."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060224&content_id=1321664&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

M2
02-25-2006, 12:39 AM
1. I think it was M2 who came up with the statistics about the four types of players that were drafted 90-99 and the percentage big league help they gave. There is just one issue with the statistics. I think if you are going to be completely fair the college contribution should only be compared between 92-99 as they are in all likelyhood going to be further along in their development and are likely to be in the big leagues earlier.

Exactly how would it be fair to compare a 10-year slice from the HS crop to an 8-year slice from the college crop? They hold a draft every year. I picked 10-year slice that's now far enough off to measure the contribution each team derived from it. The results are what they are.


2. There is also a fundamental difference in what some people see the draft as being for. Some would draft the players most likely to help the big league club in the shortest amount of time whilst others see that it may be good to get the best potential player available as he may be a great player in the future. I think that depending on how you see the draft it will affect your opinion on the REDS picking HS pitchers.

I'd take players sooner or later. HS pitching picked high in the draft has netted neither. It's the fundamental difference between wanting something for those picks and ignoring years of data that can educate you about where your smartest picks lie.


3. I still hope Bailey makes it to the REDS and turns out to be a good signing. Just because it was DanO who made the call should not affect how we see the signing going.

I hope Bailey makes it too. For the record, my take is that the selection of Bailey is a reflection on the DanO regime and not the other way around.

Where Bailey could become really interesting if he pulls a Ty Howington and tears it up in his second season in the minors. Does that make him untouchable or does it make him Grade A trade bait?

Ravenlord
02-25-2006, 04:31 AM
i'll admit i've jumped pages of this thread at a time, but i haven't seen this point entirely addressed:


I think if you are going to be completely fair the college contribution should only be compared between 92-99 as they (college players) are in all likelyhood going to be further along in their development and are likely to be in the big leagues earlier.

the bolded part is, without a doubt true. and one of the primary drives to selecting college players. when you have a very weak and depleted farm system, you have to pick up advanced prospects quickly. other than trading for them, you do this by drafting out of college.

for example, most high schoolers who were drafted in 05 have ETA of 2012. 7 years. most college players drafted in 05 have an ETA of 2009. 4 years. and if you're a first round pick, you can probably shave 1 or 2 years off that average ETA. but it still stands that when every publication that exists says you are in the very bottom echelon of farms systems AND you have payroll issues, you don't have time to wait 7 years for your cavalry.

dougdirt
02-25-2006, 09:52 PM
Just thought this would go somewhere in here, and spark more argueing.

Q: Mike Marinaro from Tampa, FL asks:
There are a number of hard throwing right-handers on the list. Chad Billingsley, Justin Verlander, and Matt Cain are clearly at the top of this crop. Homer Bailey, Adam Miller, Mark Rogers, and Philip Hughes are bunched together a little lower in the rankings. Which of these pitchers has the most upside, and which of these four can you see breaking out in 2006 in the grandest fashion?
A:

Jim Callis: Good observation, Mike. To me, Homer Bailey probably has the most upside of that foursome. But really, we're talking about four guys with No. 1 starter stuff if it all comes together for them, so there's no much separation. I think Bailey has the best chance for a breakout in 2006 because he has the best combination of polish and health in that group.

Nugget
02-26-2006, 01:13 AM
I think your feeling about 2 is giong to influence your feeling about 1. As Ravenlord has indicated college players are scheduled to contribute sooner than HS players. Therefore, in order to determine contribution you would have to equate that fact that HS players would only contribute 3 years later than college players. Accordingly, in comparing the sample size you would have look to look three years down the track for HS players.

FWIW yes you want to see players contribute sooner rather than later (ie. Wagner) but if you have a HS pitcher who is scouted with significantly more upside that any college pitcher you could get at your position do you not take him.

pedro
02-26-2006, 01:15 AM
You know, I really hope that turns out ot be true, I really do.



Just thought this would go somewhere in here, and spark more argueing.

Q: Mike Marinaro from Tampa, FL asks:
There are a number of hard throwing right-handers on the list. Chad Billingsley, Justin Verlander, and Matt Cain are clearly at the top of this crop. Homer Bailey, Adam Miller, Mark Rogers, and Philip Hughes are bunched together a little lower in the rankings. Which of these pitchers has the most upside, and which of these four can you see breaking out in 2006 in the grandest fashion?
A:

Jim Callis: Good observation, Mike. To me, Homer Bailey probably has the most upside of that foursome. But really, we're talking about four guys with No. 1 starter stuff if it all comes together for them, so there's no much separation. I think Bailey has the best chance for a breakout in 2006 because he has the best combination of polish and health in that group.

TeamBoone
02-26-2006, 05:11 PM
Sunday, February 26, 2006

HOMER PLAN: The Reds don't have a definitive level in mind for right-hander Homer Bailey.

"We're going to challenge Homer," said Johnny Almaraz, the director of player development/international operations. "Homer's going to dictate where we send him."

It will be either high-A Sarasota or Double-A Chattanooga.

Putting him at Chattanooga would be significant, because players often make the jump from Double-A straight to the majors.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060226/SPT04/602260412/1071

Doc. Scott
02-26-2006, 06:31 PM
Here's the other thing worth considering. Given that many of the pitch counts and other arm-saving measures instituted by so many organizations have been recent (last five or six years), is it possible that we'll see a rise in the success rate of HS pitchers going forward?

TeamBoone
03-03-2006, 12:08 PM
03-03-06
Bailey making big impression
Column by The Post's Lonnie Wheeler

SARASOTA, Fla. - They say that Mario Soto didn't know Homer Bailey from Homer Simpson; but even so, he singled him out. An arm like Bailey's tends to draw attention to itself at a training camp like the Cincinnati Reds'. Johnny Bench - like Soto, one of the old-timey Reds who have been invited to make the rounds here, contributing what they will - noticed it, too, which sent Cincinnati's top-rated prospect scurrying for his cell phone and dialing-up the family chicken farm.

"I said, 'Dad, you've heard of Johnny Bench, haven't you?''' reported the teen-aged Texan. "He was like, 'Are you kidding me?'

"(Bench) called me over after I was done throwing, and he said, 'Everything looked good. Nice tempo.' It was definitely kind of neat. You almost feel a little taller. It seems like two years ago I was still in high school as an 18-year-old kid ..."

The whirlwind events of Bailey's young life have obviously messed with his memory. Two years ago at this time, he was actually at La Grange High School as a 17 -year-old kid.

Since then - since Cincinnati selected him in the first round of the 2004 draft - the slender right-hander has twice been rated by Baseball America as the Reds' most promising minor-leaguer. Like Soto and Bench and anyone else who has gotten a glimpse, the magazine has picked up on the tall fellow's fastball.

He can't hide it. Bailey will try to pile stuff around his best device - a curve here, a changeup there - but mostly, his pitching is all about steamy Texas heat. He doesn't even care much about the ancillary things that scouts and commentators are constantly talking about.

"Movement is always great, but that's not my style," said the personable pitcher, who scores impressively high on the speed gun. "If I just get a couple inches of break, that's all I want. The bat is only so wide. I don't need big, sweeping movement. I'm more the type that thinks velocity."

Velocity, after all - along with a precipitous breaking ball - is what earned him a $2.3 million bonus out of high school. It's what gives the Reds a reason to believe that their track record in developing pitchers will soon take a turn for the better.

Incredibly, the last starting pitcher who proved the organization right for drafting him in the first round was Don Gullett, 1969. Seven of those taken between Gullett and Bailey - Larry Payne, Steve Reed, Mark King, Scott Jones, Ty Howington, Jeremy Sowers and Chris Gruler - are still in search of a major-league victory. Ryan Wagner, whom Bailey beat in the Texas state finals when he was a freshman and Wagner a senior, has contributed to Cincinnati's cause since being chosen first in 2003, but only as a reliever.

The last first-round starter to even win a game for the Reds was C.J. Nitkowski, the 1994 selection. He went 1-3. Scott Scudder, class of '86, was the last first-round high schooler to record a Cincinnati victory. He was 15-23.

"They can talk about the Reds' past in developing young pitchers," said Bailey, closing the autobiography of rodeo legend Ty Murray and setting it on the floor in front of his locker, next to his cowboy boots, "but to me that doesn't mean anything. Because I'm different than the guy last year and the year before and the year before.

"I have every opportunity ahead of me, and there can't be any excuses. There's a lot of new faces here, and the past of developing Reds pitchers shouldn't be looked at so much. You have new people running this game now."

Those running it last year placed guys like Bailey on strict pitch counts, which typically limited their innings to five or even fewer. Every start, he asked for more.

The purpose, he realized, was to preserve the health and wherewithal of young arms; to avoid, if possible, the injuries that have bedeviled so many Cincinnati pitching prospects. The result is that, not counting Instructional ball, Bailey has thrown only 116 professional innings - hardly enough to get warmed up, in his view.

"I always felt like the later innings was when I kind of shift gears and excel a little bit," said the best wild-hog hunter in Fayette County. "They'd say they had to pull me because I only had 10 or 11 more pitches and we're not going to send you out there for 10 pitches. Why not? It only takes three."

More often, though, Bailey would spend three or more pitches on a single batter. In 103 innings last year at Dayton, he struck out 125. In a weak-armed organization like Cincinnati's, it's what sets him apart.

Even so, chances are faint that manager Jerry Narron will appoint Bailey to this year's major-league roster. The invitation to the big clubhouse was a courtesy, more than anything. And a memory.

"It's definitely one of those things I'll look back on later in life," Bailey said Thursday, about 28 hours before his spring-training debut, in which, presumably, he will unloose his post-adolescent nastiness on the Detroit Tigers. "I'll say, man, I was 19 years old, and Ken Griffey Jr.'s locker was right over there."

Things like that, and Bailey's fastball, make an impression. But will anyone remember where his locker was, at age 19?

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/SPT05/603030326/1027

MikeS21
03-03-2006, 01:41 PM
03-03-06
Bailey making big impression
Column by The Post's Lonnie Wheeler

SARASOTA, Fla. - They say that Mario Soto didn't know Homer Bailey from Homer Simpson; but even so, he singled him out. An arm like Bailey's tends to draw attention to itself at a training camp like the Cincinnati Reds'. Johnny Bench - like Soto, one of the old-timey Reds who have been invited to make the rounds here, contributing what they will - noticed it, too, which sent Cincinnati's top-rated prospect scurrying for his cell phone and dialing-up the family chicken farm.

"I said, 'Dad, you've heard of Johnny Bench, haven't you?''' reported the teen-aged Texan. "He was like, 'Are you kidding me?'

"(Bench) called me over after I was done throwing, and he said, 'Everything looked good. Nice tempo.' It was definitely kind of neat. You almost feel a little taller. It seems like two years ago I was still in high school as an 18-year-old kid ..."

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/SPT05/603030326/1027
If Mario Soto is so enamoured with this kid, let's hope he can teach Bailey how to throw that circle change.

ochre
03-03-2006, 05:00 PM
If he's not worried about adding movement on his fastball I think we are in trouble.

dougdirt
03-03-2006, 05:14 PM
Ochre, he said all he wants is a few inches of break with it. When its coming in at 96, you dont need it to move much.

Superdude
03-04-2006, 01:04 AM
When its coming in at 96, you dont need it to move much.

When it's coming at 96, a big sweeping motion just isn't going to happen.