PDA

View Full Version : The Future



TOBTTReds
02-25-2006, 02:29 PM
For some reason I got excited just seeing this picture....there is light at the end of the tunnel!

Heath
02-25-2006, 06:57 PM
Looks like he has the Brian Reith deer in the headlights look.....

According to all projections, he'll lose that pretty soon.

KronoRed
02-25-2006, 07:51 PM
Take it slow

Shaknb8k
02-25-2006, 08:28 PM
Im all for taking it slow, but why is everyone scared of him starting at AA? Are they afraid that since he is in AA that they might call him up to make a few spot starts late in the season? Or do they just not want him in AA? I think it would be awful if they put him in AA and call him up for a few starts but i dont think it would be terrible if they put him in AA for a whole season then AAA next year if he holds his own in AA. And then next year maybe a few spot starts. But i agree they need to take it slow but i dont see him starting out at AA as being terrible.

IslandRed
02-25-2006, 10:38 PM
Im all for taking it slow, but why is everyone scared of him starting at AA? Are they afraid that since he is in AA that they might call him up to make a few spot starts late in the season? Or do they just not want him in AA? I think it would be awful if they put him in AA and call him up for a few starts but i dont think it would be terrible if they put him in AA for a whole season then AAA next year if he holds his own in AA. And then next year maybe a few spot starts. But i agree they need to take it slow but i dont see him starting out at AA as being terrible.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really see the point to starting him in Double-A. I think it's a bad idea for pitchers to skip levels unless they're just utterly dominant, and Bailey hasn't been. Start him in High-A where he should be, and if he's made serious progress and is ready for Double-A, it'll be obvious soon enough. And I'm not sure I'd promote him even then. The Reds have acted in the past as if their philosophy of pitcher development is the Peter Principle -- if a guy starts to succeed, promote him until he crashes and burns -- as opposed to letting the guy sustain success and move him up when you know he's ready instead of hoping he's ready.

If Bailey spends the whole season stomping the Florida State League like a used cigarette, that won't hurt him a bit.

OnBaseMachine
02-26-2006, 12:22 AM
Homer looks like Jimmy Fallon in that picture.

OnBaseMachine
02-26-2006, 12:30 AM
The future:

http://www.rookiesquantities.com/Images/JI2k_102.jpg

http://www.rookiesquantities.com/Images/JI2k_Debuts13.jpg

http://www.ecurator.com/auction/auct-photos/1117439578.jpg

http://www.sasesportssigs.com/JustinGillman.jpg

http://www.rookiesquantities.com/Images/JTP2k_Gold08.jpg

Oops. Let's hope Homer turns out a little better than our other future stars.;)

RedsBaron
02-26-2006, 07:20 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really see the point to starting him in Double-A. I think it's a bad idea for pitchers to skip levels unless they're just utterly dominant, and Bailey hasn't been. Start him in High-A where he should be, and if he's made serious progress and is ready for Double-A, it'll be obvious soon enough. And I'm not sure I'd promote him even then. The Reds have acted in the past as if their philosophy of pitcher development is the Peter Principle -- if a guy starts to succeed, promote him until he crashes and burns -- as opposed to letting the guy sustain success and move him up when you know he's ready instead of hoping he's ready.

If Bailey spends the whole season stomping the Florida State League like a used cigarette, that won't hurt him a bit.
I really agree with that. Let Bailey have some sustained success at one level before promoting him too quickly.

wheels
02-26-2006, 09:27 AM
I've seen nothing in Homer Bailey's performance that would lead me to believe that he's capable of pitching at a higher level this season.

TOBTTReds
02-26-2006, 11:08 AM
I've seen nothing in Homer Bailey's performance that would lead me to believe that he's capable of pitching at a higher level this season.

If you truly believe every word you just said, then I'm guessing you have never seen him pitch, unless you mean "at a higher level" is MLB. I personally would have him at high-A this year to start, then move him up if he is still taking care of biz. His main problem is his control, I would like to see him get a hold of that before he hits AA bc if he is wild in AA, he might get rocked.

KronoRed
02-26-2006, 12:34 PM
The future:
.;)
Buzz killer :p:

IslandRed
02-26-2006, 06:28 PM
If you truly believe every word you just said, then I'm guessing you have never seen him pitch, unless you mean "at a higher level" is MLB. I personally would have him at high-A this year to start, then move him up if he is still taking care of biz. His main problem is his control, I would like to see him get a hold of that before he hits AA bc if he is wild in AA, he might get rocked.

I think you're getting your cart ahead of your horse here. :p:

Wheels said "performance," which means actual results and not hype or potential. Based on his pro career to date, there's no reason to believe Bailey's ready for Double-A yet; he hasn't pitched at High-A and wasn't dominant at Low-A. You said yourself he needs to improve his command before he's going to succeed there. Granted, he could move quickly if his command improves, because he can miss bats -- but he needs to earn his promotions on results and not wishful thinking.

wheels
02-26-2006, 08:16 PM
I think you're getting your cart ahead of your horse here. :p:

Wheels said "performance," which means actual results and not hype or potential. Based on his pro career to date, there's no reason to believe Bailey's ready for Double-A yet; he hasn't pitched at High-A and wasn't dominant at Low-A. You said yourself he needs to improve his command before he's going to succeed there. Granted, he could move quickly if his command improves, because he can miss bats -- but he needs to earn his promotions on results and not wishful thinking.

Thank you very much.

That's what I was trying to get across.

Betterread
02-26-2006, 10:42 PM
I've seen nothing in Homer Bailey's performance that would lead me to believe that he's capable of pitching at a higher level this season.

Have you seen him pitch? If so, please provide details of why you make this statement. If not, you should ask yourself why you feel the need to critisize a person for things you cannot back up with some type of objectivity.

KearnsyEars
02-27-2006, 08:12 AM
I'd like to see him start at AA.....

WebScorpion
02-27-2006, 09:50 AM
Since he hasn't jumped in here, I'll say this for princeton... "Coddle thy pitchers!" ...

It's something the Reds have NEVER done, and aren't you supposed to learn from your mistakes...the Reds should be pitching geniuses by now! :eek:

Put him in High-A, tell him he'll be there all year, and keep your promise. Let him dominate the league and get used to dominating opposing hitters. Mentally, he should EXPECT to be dominant. Hey, at least he won't get pulled in the 4th inning this year for his 'tandem starter'. :p:

wheels
02-27-2006, 11:20 AM
Have you seen him pitch? If so, please provide details of why you make this statement. If not, you should ask yourself why you feel the need to critisize a person for things you cannot back up with some type of objectivity.

62 walks in 102 IP with a 1.46 WHIP at Dayton tells me that he isn't ready to move yet.

Isn't looking at a guy's delivery and deducing that he throws hard and that he's tall and skinny more subjective than looking at a player's actual performance?

Isn't saying "Well, I saw him pitch, so I think he should move all the way to AAA" more subjective than actually looking at what he actually did?

Sorry I didn't post the numbers in that post, but I figured we'd all seen 'em floating around for quite some time around here.

It's my [B]objective[B] opinion that a guy should dominate the lower levels before he can be considered for the higher levels at such a young age.

Why does that opinion bother you so much?

Betterread
02-27-2006, 01:01 PM
62 walks in 102 IP with a 1.46 WHIP at Dayton tells me that he isn't ready to move yet.

Isn't looking at a guy's delivery and deducing that he throws hard and that he's tall and skinny more subjective than looking at a player's actual performance?

Isn't saying "Well, I saw him pitch, so I think he should move all the way to AAA" more subjective than actually looking at what he actually did?

Sorry I didn't post the numbers in that post, but I figured we'd all seen 'em floating around for quite some time around here.

It's my [B]objective[B] opinion that a guy should dominate the lower levels before he can be considered for the higher levels at such a young age.

Why does that opinion bother you so much?

Here is your quote:
"I've seen nothing in Homer Bailey's performance that would lead me to believe that he's capable of pitching at a higher level this season."

In your earlier post, you appear to be saying that you have see no aspect of his performance that would even justify one level higher (highA).
To my reading, in a thread titled "The Future" (an optimistic tone, don't you think?), your criticism was both excessive and generalized. It bothered me sufficiently to quesion your reasons for arriving at that criticism, to see if you had a specific reason for holding so emphatically negative an opinion. Your answer was derivative, not specific, so I am reassured to learn that you did not hear of an arm injury or saw an example of poor work ethic or bad character that would concern me about this young man.

registerthis
02-27-2006, 01:13 PM
Here is your quote:
"I've seen nothing in Homer Bailey's performance that would lead me to believe that he's capable of pitching at a higher level this season."

In your earlier post, you appear to be saying that you have see no aspect of his performance that would even justify one level higher (highA).
To my reading, in a thread titled "The Future" (an optimistic tone, don't you think?), your criticism was both excessive and generalized. It bothered me sufficiently to quesion your reasons for arriving at that criticism, to see if you had a specific reason for holding so emphatically negative an opinion. Your answer was derivative, not specific, so I am reassured to learn that you did not hear of an arm injury or saw an example of poor work ethic or bad character that would concern me about this young man.

Well, let's turn the question around a bit.

What in Homer Bailey's performance have you seen that tells you that he's ready for a promotion to a higher level (AA)? I'm not talking potential--we've all read the stories about his "stuff". I'm referring to his professional performance to date--what have you seen that merits a promotion? The statistics Wheels mentions don't seem to suggest that Homer is ready for anything above High A ball. Perhaps you have a different take on it.

Betterread
02-27-2006, 01:22 PM
Well, let's turn the question around a bit.

What in Homer Bailey's performance have you seen that tells you that he's ready for a promotion to a higher level (AA)? I'm not talking potential--we've all read the stories about his "stuff". I'm referring to his professional performance to date--what have you seen that merits a promotion? The statistics Wheels mentions don't seem to suggest that Homer is ready for anything above High A ball. Perhaps you have a different take on it.

I think that Bailey can pitch at AA either later this season or next season because he has two ML-plus pitches right now. That is enough for AA.
My preference is to have him work on developing two additional ML average pitches in high A (so when he arrives in AA, he has a full arsenal to work on manipulating), before moving him to AA, because the pressure at A ball is different than the pressure at AA or AAA. I He needs development-time for other aspects of pitching, as well, because the inconsistent command of two pitches is not enough to pitch in the majors. He is 19/20 and he is inexperienced, but he is also very talented.
But I believe his move to higher organization levels should depend on attaining developmental goals, not achieiving certain statistics. I don't care what his numbers are, he should move up if and when he reaches the goals that the developmental staff set for him.

registerthis
02-27-2006, 01:56 PM
I agree that numbers alone don't mean *as much* in the low-level minors as they do in the upper levels and at the majors level. But they do mean something. And thrusting Bailey into a level of action that he is not prepared for is not going to help his development. He does not posess good command of his pitches, and he's proved to be extremely hittable. If he comes out with both guns blazing and posts good numbers in A ball, I have no problems promoting him. But a WHIP hovering around the 1.5 mark and a 1.06 G/F ratio isn't going to cut it, particularly if the Reds place him in a class where the hitters have more power, and a lot of those doubles and long fly balls become HRs.

The Reds aren't going to compete for a playoff spot this year, there's no need to rush this kid. Let him learn how to consistently get guys out while gaining greater command of his pitches, then promote him. Frequently for young pitchers, confidence is as important as a healthy arm.

deltachi8
02-27-2006, 02:53 PM
in the year 2000...

flyer85
02-27-2006, 03:01 PM
There is no reason to rush Bailey to the majors. When he is ready his minor league numbers will show it. Supposedly he was told to work on developing his secondary pitches last year and not focus as much on overall success.

I have no problem to start him at High A but to rush a young pitcher to the majors early is just a waste of his cheap years which a small market team needs to build some success.

ochre
02-27-2006, 03:15 PM
I have seen him play. I saw people hitting his fastball a lot better than I would expect low A players to hit a major league caliber fastball. Granted he didn't appear to be throwing as hard that day as others here have seen him throw, but I'm talking solid line drives. Combine that with his control issues and I think he has some maturing to do. He excelled in high school by throwing gas that not many could even catch up with. Professional players appear to be able to catch up with it a bit better. That's why I have problems with the subjective evaluations of his control from the predraft reports. He had those High School batters starting their swings before the ball left his hand.

From behind home plate (2nd level granted) his FB didn't appear to have much movement on it. When people made contact (it is still just low A) they typically struck the ball firmly.

pedro
02-27-2006, 03:23 PM
I think that Bailey can pitch at AA either later this season or next season because he has two ML-plus pitches right now. That is enough for AA.
My preference is to have him work on developing two additional ML average pitches in high A (so when he arrives in AA, he has a full arsenal to work on manipulating), before moving him to AA, because the pressure at A ball is different than the pressure at AA or AAA. I He needs development-time for other aspects of pitching, as well, because the inconsistent command of two pitches is not enough to pitch in the majors. He is 19/20 and he is inexperienced, but he is also very talented.
But I believe his move to higher organization levels should depend on attaining developmental goals, not achieiving certain statistics. I don't care what his numbers are, he should move up if and when he reaches the goals that the developmental staff set for him.

If he really has two ML plus pitches and is so ready to advance why then didn't he dominate at Dayton last year?

flyer85
02-27-2006, 03:25 PM
May be interesting to compare what Bailey did last year and what Wood does this year.

wheels
02-27-2006, 04:32 PM
I don't have anything against Homer Bailey, and I don't know how looking at his walk totals, and coming to the conclusion that discretion should be used in terms of advancing him is such a negative way to look at things.

After watching Howington, Gruler, Pauly, Gardner et al flame out and develop injuries, I find it next to impossible to be in any mode other than "show me" in regards to young arms at lower levels.

If the kid's special, show me. I wanna see results, not just assurances that he's "just working on his pitches" in the lower levels.

If he's got something special, he'll dominate, and until he does, there's no reason to have him get his head kicked in at a higher level just because of blind optimism.

Betterread
02-27-2006, 06:01 PM
If he really has two ML plus pitches and is so ready to advance why then didn't he dominate at Dayton last year?

His numbers were mixed (he did have some good statistics, people seem to forget - his K rate, his batting avg. against, etc.) because he was inconsistent. He did dominate on certain occasions. People seem to forget that it is common for highly touted prospects to take time to reach their potential. Adam Dunn did not dominate before he got to AA, and he went from low A to AA and he turned out fine.
Along with others here I have been perplexed by some of the organizational level-leaps that have been made in the past few years (encarcnacion, Pelland, Valiquette, Gonzalez, etc.). I hope Bailey is brought along gradually, rather than agressively. I'm just indicating that he has the potential to be a real top of the rotation starter. I do not think he is that starter at the moment.

SteelSD
02-27-2006, 06:09 PM
In your earlier post, you appear to be saying that you have see no aspect of his performance that would even justify one level higher (highA). To my reading, in a thread titled "The Future" (an optimistic tone, don't you think?), your criticism was both excessive and generalized.

And to the mind of a reasonable person, wheels comments were neither excessive or generalized and drawn from nothing other than the objective data at his disposal. It was quite obvious from his use of the word "performance" that wheels was talking about...um...performance.

Even more odd was your response to registerthis when he asked you to produce objective data to back your contention while also asking you to avoid the use of "potential" and "stuff". Fair question and request considering your earlier demand for objective data. Unfortunately, your response boiled down to nothing more than "stuff" and "potential" instead of objective data.

One of the stranger exchanges I've ever seen. wheels was being objective. You told him he wasn't being objective. Someone asked you to be objective. You responded with subjectivity.

Pot, kettle...meet Betterread.

wheels
02-27-2006, 06:19 PM
Objective-
: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum.

Betterread
02-27-2006, 08:34 PM
One of the stranger exchanges I've ever seen. wheels was being objective. You told him he wasn't being objective. Someone asked you to be objective. You responded with subjectivity.

Pot, kettle...meet Betterread.

Are you attempting to insult me? I'm not offended because I don't understand how you are trying to belittle me.

Betterread
02-27-2006, 08:37 PM
Objective-
: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum.

It's nice that you looked up the meaning of the word. Do you honestly think your first post was objective, upon reading that definition?

wheels
02-27-2006, 08:56 PM
It's nice that you looked up the meaning of the word. Do you honestly think your first post was objective, upon reading that definition?


Ummmm...Yeah, I do.

SteelSD
02-28-2006, 12:07 AM
Are you attempting to insult me? I'm not offended because I don't understand how you are trying to belittle me.

At this point, I don't think you could tell an "insult" from a "critique" of your illogical argument any more than you can identify the difference between "objective" and "subjective".

Instead of continuing to be snippy, you should thank wheels for posting the definition of "objective". After you do that, I think you should actually READ the definition posted.

Then after you've mastered the word "objective" I think you should go back and attempt an analysis that actually does follow the very simple objective parameters set down by registerthis as you never actually did comply with his request for an objective performance. Instead, you resorted to lauding Bailey's stuff and potential- the same crap registerthis asked you to stay away from.

wheels used objective data to fuel an objective analysis. You've done nothing but use subjective anecdotal evidence to drive a subjective analysis after chiding the objective guy about being non-objective.

At best, that's as illogical as it gets. I can hardly believe you can't figure that out.

TOBTTReds
02-28-2006, 12:28 AM
I think you're getting your cart ahead of your horse here. :p:

Wheels said "performance," which means actual results and not hype or potential. Based on his pro career to date, there's no reason to believe Bailey's ready for Double-A yet; he hasn't pitched at High-A and wasn't dominant at Low-A. You said yourself he needs to improve his command before he's going to succeed there. Granted, he could move quickly if his command improves, because he can miss bats -- but he needs to earn his promotions on results and not wishful thinking.

First off, I said he is ready for High-A, not AA. Second, I know he said performance. I watched him perform last year, he can definitely pitch in high-A this year. Yes, he has a small control problem, but really that is it. Also I think his change is better than people give him credit for (still a work in progress though). If anyone watched him 'perform' last season, they would know he is ready for high-A this year.

registerthis
02-28-2006, 09:24 AM
Then after you've mastered the word "objective" I think you should go back and attempt an analysis that actually does follow the very simple objective parameters set down by registerthis as you never actually did comply with his request for an objective performance. Instead, you resorted to lauding Bailey's stuff and potential- the same crap registerthis asked you to stay away from.

I have a distinct feeling this is due in large part to the fact that Bailey's statistics DON'T match up with betterread's position--that a promotion is warranted for Bailey.

Betterread, no one questions Bailey's potential. That much is clear. But potential won't get you a can of beans if you can't translate it into success. The best thing you've been able to put forth about Bailey's performance is that he has been consistently inconsistent. So, the question is, why do you believe that a potential-laden pitcher who has been unable to consistently get batters out at the lowest level of the minors is deserving of a promotion to a higher level? I'm just not following the logic. On one hand, you admit that he was far from dominant in low-A. Yet, you subsequently pine for him to be promoted to a level where the players are more advanced and developed, and the odds of success are lowered. There's a disconnect there that I'm not getting.

Betterread
02-28-2006, 12:53 PM
I have a distinct feeling this is due in large part to the fact that Bailey's statistics DON'T match up with betterread's position--that a promotion is warranted for Bailey.

Betterread, no one questions Bailey's potential. That much is clear. But potential won't get you a can of beans if you can't translate it into success. The best thing you've been able to put forth about Bailey's performance is that he has been consistently inconsistent. So, the question is, why do you believe that a potential-laden pitcher who has been unable to consistently get batters out at the lowest level of the minors is deserving of a promotion to a higher level? I'm just not following the logic. On one hand, you admit that he was far from dominant in low-A. Yet, you subsequently pine for him to be promoted to a level where the players are more advanced and developed, and the odds of success are lowered. There's a disconnect there that I'm not getting.

First of all, I think his minor league assignment should depend on his spring training performance, with last year as a secondary consideration. This is to reward any good work he did over the winter, or to correct any poor work or bad tendencies developed over the winter.
Given a decent spring training showing, it is my opionion that high A would be an appropriate assignment because it would present a slightly greater challenge than low A. Now your question is: did Bailey merit a greater challenge based upon his statistics from last year? I can see your point and I believe it is valid, and I would answer that he earns a promotion (but with a just-passing grade, not cum-laude). I am also choosing to use other criteria than his low A statistics to evaluate whether he should move up or stay at low A. I think that statistics in the minors can be revealing, or they can confusing becuase players are not always used in situations that optimize their performance. In the low minors, pitchers are often told to throw a certain number or percentage of pitches that the developmental staff want them to work on. This obviously affects their performance adversely.
Player evaluation is an art, not a science, and if there were useful rules that applied to all players, in all situations, it would make evaluations more effective. And I am not a professional evaluator, I'm just a fan.

IslandRed
02-28-2006, 04:47 PM
I am also choosing to use other criteria than his low A statistics to evaluate whether he should move up or stay at low A.

I think maybe we have the source of the disagreement here.


I've seen nothing in Homer Bailey's performance that would lead me to believe that he's capable of pitching at a higher level this season.

Sounds like you read it as "higher level than where he was," i.e. Low-A, whereas wheels probably took it as a foregone conclusion (as did I) that Bailey's going to start the year at Sarasota at minimum and by "higher level" meant Double-A or above.

Could be wrong.

wheels
02-28-2006, 08:54 PM
Island Red's reading me correctly.

Some folks are advocating moving him far quicker than I would.