PDA

View Full Version : Would You Trade Bailey For Dontrelle Willis?



Pages : [1] 2

Krusty
07-27-2006, 10:08 AM
Would you package Homer Bailey in a deal to acquire LHP Dontrelle Willis? The Reds would have control of Willis for the remainder of this season and all of 2007.

MWM
07-27-2006, 10:09 AM
Nah. I would for Brandon Webb though.

Krusty
07-27-2006, 10:11 AM
Nah. I would for Brandon Webb though.

This is one heck of a decision. Do you trade a kid that could be the ace of your staff for the next 5 to 10 years? Or do you get that young lefty that would solidify your rotation for the remainder of this season and in 2007?

registerthis
07-27-2006, 10:31 AM
Established, quality major league talent trumps unproven minor league talent every single time.

Sure, sometimes the minor leaguer ends up being more productive, but for every John Smoltz there's a Rob Bell or Brandon Claussen. Give me Dontrelle, thanks.

GAC
07-27-2006, 10:35 AM
Nah. I would for Brandon Webb though.

Didn't we have a chance to draft Webb and went for someone else instead?

As for Willis?

A BIG FAT "No". ;)

lollipopcurve
07-27-2006, 10:40 AM
Still saying no here.

I think Homer is going to pay dividends for the Reds, whether it's as a #1 or a mid-rotation guy, and he's going to do it for more years and less money than Willis would.

M2
07-27-2006, 10:43 AM
I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Benihana
07-27-2006, 10:53 AM
I would. The problem is, given the package thats being discussed with the Mets (Milledge, Heilman and Humber), the package we would have to offer would be more like Bailey, Encarnacion and Votto. And that, my friends, would be too steep of a price for me.

lollipopcurve
07-27-2006, 10:56 AM
Florida wants a young CF, apparently. The Reds would have to go Bruce (who is likely a corner OF anyway) and Bailey to even compete with the Mets offer. Bad idea, IMO.

puca
07-27-2006, 10:56 AM
I'd have to say no because I don't think this team, even with Willis, is an elite team. Nor do I think they can reach that status in 2007. Could this team possibly win the World Series by adding Willis? I guess it's possible because non-elite teams have won before, but I don't think adding any one player is going to improve their chances above 'minimal'.

Bailey may or may not become as good as Willis some day, but I know you will never develop a great major league pitcher if you trade away your best minor league talent. And given the Marlins track record in acquiring great young players I don't think I would ever trade them a minor leaguer that they want anyway. :)

M2
07-27-2006, 10:59 AM
I would. The problem is, given the package thats being discussed with the Mets (Milledge, Heilman and Humber), the package we would have to offer would be more like Bailey, Encarnacion and Votto. And that, my friends, would be too steep of a price for me.

BA recently anointed Bailey the top pitching prospect in the minors. Meanwhile Milledge has got defensive issues, Heilman's a middle reliever with a 4.32 ERA and Humber's yet to reclaim quality prospect status.

Do you want a bunch of maybes and if-onlys for Dontrelle Willis or do you want the best pitching prospect in the minors?

At least that would be my pitch.

lollipopcurve
07-27-2006, 11:05 AM
A Marlins-Mets trade would be sweet -- big money monolith vs rebuilding wunderkinds.

15fan
07-27-2006, 11:06 AM
Homer's trade value right now is as high as it is ever going to be.

princeton
07-27-2006, 11:07 AM
Homer's trade value right now is as high as it is ever going to be.

hopefully not

The_jbh
07-27-2006, 12:23 PM
Uh a proven lefty ace that is more than a 1 year rental for a prospect... himmm yes!

Bailey hasnt made a start in the majors yet. Willis hasnt really had any arm problems and is a proven ace and a strike out pitcher... exactly what we'd want.


He would shoot to #1 in the rotation

picture
Willis, Harang, Arroyo... thats the best top 3 in the NL and in the top 5 of the majors. Willis is a great guy and a team player...

honestly the only thing wrong with the kid is his contract end in 07, i think we can convince him to resign if we make the playoffs

Benihana
07-27-2006, 12:39 PM
Uh a proven lefty ace that is more than a 1 year rental for a prospect... himmm yes!

Bailey hasnt made a start in the majors yet. Willis hasnt really had any arm problems and is a proven ace and a strike out pitcher... exactly what we'd want.


He would shoot to #1 in the rotation

picture
Willis, Harang, Arroyo... thats the best top 3 in the NL and in the top 5 of the majors. Willis is a great guy and a team player...

honestly the only thing wrong with the kid is his contract end in 07, i think we can convince him to resign if we make the playoffs


I thought he is signed for three more years? Willis-Arroyo-Harang would be (arguably) the best top 3 in baseball, provided they could maintain the level they have pitched at this year. It would rival the old big 3 of the A's (with all three being under 30), and would instantly make us a perennial playoff contender so long as these three remain in the rotation and Adam Dunn still roams the outfield. The more pertinent question, I believe, is would you trade Bailey and Bruce for him? I'd be a little more hesitant on that one, but you would have to consider it.

Krusty
07-27-2006, 12:44 PM
I thought he is signed for three more years? Willis-Arroyo-Harang would be (arguably) the best top 3 in baseball, provided they could maintain the level they have pitched at this year. It would rival the old big 3 of the A's (with all three being under 30), and would instantly make us a perennial playoff contender so long as these three remain in the rotation and Adam Dunn still roams the outfield. The more pertinent question, I believe, is would you trade Bailey and Bruce for him? I'd be a little more hesitant on that one, but you would have to consider it.

I think you could make the deal without including Bruce. Throw in a young infielder like Olmedo or one or two young arms from Chatanooga if you have to.

To trade Homer or not.......that is the question to be asked.

Puffy
07-27-2006, 12:45 PM
I would do it a heartbeat, too.

OldXOhio
07-27-2006, 12:49 PM
If anyone should understand the no guarantee rules of a top flight pitching prospect, it's the Reds. Homer Bailey may very well end up being different, but I'll take the proven commodity in Willis.

Benihana
07-27-2006, 12:56 PM
They want a CF? Bailey and a PTBNL (that being Drew Stubbs)? I say done and done!

Stubbs can't be named until next June, but I think thats the most realistic deal yet.

Puffy
07-27-2006, 12:57 PM
I'd do it in a heartbeat.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1070272/don_johnson_heartbeat_video_box.jpg

Krusty
07-27-2006, 12:58 PM
In order for the Marlins to trade their ace, you have to give them a reason to trade their ace. Getting one of the top pitching prospects from another organization would be a must along with a couple of other prospects.

Which makes me wonder if the Dodgers would trade RHP Chad Billingsley for Willis? Would the Yankees part with LHP Phillip Hughes for Willis? How about the Red Sox parting with LHP Jon Lester for Willis?

You see where I'm going here? Does the Reds front office project Bailey to be a better major league pitcher than Willis? If not, then you would make the deal. If you think Bailey will be a consistent 15-20 winner in five years while pitching 200 + innings, then you won't make the deal.

If you had to compare Bailey to another major league pitcher at this stage of Bailey's career, who would that be?

Steve4192
07-27-2006, 01:11 PM
If you had to compare Bailey to another major league pitcher at this stage of Bailey's career, who would that be?

David Clyde?
Todd Van Poppel?

..... just kidding.


.....sort of.

M2
07-27-2006, 01:14 PM
If you had to compare Bailey to another major league pitcher at this stage of Bailey's career, who would that be?

Much as nobody wants to hear it, he's been awfully Ty Howington so far. I think he's better than Howington, but his career path is eerily similar to date.

backbencher
07-27-2006, 01:25 PM
[QUOTE=Krusty]You see where I'm going here? Does the Reds front office project Bailey to be a better major league pitcher than Willis? If not, then you would make the deal. If you think Bailey will be a consistent 15-20 winner in five years while pitching 200 + innings, then you won't make the deal.QUOTE]

Yes and no. You trade when you have the opportunity. The Reds have been injury lucky this year and have gotten career or potentially near-career years out of Hatteberg, Ross, Phillips, Arroyo and Harang. Throw in possible good-as-they're ever-going-to-be-again years out of Aurilia, Griffey, Milton and a half-year of Kearns. The Reds don't have enough young talent, in my opinion, to make it likely that they are going to be in the mix most or all of the next five years without some additional luck. So if a deal is likely to singnificantly help this year's playoff push, I think you have to do it.

That said, I wonder if Dontrelle is past his peak, as well.

princeton
07-27-2006, 01:31 PM
an less-abused, righthanded, 20 year-old Frank Tanana

Steve4192
07-27-2006, 01:34 PM
an less-abused, righthanded, 20 year-old Frank Tanana

One of my all time favorites. Was the subject of some of the most memorable baseball quotes of all-time.

"Frank Tanana threw 90 in the 70s and 70 in the 90s."

"Frank Tanana doesn't throw hard enough to bruise a banana"

Krusty
07-27-2006, 01:40 PM
an less-abused, righthanded, 20 year-old Frank Tanana

Princeton, would you trade Bailey for Willis if you compare Bailey to Tanana?

princeton
07-27-2006, 01:51 PM
in return for a Bailey, I'm sure that the Reds would prefer a pitcher with less service time and less abuse on him than Willis. Especially given Majewski's performance following his abuse from FRobby. We seem willing to spend high and to take a risk on pitchers with less than 2 years' experience.

but the Reds will prefer to keep Bailey, and use Votto and/or Bruce instead. Reds' brass was in Dayton this week, and I'm sure that they want to be certain about what they have (and may be losing) in Bruce

VR
07-27-2006, 02:03 PM
Hey, he might bat 7th when he pitches!

His OBP last year.....higher than our #3 hitter this year.:explode:

RedFanAlways1966
07-27-2006, 02:12 PM
I'd do it... 8 days a week.

NJReds
07-27-2006, 02:16 PM
I'd have to pull the trigger. Willis will be 25 next year and he's established. It's not like you'd be trading Bailey for Smoltz, who's nearing the end of his career.

puca
07-27-2006, 02:51 PM
Willis' age doesn't really matter. He is a free agent after 2007 and the Reds would probably have to over pay in order to sign him. If they did manage to sign Willis long term, I doubt they would have the budget to keep the rest of the core (Harang, Arroyo and Dunn).

So the only way I make the trade is if I think this team can be good enough this year or next to win. Personally I don't, so I wouldn't.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2006, 04:01 PM
Nah. I would for Brandon Webb though.

Maybe he just had an off night, but I saw Mr. Webb in person last night @ Citizens Bank Park, and I was far from inspired by the way the Phillies of all teams beat him around the yard. Giving up an opposite field HR to David Delucci definitely made me scratch my head. The Chase Utley HR I could understand, since Utley actually has talent, but giving up the shot to DD, there is no excuse.

His control seemed to be off all night, and I only remember 2 Ks, off the top of my head, to go with at least 2 walks.

I know this can be chalked up to small sample size, but you also need to take into account that post ASB, Brandon Webb historically has a losing record for his career, and his ERA jumps at least 1 full point in the same time frame.

I'm a Webb fan, don't get me wrong, but after last night, I'm a little more on the fence.

princeton
07-27-2006, 04:10 PM
Brandon Webb?

Brandon McCarthy seems more like a Krivsky-target.

M2
07-27-2006, 04:14 PM
Willis' age doesn't really matter. He is a free agent after 2007 and the Reds would probably have to over pay in order to sign him. If they did manage to sign Willis long term, I doubt they would have the budget to keep the rest of the core (Harang, Arroyo and Dunn).

So the only way I make the trade is if I think this team can be good enough this year or next to win. Personally I don't, so I wouldn't.

Willis doesn't hit free agency until after 2008.

wally post
07-27-2006, 04:15 PM
I think it would take too much more than Homer to get it done. We have to be patient with the possible #1 pitchers.

Jpup
07-27-2006, 04:20 PM
like I said on the other thread, I would do it in second. We can only hope Homer turns into Dontrelle Willis.

Willis is 24 and is a proven ace. How could you pass that up?

TRF
07-27-2006, 04:28 PM
2005 was an awesome year for Willis, but look closer at his numbers. A ton of MAJOR LEAGUE innings at a very early age. 160 at 21, 197 at 22, 236 at 23, and he sits at 143. projecting 10 more starts, He'll come close to 200 innings again. And while I'd love it if the Reds had a horse like that (besides Harang) his K/9, K/BB, hits allowed, OPSA, all are trending up.

Honestly, He isn't as good as Aaron Harang, so I'd vote no.

M2
07-27-2006, 04:49 PM
2005 was an awesome year for Willis, but look closer at his numbers. A ton of MAJOR LEAGUE innings at a very early age. 160 at 21, 197 at 22, 236 at 23, and he sits at 143. projecting 10 more starts, He'll come close to 200 innings again.

All that says to me is the guy has become accomplished at delivering 200 or so good innings. I'd worry a lot more about a guy who hasn't shown the ability to carry a large workload.


And while I'd love it if the Reds had a horse like that (besides Harang) his K/9, K/BB, hits allowed, OPSA, all are trending up.

Trending up? Well if this year compared to 2005 constitutes a trend, then I guess so. Except it doesn't constitute a trend. I remember hearing this exact same knock on Barry Zito two years ago.

Anyway Willis is 32nd among MLB pitchers in VORP this season and he's been slightly hit unlucky. Gimme a heaping helping of that any day of the week.

REDREAD
07-27-2006, 04:58 PM
Heck yes, I make that trade. I'm pretty sure that 2006 was Willis' first arb year, so it makes sense that he can't FA until after 2008.

If one worries about his past workload, then I question whether one would ever pull the trigger on a genuine 200 IP workhorse. It's a good thing he can pitch well under that load, IMO. I'm not convinced that pitching 200 innings at age 22 is any worse than doing it at 28.

princeton
07-27-2006, 05:14 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/averyst01.shtml

M2
07-27-2006, 05:26 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/averyst01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bluevi01.shtml

KronoRed
07-27-2006, 05:29 PM
Yes.

Bailey might be great for 15 years or he might flame out by 25.

Eric_Davis
07-27-2006, 06:23 PM
Not in a million frickin' years.

Eric_Davis
07-27-2006, 06:24 PM
BTW, didn't you watch Willis in the World Championships?

He was the biggest choker of the entire tournament.

M2
07-27-2006, 06:28 PM
BTW, didn't you watch Willis in the World Championships?

He was the biggest choker of the entire tournament.

Never, and I repeat NEVER, knock a 24-year-old pitcher with a career 3.41 ERA because he failed to shine in a PRESEASON tournament.

princeton
07-27-2006, 06:32 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bluevi01.shtml

nice start at age 20. Wish we had a 20 year old phenom to bring up.

registerthis
07-27-2006, 06:34 PM
Never, and I repeat NEVER, knock a 24-year-old pitcher with a career 3.41 ERA because he failed to shine in a PRESEASON tournament.

His spring trainings have also been less than impressive.

M2
07-27-2006, 06:47 PM
nice start at age 20. Wish we had a 20 year old phenom to bring up.

Like Scott Scudder!

ramp101
07-27-2006, 09:48 PM
Unfortunately or fortunately(depending on how you look at it).. Bailey for Willis doesnt get it done for the Fish

Milledge + Pelfrey | Nippert + Montero + Quentin | Kemp/Ethier + Billingsley + someone

Im not overrating Dontrelle Willis, but thats what it would take to get him from the Marlins... the Marlins just dont have a reason to move him right now... so if you want him, you gotta pay up

Bailey + Bruce gets it done as well.... thats a real steep price but Dontrelle is a legit ace and sometimes you have to bite the bullet... and its not like he is aging or expensive either

Krusty
07-28-2006, 10:10 AM
Unfortunately or fortunately(depending on how you look at it).. Bailey for Willis doesnt get it done for the Fish

Milledge + Pelfrey | Nippert + Montero + Quentin | Kemp/Ethier + Billingsley + someone

Im not overrating Dontrelle Willis, but thats what it would take to get him from the Marlins... the Marlins just dont have a reason to move him right now... so if you want him, you gotta pay up

Bailey + Bruce gets it done as well.... thats a real steep price but Dontrelle is a legit ace and sometimes you have to bite the bullet... and its not like he is aging or expensive either

Hey Ramp, here you go:

Claussen, Bailey for Willis and Borowski

lollipopcurve
07-28-2006, 10:19 AM
I gotta think the Fish would be very hesitant to trade him inside the division. My guess is they'll use the Mets to drive up the price, if they can, but will look to the Dbacks or someone else to actually make a deal.

TRF
07-28-2006, 10:43 AM
Trending up? Well if this year compared to 2005 constitutes a trend, then I guess so. Except it doesn't constitute a trend. I remember hearing this exact same knock on Barry Zito two years ago.

According to his overall stats, yes it is a trend. 2005 was a blip. one helluva blip, but a blip nonetheless. He has a ton of miles on that arm, and at a very young age.

I didn't say I don't want him, I'd have packaged Kearns, Pelland and Cueto for him, but not Bailey.

M2
07-28-2006, 11:12 AM
According to his overall stats, yes it is a trend. 2005 was a blip. one helluva blip, but a blip nonetheless. He has a ton of miles on that arm, and at a very young age.

I didn't say I don't want him, I'd have packaged Kearns, Pelland and Cueto for him, but not Bailey.

2005 represents just about 1/3 of his total career at the moment. It's Pacific Ocean-sized blip.

And once again, he's showing himself to be a big, athletic man who can handle a heavy workload. That's exactly the kind of pitcher you should want, not avoid.

westofyou
07-28-2006, 11:17 AM
No, Remember the John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander deal

Alexander was the Yankees starter in Game One of the 1976 WS, he also went 10-5 for the Yankees after being acquired mid season... because they needed pitching.

It worked

9-0 with the the Tigers with 66 hits in 83 IP with 1.53 ERA in 87.... with a *gasp* 44/28 K/BB ratio.

Shoot, the Reds don't need that do they?

M2
07-28-2006, 11:19 AM
Alexander was the Yankees starter in Game One of the 1976 WS, he also went 10-5 for the Yankees after being acquired mid season... because they needed pitching.

It worked

9-0 with the the Tigers with 66 hits in 83 IP with 1.53 ERA in 87.... with a *gasp* 44/28 K/BB ratio.

Shoot, the Reds don't need that do they?

And it got him a Strat card to die for.

Steve4192
07-28-2006, 11:34 AM
He has a ton of miles on that arm
One 200 inning season constitutes a 'ton a miles'?
Zero career starts with more than 125 pitches thrown constitutes a 'ton of miles'?

Not in my book.

ramp101
07-28-2006, 12:45 PM
Hey Ramp, here you go:

Claussen, Bailey for Willis and Borowski
:laugh: ...

Even though the Fish are on this run, I hope we move Borowski anyway

princeton
07-28-2006, 01:20 PM
two-and-a-half years of bird in hand vs. six cheaper years of bird in bush

it's an easy one.

M2
07-28-2006, 01:23 PM
two-and-a-half years of bird in hand vs. six cheaper years of bird in bush

it's an easy one.

I agree. It's like buying shares of IBM vs. a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Steve4192
07-28-2006, 01:32 PM
two-and-a-half years of bird in hand vs. six cheaper years of bird in bush

Assuming you can be certain that thing in the bush is indeed a bird.

I'd hate to pass on the bird in the hand only to find out that our 'bird' in the bush was actually some hillbilly in a hunting vest doing a duck call.

TRF
07-28-2006, 01:36 PM
What is the success rate of pitchers with 800+ innings by age 24?

If woy could generate a list...

princeton
07-28-2006, 01:56 PM
we also have fresh ingredients for bird soup on hand. It just won't taste the same in 2-3 years.

both birds are probably equally likely to come up with bum wings. Willis has been abused, but at least he's made it to 24 unscathed. A lot of birds don't fly even that far.

Steve4192
07-28-2006, 02:21 PM
Willis has been abused
Has he?

I know a lot of folks get wrapped up in his big IP total from last year, but he has never been one to rack up monster pitch counts. He has only thrown 120+ pitches four times in his career and has never thrown more than 125 pitches in a game.

Puffy
07-28-2006, 05:15 PM
And it got him a Strat card to die for.

Oh yeah, that was one awesome strat card!

lollipopcurve
09-27-2007, 04:01 PM
bumping this baby in light of this week's fascination with Willis, who has followed his dip in 06 with an even more precipitous dip in 07 -- and many still want to deal top prospects for him, while he gets worse and more expensive?

TOBTTReds
09-27-2007, 04:04 PM
bumping this baby in light of this week's fascination with Willis, who has followed his dip in 06 with an even more precipitous dip in 07 -- and many still want to deal top prospects for him, while he gets worse and more expensive?

He has a name that was once connected with being a great pitcher. That is ALL some people see. Marty would do it, right? He's the King of likeing names.

Falls City Beer
09-27-2007, 04:13 PM
bumping this baby in light of this week's fascination with Willis, who has followed his dip in 06 with an even more precipitous dip in 07 -- and many still want to deal top prospects for him, while he gets worse and more expensive?
If it had meant postseason in 06 and 07, absolutely it's worth it.

What has Homer done except take a huge step backwards this season? Even recently in meaningless games against patsy opponents he's getting beaten like a rented mule.

About the only thing Bailey's got going for him is his cheapness. But then, Shearn has the same thing going for him.

Patrick Bateman
09-27-2007, 04:15 PM
About the only thing Bailey's got going for him is his cheapness. But then, Shearn has the same thing going for him.

Okay I know you don't like Bailey, but that's just lame.

Falls City Beer
09-27-2007, 04:17 PM
Okay I know you don't like Bailey, but that's just lame.

I don't feel one way or another about Bailey: I'm just reporting the facts. Could he improve? I guess, but what has he done to earn the benefit of any doubt?

Aronchis
09-27-2007, 04:43 PM
I don't feel one way or another about Bailey: I'm just reporting the facts. Could he improve? I guess, but what has he done to earn the benefit of any doubt?

The problem with you is, you don't get Bailey may very well be impressively better than the fading Willis, who will be a "old" 26 next year.

People on this board will have to admit the Reds have paid their veterens going foward now it is up to the youngsters to fill in the other holes.

Matt700wlw
09-27-2007, 04:54 PM
What has Homer done except take a huge step backwards this season?




He still has work to do, but he's looking more like a pitcher in his second go around (regardless of the opponent) that he did his first go around.

He's got a curveball working...his change-up is coming along, his velocity looks better....his control is better, but yes, still needs work...

Yeah, what a regression this seaon. He looks like a totally different pitcher in his last 2 starts than he did in his previous 4 or 5, however many it was...

You're anti-Bailey bias continues to show.

I have no problem with trying to get Dontrelle Willis...but with his value down, as his numbers have regressed over the past couple of seasons...I'm not giving up Homer Bailey.

Patrick Bateman
09-27-2007, 04:58 PM
I don't feel one way or another about Bailey: I'm just reporting the facts. Could he improve? I guess, but what has he done to earn the benefit of any doubt?

You just made the argument that Shearn and Bailey are basically equal. The only thing they have going for them are their "cheapness". It doesn't take a lot to figure out that Bailey has more going for him than Shearn.

RedsFan75
09-27-2007, 04:58 PM
Don't be too hard on FCB guys, he does have to live if Philly ;)

Ltlabner
09-27-2007, 04:59 PM
I can't beleive Bailey didn't come up, dominate from his first pitch, and simply waltz into the hall of fame. Obviously he's a total failure. Write him off now and unload him. It's the only prudent thing to do since "real" pitchers require no development time before they dominate.

If we can get Wills for him, that would definatley secure the long term well-being of the team. I mean, if we win it all next year, who really cares about 2009?

Matt700wlw
09-27-2007, 04:59 PM
Don't be too hard on FCB Matt, he does have to live if Philly ;)

Poor guy can't get away from Kyle Lohse......

:)

Highlifeman21
09-27-2007, 05:24 PM
For the life of me, I can't understand the buzz about Homer Bailey. He's an underdeveloped prospect.

Right now, the kid is much more dangerously close to "bust" rather than "real deal".

Have we seen the true Homer Bailey? Hard to say.

If we have, then look out.

IslandRed
09-27-2007, 06:05 PM
I don't feel one way or another about Bailey: I'm just reporting the facts. Could he improve? I guess, but what has he done to earn the benefit of any doubt?

Because he's 21?

Think about what you're saying for a second. Is it your default position that pitchers are fully developed by age 21? That significant improvement can't reasonably be expected? That anyone who can't be a front-line starter at 21 never will be one?

If that's not your position, then you're saying there's something about Bailey specifically that makes you believe he's unusually impervious to development. And I'm just curious what that is.

dougdirt
09-27-2007, 06:20 PM
Anyone who has watched Homer Bailey the last two starts and doesn't see the promise and improvement he has shown while being healthy now is crazy.

dougdirt
09-27-2007, 06:20 PM
If it had meant postseason in 06 and 07, absolutely it's worth it.

What has Homer done except take a huge step backwards this season? Even recently in meaningless games against patsy opponents he's getting beaten like a rented mule.

About the only thing Bailey's got going for him is his cheapness. But then, Shearn has the same thing going for him.

Homer has taken a huge step backwards? Yeah, becuase when he has pitched healthy this year he has a 3.42 ERA and is 3-0 on the season. Huge step backward.

As for cheapness being the only thing going Bailey's way.... have you even watched his last two starts? I am guessing not if you think he has nothing going for him.

westofyou
09-27-2007, 06:26 PM
Jim Maloney age 20/21 taking steps backwards.


YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB
1960 Reds 5 8.58 14.06 6.75 5.20 1.30
1961 Reds 16 8.15 13.83 5.40 5.59 0.97

Falls City Beer
09-27-2007, 06:30 PM
Because he's 21?

Think about what you're saying for a second. Is it your default position that pitchers are fully developed by age 21? That significant improvement can't reasonably be expected? That anyone who can't be a front-line starter at 21 never will be one?

If that's not your position, then you're saying there's something about Bailey specifically that makes you believe he's unusually impervious to development. And I'm just curious what that is.

He's not impervious to development. Still, he should display certain characteristics, even at the MLB level, that he has yet to display: 1. stuff that is difficult to put into play. Wild pitchers (Scott Williamson and Homer Bailey for example) better have pitches that are absolutely brutal to put into fair play. Scott W. possessed such pitches; so far, Homer Bailey's pitches are finding tremendous comfort in the outfield grass. 2. secondary stuff that, though perhaps wild and unharnessed, is still very, very good.

Both of these things should be blindingly apparent by this point if he's going to become the pitcher everyone believes he's going to become (though I think it's well worth saying that finally, many folks are backing off the Roger Clemens talk, thankfully--I do appreciate that touch of sobriety); sure, he might get knocked around, but if he possesses the above qualities, he should be alright. However, Bailey possesses neither of these elements. His age is wonderful, and so is his cheapness; however, neither is a portent of future success in MLB. It seems now the terms have shifted from "Look at his minor league numbers and his stuff and his ability" to "Look how young he is." I'm sorry, but that's not particularly inspiring. Give me the evidence. Don't tell me to be faithful.

dougdirt
09-27-2007, 06:42 PM
He's not impervious to development. Still, he should display certain characteristics, even at the MLB level, that he has yet to display: 1. stuff that is difficult to put into play. Wild pitchers (Scott Williamson and Homer Bailey for example) better have pitches that are absolutely brutal to put into fair play. Scott W. possessed such pitches; so far, Homer Bailey's pitches are finding tremendous comfort in the outfield grass. 2. secondary stuff that, though perhaps wild and unharnessed, is still very, very good.

Both of these things should be blindingly apparent by this point if he's going to become the pitcher everyone believes he's going to become (though I think it's well worth saying that finally, many folks are backing off the Roger Clemens talk, thankfully--I do appreciate that touch of sobriety); sure, he might get knocked around, but if he possesses the above qualities, he should be alright. However, Bailey possesses neither of these elements. His age is wonderful, and so is his cheapness; however, neither is a portent of future success in MLB. It seems now the terms have shifted from "Look at his minor league numbers and his stuff and his ability" to "Look how young he is." I'm sorry, but that's not particularly inspiring. Give me the evidence. Don't tell me to be faithful.

When was the last time you saw him pitch?

Ltlabner
09-27-2007, 06:45 PM
Both of these things should be blindingly apparent by this point if he's going to become the pitcher everyone believes he's going to become .

Sure, I mean 6 starts, some of them injured, should be enough time for any pitcher to establish themselves as a force with which to be reckoned.

Come on FCB. I agree that we shouldn't pretend that he's Cy Young v.2 because of AAA success/hype, but at the other end let's not pretend he's crap because he hasn't lived up to a bizzare time table with zero basis in relality.

Falls City Beer
09-27-2007, 06:46 PM
When was the last time you saw him pitch?

His game against San Fran.

Matt700wlw
09-27-2007, 06:48 PM
His game against San Fran.

You don't think he, as a pitcher, looked any different/better than he did before he was sent away before the all-star break?

I'm not talking about what team he was playing...I'm talking Homer Bailey, the pitcher

Falls City Beer
09-27-2007, 06:50 PM
You don't think he, as a pitcher, looked any different/better than he did before he was sent away before the all-star break?

I'm not talking about what team he was playing...I'm talking Homer Bailey, the pitcher

Same movement on the fastball; clocked at the same speed: low 90s. Same questionable secondary pitches.

dougdirt
09-27-2007, 06:54 PM
I went back to the gameday and charted his pitches from his last two starts since coming off of the DL. The data disagrees with you.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g66/dougdirt/homerbaileylasttwo.gif
*note* I had an incorrect definition given for one of the numbers, so the 'Horizontal break' is actually the number in inches that 'the measurement of the distance between the location of the actual pitch thrown over the plate, and the calculated location of a ball thrown by the pitcher in the same way, with no spin'*

There were 31 pitches clocked at 94 MPH or higher.

Matt700wlw
09-27-2007, 06:58 PM
Same movement on the fastball; clocked at the same speed: low 90s. Same questionable secondary pitches.

Then you weren't paying very close of attention....he was better than that.

He still has work to do, but he's making progress and developing his other pitches.


I know....IMPOSSIBLE!!

Falls City Beer
09-27-2007, 07:00 PM
I went back to the gameday and charted his pitches from his last two starts since coming off of the DL. The data disagrees with you.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g66/dougdirt/homerbaileylasttwo.gif

There were 31 pitches clocked at 94 MPH or higher.

Just going on what the TV gun was saying. I'm glad another gun refutes it.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that when I watch the guy, nothing blows me away. Nothing he throws makes me say, "Whoa." And his game is supposed to be power pitching. Am I alone in this observation? Is anyone else underwhelmed by the zip and movement on his fastball?

OnBaseMachine
09-27-2007, 07:03 PM
What has Homer done except take a huge step backwards this season? Even recently in meaningless games against patsy opponents he's getting beaten like a rented mule.


Good Lord. Some people just refuse to look at facts because they have it in for certain players.

Bailey has allowed 3 ER on six hits in 11.1 innings since returning. If not for pathetic defense it would be less runs than thre three he has allowed. But let's stop let the facts get in the way of a good Homer Bailey bashing, mmkkk? Afterall, he's no Jason Jennings.

dougdirt
09-27-2007, 07:13 PM
Just going on what the TV gun was saying. I'm glad another gun refutes it.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that when I watch the guy, nothing blows me away. Nothing he throws makes me say, "Whoa." And his game is supposed to be power pitching. Am I alone in this observation? Is anyone else underwhelmed by the zip and movement on his fastball?
You haven't watched his curveball these past two starts and thought 'wow'? As for his fastball, more than half of his fastballs he has thrown the past two games are over 93 MPH. Of course, Homer has 2 different versions of his fastball. The slower version gets more movement, while the faster version is not getting the same kind of movement.

Matt700wlw
09-27-2007, 07:14 PM
That's what I saw....and with time that curve will probably have more bite.

Change-up is coming along as well

IslandRed
09-27-2007, 07:20 PM
It seems now the terms have shifted from "Look at his minor league numbers and his stuff and his ability" to "Look how young he is." I'm sorry, but that's not particularly inspiring. Give me the evidence. Don't tell me to be faithful.

I look at his minor league numbers, and his stuff, and his ability, AND his age.

Adding up all the various criticisms of Bailey (not just yours), I'm hearing, "he has no command and no secondary pitches. All he has is a fastball. Which doesn't move. And isn't even all that fast." Now, I realize that minor-league hitters are not major-leaguer hitters, but minor-league hitters aren't so inept that a guy can throw a straight low-90s fastball that he can't spot and put up the results Bailey did at the levels and ages he did. He was doing SOMETHING right.

TOBTTReds
09-27-2007, 07:42 PM
PLEASE WATCH THE HOUSTON GAME

He had his best AB of the year vs. Lance Berkman. It took four pitches, and Lance didn't have a chance (unintentional rhyme). His first pitch was a FB (95) away, ball. The next pitch was a changeup (83) away, called strike. The next was a backdoor curve (76) called strike. "What the hell" - Berkman says in his head. GAS, 95 mph right by him for a swinging strike three. He didn't have a chance after two offspeed strikes. That is power pitching, by setting up with offspeed.

I would like to go back and check how he did in AB's where he threw a curve in the first two pitches. Once he establishes his curve, he will be nasty. The thing that FCB is seeing, is that his fastball isn't blowing people away, which is correct. But it only isn't, because none of his off speed pitchers were thrown for strikes prior to this past week. So guys would sit on a 94/95 mph fastball and let 'er rip. With a curveball that gets over, he is gonna make them look like fools.

Establish the curve and it is over. ALSO, he has changed his grip on his changeup, atleast that is what it looked like on a couple close ups. In the past, he threw it with his pinky and ring finger only. Now it looks like a conventional circle change that includes his middle finger on the ball. He will have much greater command with that. I think that was very evident in his last start.

One thing I really liked: Against Houston, he threw every single pitch as a FB, Cv, or Ch. He had one cutter. In his previous games when he got called up, he was throwing 2 different curves, a slider, and a cutter. It was ridiculous. He had no consistancy with any of his pitches. Now it seems, he is just a 3 pitch pitcher, which I like. And his Cv is a consistant speed around 76-79. No 82-85 stuff. The cutter was a very good one to Berkman in on the hands that he fouled. Just one though.

Highlifeman21
09-27-2007, 10:19 PM
Just going on what the TV gun was saying. I'm glad another gun refutes it.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that when I watch the guy, nothing blows me away. Nothing he throws makes me say, "Whoa." And his game is supposed to be power pitching. Am I alone in this observation? Is anyone else underwhelmed by the zip and movement on his fastball?

You're not alone.

So far, I've seen a kid with an underwhelming fastball that lives in the 91-93 range with it, instead of the advertised 95-97 range. I've seen a kid rely heavily on said underwhelming fastball.

So far, I've seen a kid with an inconsistent curveball that can be knee-buckling as an out pitch, but the kid doesn't know when he's throwing a good curve and a "waste and hope they chase" curve. From observation, this kid doesn't seem to trust his curveball, as much as he trusts his lackluster fastball.

So far, I've seen a kid with a work-in-progress changeup. The kid doesn't seem comfortable using the changeup in situations where it could be effective. If he used his changeup much like Arroyo, then he might find some success.


Bottomline, I wouldn't say Bailey's fastball is laser/arrow straight like Elizardo Ramirez, but it's not far from it. It definitely lacks movement, and definitely lacks the advertised zip.


The ceiling I'd put on Homer Bailey right now would be a #3 SP at best in the majors, but with nothing to really complement his pedestrian fastball, we could possibly have on our hands a kid that could end up being no better than Kyle Lohse.

Again, you're not alone.

Aronchis
09-27-2007, 10:45 PM
Considering Bailey had a injury plagued year and the injury wasn't that bad, it is impressive watching Bailey pitch around what we more expected these last couple of starts ALL YEAR. It is questionable Bailey didn't come out of spring training with a gimpy groin/leg area because he hasn't shown much of this type of stuff most of the year.

Keeps wear and tear off the arm.

Guys like Bailey and Cueto are key for the Reds winning chances along with the young, power hitting, offensive stars(Bruce is the last one). They fill gaps in the rotation. That leaves the bullpen left to improve. We paid our vets going foward. Harang and Arroyo are already ready. Now the kids need to fill in the gaps.

Will make or break this franchise and the early Cast regime.

dougdirt
09-27-2007, 11:36 PM
You're not alone.

So far, I've seen a kid with an underwhelming fastball that lives in the 91-93 range with it, instead of the advertised 95-97 range. I've seen a kid rely heavily on said underwhelming fastball.
Sounds like you have not seen him pitch since returning and being healthy.



So far, I've seen a kid with an inconsistent curveball that can be knee-buckling as an out pitch, but the kid doesn't know when he's throwing a good curve and a "waste and hope they chase" curve. From observation, this kid doesn't seem to trust his curveball, as much as he trusts his lackluster fastball.
See above for part of that.
Bailey has thrown his curveball 24% of the time in his last two starts. His fastball is being thrown 66% of the time. His change up is being thrown only 9% of the time.



So far, I've seen a kid with a work-in-progress changeup. The kid doesn't seem comfortable using the changeup in situations where it could be effective. If he used his changeup much like Arroyo, then he might find some success.
Bailey doesn't use his change up much at all. It is a work in progress as you said.... however I can see it being better with more time.



Bottomline, I wouldn't say Bailey's fastball is laser/arrow straight like Elizardo Ramirez, but it's not far from it. It definitely lacks movement, and definitely lacks the advertised zip.
When he keeps it below 93 MPH he is getting 4-6 inches of break on it on the vertical plane. I don't know how much you expect on a fastball..... sure, it gets less movement as it gets faster, so does everyone elses.



The ceiling I'd put on Homer Bailey right now would be a #3 SP at best in the majors, but with nothing to really complement his pedestrian fastball, we could possibly have on our hands a kid that could end up being no better than Kyle Lohse.

Again, you're not alone.

At best? You do know that a 21 year old Homer Bailey is 3-0 with a 3.38 ERA and has allowed 20 hits in 29.1 innings this season. He has allowed 0 HR while healthy in the majors this year. I guess we have a big difference in opinions on this one....

RFS62
09-28-2007, 12:27 AM
He's 21 freakin' years old.

WVRedsFan
09-28-2007, 12:29 AM
He's 21 freakin' years old.

Yes.

I like what I see--the only real pitching prospect I've seen out of this organization in...I don't know how many years.

Never.

SteelSD
09-28-2007, 01:14 AM
Good Lord. Some people just refuse to look at facts because they have it in for certain players.

Bailey has allowed 3 ER on six hits in 11.1 innings since returning. If not for pathetic defense it would be less runs than thre three he has allowed. But let's stop let the facts get in the way of a good Homer Bailey bashing, mmkkk? Afterall, he's no Jason Jennings.

OBM, you know I have a lot of respect for you and your contributions, but I have a couple issues with the quality of your response to FCB.

First, you're using circumstantial ad hominem in your opening statement when attempting to play off what you feel is FCB's "bias" RE: Homer Bailey. Secondly, you've attempted to poison the well by noting FCB's prior support of a Jason Jennings acquisition.

Considering the focus both you and doug have put forth on the minor league system, FCB would be able to use a similar "bias" argument to refute either of your claims, but he has not attempted to do so. And considering doug's consistent demands that "injured" players are not responsible for their results, FCB would have every right to demand that Jason Jennings' results this season were meaningless.

Yet, I can't remember when FCB actually used Jennings' injuries as a mitigating factor even though he'd be well within his rights to do so while being lambasted for simply holding a position others didn't agree with. We all do that, so why should FCB be consistently reminded of Jason Jennings as if he were some kind of imbicile for suggesting a potential improvement to the rotation? I've forwarded a bad idea or two myself- Matt Clement, albeit without the knowledge of a serious medical condition. We're all wrong enough to be called out and being consistently wrong is bad of course, but I can't see FCB as being that kind of animal.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with any of FCB's ideas. Rather, I'm just showing everyone where shaky logic can lead us and I think he's being treated pretty unfairly right now.

And if doug is reading this, I don't particularly care about how many of Bailey's pitches reach 95 MPH. I did a study on that myself by watching every pitch prior to him being shelved. What I'm wondering about is what percentage of those higher-velocity pitches ended up in the strike zone. That's the key to pitching in the Show. If Bailey can command his harder stuff, then super. But my previous study showed that he didn't. If that's different now, the super. But if it isn't, then there's still a problem.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 08:45 AM
So far, I've seen a kid with a work-in-progress changeup..

A 21 year old who is a work in progress?

Whoda thunk it?

LoganBuck
09-28-2007, 08:49 AM
To go along with the last part of Steel's post. The pitches from Bailey that he has thrown in the 97-98 range(TV Gun) have all been high. I have been very happy with his progress for his age, and injuries.

A question I keep coming back to in my head about Redzone in general. Why do people get so closed minded about any player? Especially the young ones. There can be no flexibility on the stance about the quality of the player. Some posters have dogged Homer Bailey since he was selected in the draft as a HS pitcher, little has changed about their opinions. Drew Stubbs who has had his struggles, AND his successes, is just as polarizing. Why can't people accept that young players are works in progress and must be given time, and patience? We see the same thing with older players like Adam Dunn, he can hit a game winning HR and yet his detractors will point out how he didn't run out to his position, or struck out in the first inning. Both sides on any argument feel that they have the high ground, and the discussion gets stuck in a trench in the middle. Each side throwing darts, and believing the other side is ill informed or stubborn.

Falls City Beer
09-28-2007, 08:54 AM
To go along with the last part of Steel's post. The pitches from Bailey that he has thrown in the 97-98 range(TV Gun) have all been high. I have been very happy with his progress for his age, and injuries.

A question I keep coming back to in my head about Redzone in general. Why do people get so closed minded about any player? Especially the young ones. There can be no flexibility on the stance about the quality of the player. Some posters have dogged Homer Bailey since he was selected in the draft as a HS pitcher, little has changed about their opinions. Drew Stubbs who has had his struggles, AND his successes, is just as polarizing. Why can't people accept that young players are works in progress and must be given time, and patience? We see the same thing with older players like Adam Dunn, he can hit a game winning HR and yet his detractors will point out how he didn't run out to his position, or struck out in the first inning. Both sides on any argument feel that they have the high ground, and the discussion gets stuck in a trench in the middle. Each side throwing darts, and believing the other side is ill informed or stubborn.


I'm not trying to be a jerk, but: folks who criticize Bailey point out flaws in his performance; for the most part, folks who criticize Dunn just don't like him as a person--his demeanor.

Dunn has shown again and again and again that he can perform at an exceedingly high level at what he does. Bailey has shown flashes, but has shown reasons to be very guarded in optimism. I agree that the arguments can become polarizing, no doubt, but I think it's important to locate where each argument comes from.

RedsFan75
09-28-2007, 09:28 AM
Every time I see 'discussions' along these line, I just have to laugh a little. No, not at the discussions or such, as it's interesting to me to read both sides, and I've found my attitiude being swayed a bit due to them..

No I laugh, because I keep thinking about how people would have talked and 'discussed' back, say when the Reds traded away Robinson, or when that Rose kid came up to the show, or Maloney sucks he can't pitch in the bigs, or, (and I said this, but no one was listening but my cousins) What are the doing trading away Lee Mays, who is this Morgan guy anyway. etc... :)

Don't get me wrong I know we talked about stuff, but the indepth detail and discussion now with people across the country, and we're so impassioned about our favorite team that we'll put together these arguments to such detail and length... I just find it humorous.

Hey FCB, I may be heading to the Philly area before too long, we'll have to get together and bash the Eagles for awhile. :)

dougdirt
09-28-2007, 10:49 AM
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but: folks who criticize Bailey point out flaws in his performance; for the most part, folks who criticize Dunn just don't like him as a person--his demeanor.

Dunn has shown again and again and again that he can perform at an exceedingly high level at what he does. Bailey has shown flashes, but has shown reasons to be very guarded in optimism. I agree that the arguments can become polarizing, no doubt, but I think it's important to locate where each argument comes from.

Bailey has shown flashes in what, 5 healthy starts this year? What do you want, him to show up and be 2000 Pedro Martinez right out of the gate? I get that he is inconsistant at times, but for crying out loud, there are maybe 15 pitchers around who aren't.

dougdirt
09-28-2007, 11:04 AM
And if doug is reading this, I don't particularly care about how many of Bailey's pitches reach 95 MPH. I did a study on that myself by watching every pitch prior to him being shelved. What I'm wondering about is what percentage of those higher-velocity pitches ended up in the strike zone. That's the key to pitching in the Show. If Bailey can command his harder stuff, then super. But my previous study showed that he didn't. If that's different now, the super. But if it isn't, then there's still a problem.

I am at work right now, so I dont have the data with me. I will check back in later tonight and give the break down for pitch type, speed, swinging/foul/looking strikes and balls.

lollipopcurve
09-28-2007, 11:24 AM
(though I think it's well worth saying that finally, many folks are backing off the Roger Clemens talk, thankfully--I do appreciate that touch of sobriety)

Don't think I've seen a chorus of voices calling Bailey the next Clemens. The most optimistic chorus calls him a future #1, I'd say. But -- calling people out on having made less-than-sober prognostications works both ways -- where is the pleasant surprise coming from those who, starting on draft day and proceeding well into his minor league career, gave Bailey next to no chance of reaching the bigs at all, calling him the next Gruler/Howington, denying his status as a top prospect, etc.? You want to pull rank on folks for being exuberant? Then expect the same in return, for being joyless.

Highlifeman21
09-28-2007, 05:12 PM
Sounds like you have not seen him pitch since returning and being healthy.

I've seen him pitch against SF and HOU.



See above for part of that.
Bailey has thrown his curveball 24% of the time in his last two starts. His fastball is being thrown 66% of the time. His change up is being thrown only 9% of the time.

Finally, under 70%. Get that fastball closer to 55-60%, and I might be able to be convinced this kid wants to be a pitcher, instead of a thrower.


Bailey doesn't use his change up much at all. It is a work in progress as you said.... however I can see it being better with more time.

I hope Soto can really help this kid. It's his only chance of not being a 1.5 trick pony. At least he has the strategy to not use it b/c it's not ready. I give him credit for that.



When he keeps it below 93 MPH he is getting 4-6 inches of break on it on the vertical plane. I don't know how much you expect on a fastball..... sure, it gets less movement as it gets faster, so does everyone elses.


If he can consistently get the 4-6 inches of break, then he might have a chance living in the 91-93 range, but if he doesn't have that break, then he's very hittable and won't fool many people. I also think the consistency of his curveball will make his fastball better, due to the fact hitters will have to respect his curveball, rather than take it for an assumed ball (which it is, more often than not).


At best? You do know that a 21 year old Homer Bailey is 3-0 with a 3.38 ERA and has allowed 20 hits in 29.1 innings this season. He has allowed 0 HR while healthy in the majors this year. I guess we have a big difference in opinions on this one....

Maybe I'm confused, but I could have sworn I've seen Homer Bailey on the mound 8 times for the Reds this season, putting up a 3-2 record with an ERA a smidge under 6. If Bailey wasn't healthy, then he shouldn't have been brought up, but I can only attribute pitching while hurt to setting back his development, and only his latest starts can be chalked up to flashes of ability, rather than a true indicator of what this kid can do. I just don't see Homer Bailey being an ace for us. I see him as a compliment to Harang and Arroyo, but I just see him as a middle of the rotation guy until he gains some consistency with all of his pitches.

Unfortunately, prospects like Homer Bailey are put under the most scrutiny b/c they have the most hype. It just comes with the territory.

dougdirt
09-28-2007, 06:50 PM
Finally, under 70%. Get that fastball closer to 55-60%, and I might be able to be convinced this kid wants to be a pitcher, instead of a thrower.
The major league average is 62% for FBs thrown. Josh Beckett throws his fastball 65% of the time this season, and earlier this season Joe Sheehan said that 65% was not 'over reliant' (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/08/jamie_moyer_and.php). Given he ran the numbers for over 120,000 pitches thrown, I will take his word that Homer Bailey's 66% is not over reliant at all. I would like to see Homer throw a few more change ups but overall he is relying on his curveball a little more as an offspeed pitch than balancing the two out.



I hope Soto can really help this kid. It's his only chance of not being a 1.5 trick pony. At least he has the strategy to not use it b/c it's not ready. I give him credit for that.

With his fastball and his curveball, he is at least a 2 trick pony.



Maybe I'm confused, but I could have sworn I've seen Homer Bailey on the mound 8 times for the Reds this season, putting up a 3-2 record with an ERA a smidge under 6. If Bailey wasn't healthy, then he shouldn't have been brought up, but I can only attribute pitching while hurt to setting back his development, and only his latest starts can be chalked up to flashes of ability, rather than a true indicator of what this kid can do. I just don't see Homer Bailey being an ace for us. I see him as a compliment to Harang and Arroyo, but I just see him as a middle of the rotation guy until he gains some consistency with all of his pitches.
Bailey was hurt before the June 26th game, so I counted his first 3 games of the year, and his most recent 2. Everything in the middle, he was pitching through a leg injury. He was healthy when he was brought up, but he wasn't healthy for the 3 between June 26th and July 7th.



Unfortunately, prospects like Homer Bailey are put under the most scrutiny b/c they have the most hype. It just comes with the territory.

Its not unfortunate. He is being scrutinized becuase he pitched while hurt and people thought 'man this kid doesn't have a fastball, cant throw a decent curve and is getting beat around the bases'. Take out the time he pitched while injured and he has been a very solid pitcher. Yes, it is a small sample size we are working with here, but his 5 starts when healthy have been quite good.

OnBaseMachine
09-28-2007, 07:54 PM
OBM, you know I have a lot of respect for you and your contributions, but I have a couple issues with the quality of your response to FCB.

First, you're using circumstantial ad hominem in your opening statement when attempting to play off what you feel is FCB's "bias" RE: Homer Bailey. Secondly, you've attempted to poison the well by noting FCB's prior support of a Jason Jennings acquisition.

Considering the focus both you and doug have put forth on the minor league system, FCB would be able to use a similar "bias" argument to refute either of your claims, but he has not attempted to do so. And considering doug's consistent demands that "injured" players are not responsible for their results, FCB would have every right to demand that Jason Jennings' results this season were meaningless.

Yet, I can't remember when FCB actually used Jennings' injuries as a mitigating factor even though he'd be well within his rights to do so while being lambasted for simply holding a position others didn't agree with. We all do that, so why should FCB be consistently reminded of Jason Jennings as if he were some kind of imbicile for suggesting a potential improvement to the rotation? I've forwarded a bad idea or two myself- Matt Clement, albeit without the knowledge of a serious medical condition. We're all wrong enough to be called out and being consistently wrong is bad of course, but I can't see FCB as being that kind of animal.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with any of FCB's ideas. Rather, I'm just showing everyone where shaky logic can lead us and I think he's being treated pretty unfairly right now.

And if doug is reading this, I don't particularly care about how many of Bailey's pitches reach 95 MPH. I did a study on that myself by watching every pitch prior to him being shelved. What I'm wondering about is what percentage of those higher-velocity pitches ended up in the strike zone. That's the key to pitching in the Show. If Bailey can command his harder stuff, then super. But my previous study showed that he didn't. If that's different now, the super. But if it isn't, then there's still a problem.

The only reason I used the tone that I did in my post is because FCB tried to pass false information as fact. He said Bailey has been beaten around my scrub teams since his recall. I don't think I would call three earned runs and six hits allowed in 11 innings taking a beating. I brought Jason Jennings into the equation because FCB proposed trading Bailey for Jennings last offseason and pretty much everyone agreed it was a horrible deal but he insisted that Jennings was much better than Bailey. Stats show him to be wrong. Plus, there's nothing wrong with shoving something back in FCB's face everyone once in a while. Afterall, he does it to us all the time with his constant Cardinals praising and telling us how every Cards player is a HOFer.;)

TOBTTReds
09-28-2007, 08:04 PM
The only reason I used the tone that I did in my post is because FCB tried to pass false information as fact. He said Bailey has been beaten around my scrub teams since his recall. I don't think I would call three earned runs and six hits allowed in 11 innings taking a beating. I brought Jason Jennings into the equation because FCB proposed trading Bailey for Jennings last offseason and pretty much everyone agreed it was a horrible deal but he insisted that Jennings was much better than Bailey. Stats show him to be wrong. Plus, there's nothing wrong with shoving something back in FCB's face everyone once in a while. Afterall, he does it to us all the time with his constant Cardinals praising and telling us how every Cards player is a HOFer.;)

word

Highlifeman21
09-30-2007, 07:35 PM
I was very unimpressed by Homer Bailey's outing today against the Baby Bears. 5 K vs 4 BB and a leadoff HR to Soriano.

Control is still an issue, and will continue to be.

Here's to hoping for a healthy Homer in 2008, with better command over both his mechanics and his pitches.

Aronchis
09-30-2007, 09:37 PM
I was very unimpressed by Homer Bailey's outing today against the Baby Bears. 5 K vs 4 BB and a leadoff HR to Soriano.

Control is still an issue, and will continue to be.

Here's to hoping for a healthy Homer in 2008, with better command over both his mechanics and his pitches.

You have also missed that Homer should have control issues just like Gallardo did. Leadoff Homer to Soriano? Who cares, like that doesn't happen.

5k? Good, considering Homer was struggling to strikeout people most likely due to a strained groin, I would say he made some progress most likely due to health.

Hence, I was impressed.

RedFanAlways1966
09-30-2007, 11:09 PM
I was very unimpressed by Homer Bailey's outing today against the Baby Bears. 5 K vs 4 BB and a leadoff HR to Soriano.

Control is still an issue, and will continue to be.

Here's to hoping for a healthy Homer in 2008, with better command over both his mechanics and his pitches.

Don't kill me for this comparison, but let the facts be known... :p:

Greg Maddux, 1st full year in 1987
* 21 years old
* 30 GS, 155.2 IP, 181 H, 101 K, 70 BB.
* 5.61 ERA, 1.61 WHIP.

Homer Bailey, 2007
* 21 years old
* 9 GS, 45.1 IP, 43 H, 28 K, 28 BB.
* 5.76 ERA, 1.57 WHIP.

One had 3X as many starts, but the numbers are strikingly close when averaged. Even though we know a W-L record can be deceiving, one was 6-14 while the other was 4-2. Neither seemed to have great control (command). However, this seems to be a common trait for a "young" pitcher in the bigs.

I wonder if the criticism given to that young Cubs starter seems legit today? :)

Falls City Beer
09-30-2007, 11:13 PM
Don't kill me for this comparison, but let the facts be known... :p:

Greg Maddux, 1st full year in 1987
* 21 years old
* 30 GS, 155.2 IP, 181 H, 101 K, 70 BB.
* 5.61 ERA, 1.61 WHIP.

Homer Bailey, 2007
* 21 years old
* 9 GS, 45.1 IP, 43 H, 28 K, 28 BB.
* 5.76 ERA, 1.57 WHIP.

One had 3X as many starts, but the numbers are strikingly close when averaged. Even though we know a W-L record can be deceiving, one was 6-14 while the other was 4-2. Neither seemed to have great control (command). However, this seems to be a common trait for a "young" pitcher in the bigs.

I wonder if the criticism given to that young Cubs starter seems legit today? :)

They are awfully different kinds of pitchers. Similarly, Bailey isn't Josh Beckett. I'm not sure what that proves, though.

RedFanAlways1966
09-30-2007, 11:19 PM
They are awfully different kinds of pitchers. Similarly, Bailey isn't Josh Beckett. I'm not sure what that proves, though.

Yes, they are different. However, Highlifeman21 has a problem with Homer's command-control. I think that we'd all agree (doesn't happen that often!) Mr. Maddux was one of the best command-control pitchers we have seen. Maddux was walking almost one every 2 innings when he was 21 years old in 30 starts. Homer had the same problem as a 21 year old MLB pitcher.

dougdirt
10-01-2007, 12:09 AM
They are awfully different kinds of pitchers. Similarly, Bailey isn't Josh Beckett. I'm not sure what that proves, though.

Yes, they were awfully different kinds of pitchers. Bailey plays in a hitters era, and is giving up fewer hits than innings while Maddux was giving up well over a hit an inning while having a similar walk rate.

The problem is, I think sometimes some people expects Homer Bailey to be near perfect every start he makes by some of the things you read on these boards.

RFS62
10-01-2007, 08:39 AM
The problem is, I think sometimes some people expects Homer Bailey to be near perfect every start he makes by some of the things you read on these boards.



I've said it all year, and I'll say it again. It was a mistake bringing him up this year. His performance proved it. He's not ready. And that's no indictment on his potential. Few pitchers in history have come up and done what everyone seems to expect of him at his age.

Highlifeman21
10-01-2007, 09:26 AM
I've said it all year, and I'll say it again. It was a mistake bringing him up this year. His performance proved it. He's not ready. And that's no indictment on his potential. Few pitchers in history have come up and done what everyone seems to expect of him at his age.

This is how I feel.

My continued criticism isn't of Bailey as a person or as a player, but of the Reds as an organization to bring Bailey up too early. Bailey as a player is showing that he's not ready to be up, and must continue to improve and develop over the offseason and ST to be a legitimate contributor to the rotation in 2008.

Bailey continues to have command and control issues, and until he makes strides to address those issues, he's a back of the rotation option for us, who has potential to show flashes of greatness.

Highlifeman21
10-01-2007, 09:29 AM
Yes, they were awfully different kinds of pitchers. Bailey plays in a hitters era, and is giving up fewer hits than innings while Maddux was giving up well over a hit an inning while having a similar walk rate.

The problem is, I think sometimes some people expects Homer Bailey to be near perfect every start he makes by some of the things you read on these boards.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Homer Bailey wasn't touted as arguably the best SP prospect in baseball leading into this year, then I wouldn't have such lofty expectations, but due to perhaps incorrect hype surrounding Bailey, I expected him to come up and be either our #2 or #3, neither of which he's been.

I don't expect him to be perfect, but right now, based on all the hype surrounding Homer Bailey, he's been a bust, and needs to have a dominating 2008 to convince me that the hype surrounding him was right.

dougdirt
10-01-2007, 09:36 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Homer Bailey wasn't touted as arguably the best SP prospect in baseball leading into this year, then I wouldn't have such lofty expectations, but due to perhaps incorrect hype surrounding Bailey, I expected him to come up and be either our #2 or #3, neither of which he's been.

I don't expect him to be perfect, but right now, based on all the hype surrounding Homer Bailey, he's been a bust, and needs to have a dominating 2008 to convince me that the hype surrounding him was right.

Wow. Thats all that I can say.

bucksfan2
10-01-2007, 09:51 AM
I say no to Dontrelle Willis. IMO he is a slippery slope and really hasn't regained his dominance that he had shown in the years prior.

As for Bailey he will become the Adam Dunn of pitchers. He will be examined over and over again to no end. No matter what he does he won't be good enough for most reds fans. I think what the reds are doing and most reds fans have to accept is that Bailey needs time. He is not going to become a star overnight and he is going to have his ups and downs. All this season did was get his feet wet. Organizatoins like the reds need to draft and develop more players like Bailey, not draft and develop and then trade players like Bailey when they have lackluster debuts.

coachw513
10-01-2007, 12:12 PM
What has Homer done except take a huge step backwards this season? Even recently in meaningless games against patsy opponents he's getting beaten like a rented mule.

About the only thing Bailey's got going for him is his cheapness. But then, Shearn has the same thing going for him.


For the life of me, I can't understand the buzz about Homer Bailey. He's an underdeveloped prospect.

Right now, the kid is much more dangerously close to "bust" rather than "real deal".

Have we seen the true Homer Bailey? Hard to say.

If we have, then look out.



The ceiling I'd put on Homer Bailey right now would be a #3 SP at best in the majors, but with nothing to really complement his pedestrian fastball, we could possibly have on our hands a kid that could end up being no better than Kyle Lohse.



To your respective credit, you have each stood on this premise consistenly IIRC...but I will respectfully disagree...while I have not been blown away this year, if the Reds had let him stay in AAA until September like Votto and we'd have only been evaluating his 3 starts this month, I think we'd be more pleased...

How much did the groin injury affect him??...I don't know, none of us do...

I have to rely on the multitude of independent sources that believed (and still believe) that Bailey has a sensational arm and an incredible ceiling...

Teams that are on the cusp of winning a WS AND have pitching depth can afford to trade the unknown commodity for the known, but dwindling, older, more expensive commodity of Willis...I'll pass on this one...

However, I'd trade Josh Hamilton and another player or 2 for him (and I love Hamilton, as evidenced by his jersey in my closet)...Hamilton, Keppinger and Wood, for instance (I'm not real good at the 'trade these guys for this guy' game)...Bruce replaces Hamilton, Dunn gets resigned, a rotation of Harang, Willis, Arroyo, Bailey and Belisle ends up looking awfully good, especially in the Central...just my 2 cents..

But we need to hoard good pitching...IMHO, Bailey is at minimum, good pitching!

RedFanAlways1966
10-01-2007, 11:22 PM
John Smoltz, 1988
* 21 years old
* 12 GS, 64 IP, 74 H, 37 K, 33 BB.
* 5.48 ERA, 1.67 WHIP.

Homer Bailey, 2007
* 21 years old
* 9 GS, 45.1 IP, 43 H, 28 K, 28 BB.
* 5.76 ERA, 1.57 WHIP.

One had 3 more starts, but the numbers are strikingly close. Even though we know a W-L record can be deceiving, one was 2-7 while the other was 4-2. Neither seemed to have great control (command). However, this seems to be a common trait for a "young" pitcher in the bigs.

I wonder if the criticism given to that young Braves starter seems legit today? :)

RedFanAlways1966
10-01-2007, 11:47 PM
Tom Glavine, 1987
* 21 years old
* 9 GS, 50.1 IP, 55 H, 20 K, 33 BB.
* 5.54 ERA, 1.75 WHIP.

Homer Bailey, 2007
* 21 years old
* 9 GS, 45.1 IP, 43 H, 28 K, 28 BB.
* 5.76 ERA, 1.57 WHIP.

Yadda, yadda, yadda... :)

Highlifeman21
10-02-2007, 05:13 PM
I'd be surprised if Bailey has a career resembling Glavine, let alone Smoltz.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 05:19 PM
Smoltz throws 97 with regularity. That ain't Bailey.

westofyou
10-02-2007, 05:23 PM
Wow.. he might be a Hall of Famer.... you guys nailed that one.

pedro
10-02-2007, 05:25 PM
Wow.. he might be a Hall of Famer.... you guys nailed that one.

Yup. All he has to do now is win 300 more games. I figure he's good for 20 wins a season easy so it should only take 15 years. Maybe 12 if the Reds fire Krivsky soon as I'm sure that'll be worth at least 5 more wins a year for Homer for a few years as he won't have evil Wayne screwing with his head so much.

dfs
10-02-2007, 05:59 PM
a rotation of Harang, Willis, Arroyo, Bailey and Belisle ends up looking awfully good

That's an improvement, but even with Maloney and Cueto, they need more, probably two more pitchers that you wouldn't mind giving a major league start to.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 06:16 PM
Wow.. he might be a Hall of Famer.... you guys nailed that one.

I wasn't the one making the comparison, was I?

westofyou
10-02-2007, 06:21 PM
I wasn't the one making the comparison, was I?

Actually I left a word out of that statement

The word was "Not" and and it was supposed to be between "might" and "be"

But hey let's find another guy he's not like.

I got a few.

David Clyde, Brien Taylor and Eddie Bane

Aronchis
10-02-2007, 06:25 PM
Smoltz wasn't throwing 97 every pitch either when he was 21 either..........wait he didn't do that at 31.

I guess Bailey won't fill out more or improve. He will just be a sad sack no control fake out artist;)

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 06:26 PM
Actually I left a word out of that statement

The word was "Not" and and it was supposed to be between "might" and "be"

But hey let's find another guy he's not like.

I got a few.

David Clyde, Brien Taylor and Eddie Bane

Yeah I guessed that you left out the "not." That's why I responded as I did. You're always hounding the critical folks around here so I just assumed you left out the "not"--and were deliberately avoiding the even less substantial comparisons of Bailey to Smoltz and Maddux made by the poster above hlfman and me.

Still, it doesn't stop folks on this board from making absurdly hyperbolic praiseful assessments of a 21 year old incapable of finding the plate. Have at it.

Ltlabner
10-02-2007, 06:28 PM
When did throwing in the high 90's become the only way to be successful in MLB?

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 06:29 PM
When did throwing in the high 90's become the only way to be successful in MLB?

When you can't find the plate.

Ltlabner
10-02-2007, 06:31 PM
When you can't find the plate.

If you throw 1,000mph it doesn't matter if it's a ball.

I agree that Homer needs to find the plate with more regularity. For that matter, so do many pitchers on the Reds staff. But if he continues to progress, something young pitchers are wont to do, I'd be tickled with low 90's and control. Harang seems to get by quite nicely with it.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 06:34 PM
If you throw 1,000mph it doesn't matter if it's a ball.

I agree that Homer needs to find the plate with more regularity. For that matter, so do many pitchers on the Reds staff. But if he continues to progress, something young pitchers are wont to do, I'd be tickled with low 90's and control. Harang seems to get by quite nicely with it.

In the end, you've got have something that stands out. Right now, Bailey's pretty indistinguishable from a lot of young pitchers, and not the second coming 90% of this board thought he was. I hope he can be a serviceable starter someday--I think he can, but to say as most have that he's untradeable is just wrongheaded IMO.

lollipopcurve
10-02-2007, 06:37 PM
not the second coming 90% of this board thought he was

I suggest you go back to the thread for the 2004 draft day selections.....

westofyou
10-02-2007, 06:42 PM
Yeah I guessed that you left out the "not." That's why I responded as I did. You're always hounding the critical folks around here so I just assumed you left out the "not"--and were deliberately avoiding the even less substantial comparisons of Bailey to Smoltz and Maddux made by the poster above hlfman and me.

Still, it doesn't stop folks on this board from making absurdly hyperbolic praiseful assessments of a 21 year old incapable of finding the plate. Have at it.

Poor FCB... I'm "Hounding" him and others apparently.

And here I thought I was just being free with my opinion... just like he is 24/7, 52 weeks a year.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 06:50 PM
Poor FCB... I'm "Hounding" him and others apparently.

And here I thought I was just being free with my opinion... just like he is 24/7, 52 weeks a year.

Oh please. I'm only pointing out your ceaseless proclivities. You're the great defender of optimism. Don't you have something to be happy about somewhere? :)

RedsManRick
10-02-2007, 06:52 PM
In the end, you've got have something that stands out. Right now, Bailey's pretty indistinguishable from a lot of young pitchers, and not the second coming 90% of this board thought he was. I hope he can be a serviceable starter someday--I think he can, but to say as most have that he's untradeable is just wrongheaded IMO.

Just curious how many other 21 year olds you are aware of who put up a 3.07 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, and 7.89 K/9 in AAA. The idea that Bailey is a run of the mill prospect just because he struggled in 6 major league starts at age 21 is preposterous. There's a reason that scouts unanimously consider him among the best pitching prospects in the game. Of course that's no guarantee that he'll become a great, or even decent, major league starter. However, you seem to be willing to forgive all of Willis's warts.

Would I pencil Bailey in as the Reds ace for next 10 years? Of course not. But I'd call it even odds on Bailey being more productive between now and the end of 2009 compared to Dontrelle Willis. Only difference is that Willis will cost us nearly $20M in the process and then will be a free agent. Bailey will cost us about $700K in the process, will still likely be improving, and we'll control him for another 4 years below market value.

The downside to Bailey is that he flames out and we get no production and nothing in return for him. The downside to Willis is that his decline is real and we get no production, lose Homer Bailey, and spend $20M in the process.

Sure, Homer is not untradeable. Nobody in baseball is. However, the risk of this move simply doesn't justify the reward. Dontrelle Willis is precisely the wrong guy to target if you're trading Bailey. Willis has declined solidly for 2 straight years now (with peripherals suggesting a true decrease in ability -- increased BB/9, decreased K/9), has unusual mechanics which scouting suggest he's having difficulty maintaining, paired with an increasing salary and just 2 years of control. The idea that he's likely to bounce back to pre-06 levels just isn't well founded. Of course it's possible. But it's also possible for Bailey to become an ace. Why do you embrace one possibility to easily and reject the other.

Why not just take that $9M, sign a mediocre starter in FA, and keep Bailey? Have our cake and eat it too! Or do you honestly believe Willis will return to his 2005 self? Do you honestly think that is more likely than Bailey becoming successful? Do you think it's worth $10M/year over the next two years and giving up on Bailey to find out? If Willis does return to that level, can we afford to keep him in 2010 and beyond?

I just don't understand how you arrive at the apparent probabilities you assign to the various possible outcomes and how, in the end, that equates to this sort of a deal making sense.

westofyou
10-02-2007, 06:53 PM
Oh please. I'm only pointing out your ceaseless proclivities. You're the great defender of optimism. Don't you have something to be happy about somewhere? :)

Actually I'm the great defender of patience and the game of baseball, plus having a sense of what history has told you before.

Optimism?

I'm surprised you can type the word without upchucking on your keyboard.

pedro
10-02-2007, 07:00 PM
Oh please. I'm only pointing out your ceaseless proclivities. You're the great defender of optimism. Don't you have something to be happy about somewhere? :)

Actually WOY spends most of his time defending the holy grail and the virtue of both young women and dead presidents. Yes, it's hard, tireless work, but it is the life he has chosen.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 07:01 PM
Just curious how many other 21 year olds you are aware of who put up a 3.07 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, and 7.89 K/9 in AAA. The idea that Bailey is a run of the mill prospect just because he struggled in 6 major league starts at age 21 is preposterous. There's a reason that scouts unanimously consider him among the best pitching prospects in the game. Of course that's no guarantee that he'll become a great, or even decent, major league starter. However, you seem to be willing to forgive all of Willis's warts.

Would I pencil Bailey in as the Reds ace for next 10 years? Of course not. But I'd call it even odds on Bailey being more productive between now and the end of 2009 compared to Dontrelle Willis. Only difference is that Willis will cost us nearly $20M in the process and then will be a free agent. Bailey will cost us about $700K in the process, will still likely be improving, and we'll control him for another 4 years below market value.

The downside to Bailey is that he flames out and we get no production and nothing in return for him. The downside to Willis is that his decline is real and we get no production, lose Homer Bailey, and spend $20M in the process.

Sure, Homer is not untradeable. Nobody in baseball is. However, the risk of this move simply doesn't justify the reward. Dontrelle Willis is precisely the wrong guy to target if you're trading Bailey. Willis has declined solidly for 2 straight years now (with peripherals suggesting a true decrease in ability -- increased BB/9, decreased K/9), has unusual mechanics which scouting suggest he's having difficulty maintaining, paired with an increasing salary and just 2 years of control. The idea that he's likely to bounce back to pre-06 levels just isn't well founded. Of course it's possible. But it's also possible for Bailey to become an ace. Why do you embrace one possibility to easily and reject the other.

Why not just take that $9M, sign a mediocre starter in FA, and keep Bailey? Have our cake and eat it too! Or do you honestly believe Willis will return to his 2005 self? Do you honestly think that is more likely than Bailey becoming successful? Do you think it's worth $10M/year over the next two years and giving up on Bailey to find out? If Willis does return to that level, can we afford to keep him in 2010 and beyond?

I just don't understand how you arrive at the apparent probabilities you assign to the various possible outcomes and how, in the end, that equates to this sort of a deal making sense.

Go back and check the Willis thread started by Spitball. In it I say that I'd avoid picking up Willis now, as I worry about his arm.

Many pitchers have Bailey's success at AAA--most do so a bit older, but his numbers are by no means eye-popping. What's a distortion is that he looks decent despite being from the Reds' farm system--it's that shocking juxtaposition of "hype" associated with a system mired in crap for 2 decades that throws decent assessments of Bailey out of whack.

pedro
10-02-2007, 07:02 PM
And damn you to hell if you dare utter even one bad word about Gloria Gaynor.

WOY'll be on you like white on rice.

nate
10-02-2007, 07:10 PM
And damn you to hell if you dare utter even one bad word about Gloria Gaynor.

WOY'll be on you like white on rice.

She's no Pam Grier.

RedsManRick
10-02-2007, 07:18 PM
Go back and check the Willis thread started by Spitball. In it I say that I'd avoid picking up Willis now, as I worry about his arm.

Many pitchers have Bailey's success at AAA--most do so a bit older, but his numbers are by no means eye-popping. What's a distortion is that he looks decent despite being from the Reds' farm system--it's that shocking juxtaposition of "hype" associated with a system mired in crap for 2 decades that throws decent assessments of Bailey out of whack.

You simply cannot dismiss the age thing that easily. You are fair in your conservatism; I wouldn't anoint him either -- nor would I anoint any prospect. But when it comes to prospects, after raw performance (and Bailey has been near the top of his respective leagues in performance, if not utterly dominating), age relative to level is the next most important thing to look at. Guys who do well while younger than the bulk of their competition have a strong track record of success.

Has Bailey received perhaps a bit more hype than he deserved? Possibly, but I don't really care and frankly, that's not germane to the point. Pretty much every single person, publication, etc. who evaluates minor league baseball players professionally thinks that Homer Bailey is among the best pitching prospects in baseball. They aren't rating him as such because of the Reds relative paucity of good young pitching through the years. They are judging him objectively based on his ability and performance. I don't care if he's #1 overall or #10, that's still really darn good and something to be excited about. It's certainly not something to dismiss because of a poor major league debut during which he was dealing with an injury.

Most fair evaluations say that he has a plus fastball which sits around 92-94 with good movement (and can touch 96-97 when he really dials it up) and a plus 12-6 curve, but that he struggles with location. They say he's over-reliant on his fastball, needs to develop a third major-league-caliber pitch, and that until he locates his fastball reliably, he's going to struggle because that type of curve is difficult to throw for strikes. However, they also say that in this current stage of development, and given what he's done at various levels of the minors, that he's one of the best pitching prospects in baseball.

No, he's currently not an above average major league pitcher, let alone a #1 or #2. He may get there in 18 months, he may get there in 4 years, and more likely than not, he'll never get to that level. That be said for every single pitching prospect in the game. However, of all the pitchers in professional baseball who aren't currently #1 or #2 type guys, he's among the most likely to get there some day. The time frame for that development, IF and when it happens, is up for debate. But let's not pretend that Homer Bailey is no different from 100 other pitching prospects just because he hasn't put it together yet or because some scouting report said he sat at 95 instead of 92.

Anybody who says Homer Bailey "is a great pitcher" or "will be an ace" doesn't represent the majority feeling of the board. I think most of us understand what it means to be a prospect. Just don't confuse "great prospect" with an assertion of certainty. Even if it's just a 20% chance to be an above average major league starter, that's still a greater chance than virtually every other pitching prospect in baseball, and I would praise him within that context.

Oh, and don't confuse my verbosity for passion or anger. I'm just ironically long-winded in trying to state my perspective clearly.

dougdirt
10-02-2007, 07:46 PM
In the end, you've got have something that stands out. Right now, Bailey's pretty indistinguishable from a lot of young pitchers, and not the second coming 90% of this board thought he was. I hope he can be a serviceable starter someday--I think he can, but to say as most have that he's untradeable is just wrongheaded IMO.

OK.... lets look at Homer Bailey's healthy starts, he had 6 of them. He went 4-0, with 35 innings pitched, 28 hits allowed, 3.85 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 1 HR allowed, threw 60.4 % strikes, 39.6% balls, allowed 7.2 hits per 9 innings, walked 18 (4.68/9) and struck out 20 (5.14/9). Those numbers are indistinguishable from other young pitchers? Please find me these pitchers.

Maybe he shouldn't have tried to pitch while injured, and he did, but why would we look at those numbers to try and see what he will do in his future when odds are he isn't going to be pitching hurt?

OnBaseMachine
10-02-2007, 07:46 PM
I have to laugh at FCB sometimes. To him, Adam Wainwright is the best starter in major league history and Homer Bailey is already a bust at age 21. But if you go back and look at his AAA stats, Wainwright was below average to put it nicely. His numbers were no where near those of Homer Bailey in AAA. In fact, this season in the majors Homer posted an OPSA just 36 points higher than Wainwright, to go along with a similar K/9 and HR rate, despite Bailey pitching in more of a hitters park. Yes it was a smaller sample size, I know that. I just thought it was interesting that Homer posted similar periphals to Wainwright this season despite being five years younger and playing in a smaller ballpark.

pedro
10-02-2007, 07:56 PM
OK.... lets look at Homer Bailey's healthy starts, he had 6 of them. He went 4-0, with 35 innings pitched, 28 hits allowed, 3.85 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 1 HR allowed, threw 60.4 % strikes, 39.6% balls, allowed 7.2 hits per 9 innings, walked 18 (4.68/9) and struck out 20 (5.14/9). Those numbers are indistinguishable from other young pitchers? Please find me these pitchers.

Maybe he shouldn't have tried to pitch while injured, and he did, but why would we look at those numbers to try and see what he will do in his future when odds are he isn't going to be pitching hurt?

Yeah, I don't buy that parsing of stats based on your presumption of when he was healthy/not healthy. Pitchers are seldom 100% healthy, it's something they have to deal with.

dougdirt
10-02-2007, 08:21 PM
Yeah, I don't buy that parsing of stats based on your presumption of when he was healthy/not healthy. Pitchers are seldom 100% healthy, it's something they have to deal with.

Its not a presumption of health. It was stated by Bailey that he was not healthy beginning with his June 26th start and that he thought he could pitch through the groin injury.

pedro
10-02-2007, 08:26 PM
Its not a presumption of health. It was stated by Bailey that he was not healthy beginning with his June 26th start and that he thought he could pitch through the groin injury.

Yeah, well then he shouldn't have been pitching. If you think you're healthy enough to pitch then tough, those are your stats. Plenty of guys pitch when they're dinged up and they don;t get to pick and choose which stats to include.

Part of being a professional is knowing your limitations.

pedro
10-02-2007, 08:28 PM
You might as well say "he stats were good in the games he pitched well"

In the end it doesn't mean crap.

dougdirt
10-02-2007, 08:43 PM
You might as well say "he stats were good in the games he pitched well"

In the end it doesn't mean crap.

I will disagree completely. Next time he will know 'I should probably tell someone about this because it could end up like last time'.

Sure, if I just excluded his bad games it would be one thing, but I didn't do that. I excluded three games where he was injured, not where he just performed poorly.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 08:50 PM
You simply cannot dismiss the age thing that easily. You are fair in your conservatism; I wouldn't anoint him either -- nor would I anoint any prospect. But when it comes to prospects, after raw performance (and Bailey has been near the top of his respective leagues in performance, if not utterly dominating), age relative to level is the next most important thing to look at. Guys who do well while younger than the bulk of their competition have a strong track record of success.

Has Bailey received perhaps a bit more hype than he deserved? Possibly, but I don't really care and frankly, that's not germane to the point. Pretty much every single person, publication, etc. who evaluates minor league baseball players professionally thinks that Homer Bailey is among the best pitching prospects in baseball. They aren't rating him as such because of the Reds relative paucity of good young pitching through the years. They are judging him objectively based on his ability and performance. I don't care if he's #1 overall or #10, that's still really darn good and something to be excited about. It's certainly not something to dismiss because of a poor major league debut during which he was dealing with an injury.

Most fair evaluations say that he has a plus fastball which sits around 92-94 with good movement (and can touch 96-97 when he really dials it up) and a plus 12-6 curve, but that he struggles with location. They say he's over-reliant on his fastball, needs to develop a third major-league-caliber pitch, and that until he locates his fastball reliably, he's going to struggle because that type of curve is difficult to throw for strikes. However, they also say that in this current stage of development, and given what he's done at various levels of the minors, that he's one of the best pitching prospects in baseball.

No, he's currently not an above average major league pitcher, let alone a #1 or #2. He may get there in 18 months, he may get there in 4 years, and more likely than not, he'll never get to that level. That be said for every single pitching prospect in the game. However, of all the pitchers in professional baseball who aren't currently #1 or #2 type guys, he's among the most likely to get there some day. The time frame for that development, IF and when it happens, is up for debate. But let's not pretend that Homer Bailey is no different from 100 other pitching prospects just because he hasn't put it together yet or because some scouting report said he sat at 95 instead of 92.

Anybody who says Homer Bailey "is a great pitcher" or "will be an ace" doesn't represent the majority feeling of the board. I think most of us understand what it means to be a prospect. Just don't confuse "great prospect" with an assertion of certainty. Even if it's just a 20% chance to be an above average major league starter, that's still a greater chance than virtually every other pitching prospect in baseball, and I would praise him within that context.

Oh, and don't confuse my verbosity for passion or anger. I'm just ironically long-winded in trying to state my perspective clearly.

What I don't think is particularly germane is "what Bailey's capable of." "What can he do" is all that matters to me.

Yes, he's dominated minor leaguers with a fastball. And a decent minor league curve. He's blessed with good height and great pedigree/coaching. Scouts love that stuff. It's tough to knock the shine off a big ole Texas boy with his height, pedigree, and fastball. Scouts, like everyone else, want a narrative, a good story.

All I ask is that he learn to control his pitches and develop better offspeed stuff. In May he'll be 22, still young, but well beyond wunderkind age. If there's even a 25% chance that it takes till he's 26 to put it together, bouncing back and forth between AAA and the majors, is it heresy to consider trading him for a healthy, Arroyo-esque MLB starter? I'd say no.

RedFanAlways1966
10-03-2007, 08:20 AM
I wasn't the one making the comparison, was I?

Nowhere was it mentioned that Bailey would be a H-of-F pitcher. However, some other notable guys at the same age were not that great... and DID NOT have good control or command.

21 years old? How did some well known pitchers do at that age? That is the reason for the comparison. No one claimed Homer was destined for the Hall. But I think the comparison DUE TO AGE was pretty obvious.

RFS62
10-03-2007, 09:25 AM
You simply cannot dismiss the age thing that easily.

Most fair evaluations say that he has a plus fastball which sits around 92-94 with good movement (and can touch 96-97 when he really dials it up) and a plus 12-6 curve, but that he struggles with location. They say he's over-reliant on his fastball, needs to develop a third major-league-caliber pitch, and that until he locates his fastball reliably, he's going to struggle because that type of curve is difficult to throw for strikes. However, they also say that in this current stage of development, and given what he's done at various levels of the minors, that he's one of the best pitching prospects in baseball.



Exactly what I think.

To judge Homer by the hyperbolic marketing campaign the Reds have put forth, especially this summer when they had billboards up announcing his arrival, is incredibly naive.

He's 21 years old. He's right on track for a very fine career. Or, he may flame out in a David Clydesque blaze of crapitude. Nobody knows right now.

He's not ready for prime time, and that's not a bad thing. Give him time to develop. I sure wish the Reds would.

bucksfan2
10-03-2007, 10:17 AM
What I don't think is particularly germane is "what Bailey's capable of." "What can he do" is all that matters to me.

Yes, he's dominated minor leaguers with a fastball. And a decent minor league curve. He's blessed with good height and great pedigree/coaching. Scouts love that stuff. It's tough to knock the shine off a big ole Texas boy with his height, pedigree, and fastball. Scouts, like everyone else, want a narrative, a good story.

All I ask is that he learn to control his pitches and develop better offspeed stuff. In May he'll be 22, still young, but well beyond wunderkind age. If there's even a 25% chance that it takes till he's 26 to put it together, bouncing back and forth between AAA and the majors, is it heresy to consider trading him for a healthy, Arroyo-esque MLB starter? I'd say no.

FCB it is my opinion that it is utterly stupid to suggest trading Bailey for a Arroyo-esques MLB starter. It almost seems as if you are hoping that Bailey fails so you can utter the "I told you so" line. Bailey may have had a lackluster debut but he pitched well in several of his games. It is also documented that he pitched hurt. Does he need better command, sure, but I think it will come when he learns to become a better pitcher.

Back to Arroyo. He is a slightly above league average who has shown as a red to face series of ups and downs. It is also conceivable that Bailey could put up better than Arroyo numbers in 2008. The biggest thing for me that Bailey did this year was show glimpses of being a good pitcher. His start in Oakland he looked dominant. He also had some bad starts, but who doesn't? The biggest thing with Bailey is paitence. We need to realize that he isn't going to come in and dominate right away. At Bailey's age of 21 another Texas fireballer, and maybe the greatest pitcher of the past 50 years, was pitching in the college world series, not the bigs. Give Bailey time.

registerthis
10-03-2007, 10:26 AM
FCB it is my opinion that it is utterly stupid to suggest trading Bailey for a Arroyo-esques MLB starter.

...

Back to Arroyo. He is a slightly above league average who has shown as a red to face series of ups and downs.

I think it should be pointed out--because it's easy to lose sight of--that above-average starters who can eat up 200 innings per year do not grow on trees, and are typically valuable assets to the teams who have them. If this year's Reds had two more Arroyos, we'd likely be debating the pitching rotation for the playoffs right now.

I'm not advocating trading Bailey for Arroyo part deux, but it's far from an "utterly stupid" proposition.

Highlifeman21
10-03-2007, 10:42 AM
Exactly what I think.

To judge Homer by the hyperbolic marketing campaign the Reds have put forth, especially this summer when they had billboards up announcing his arrival, is incredibly naive.

He's 21 years old. He's right on track for a very fine career. Or, he may flame out in a David Clydesque blaze of crapitude. Nobody knows right now.

He's not ready for prime time, and that's not a bad thing. Give him time to develop. I sure wish the Reds would.

I definitely agree that the billboards, etc., are working against Homer. The kid isn't ready, but the Reds are announcing to the motor vehicle travelling public that our savior has arrived. While he may literally be on the active roster, he's in no way shape or formed "arrived". He simply isn't ready, but for lack of better options, he's thrust into the rotation.

So far what I've seen from Bailey is a lack of command and control, an unimpressive fastball, and underdeveloped secondary pitches: his curve and change up. B/c of what I've seen, I'm disappointed in the Reds for rushing him, and questioning if this kid really is our next big thing. To this point, that's why I see him as a bust. He could rebound from that, he has age on his side being only 21, but he needs to make big strides to live up to all the hype. Right now, I'd be happy if he turns out to be a #3 for his career.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 11:30 AM
I don't see how Homer is a bust at all. He was overpromoted before he was ready because of injuries to the big league club and he did not succeed. He's way ahead of the developmental curve and still has all the raw tools. Yes, he needs to continue to develop before he can be a real contributor on the 25 man, but anybody judging him as any kind of failure based on his current level of development must be confusing Homer Bailey with Drew Stubbs.

He doesn't need to "bounce back". To paraphrase Denny Green, he is what we thought he is. Namely, a young power pitcher who dominated the low minors, and had success in the upper minors, but needs further refinement before taking the next step. Outside of a groin injury, there's nothing from which he needs to bounce back.

The problem with trading him for a #3 type guy is that, presumably, that guy is going to cost money in terms of salary. The Reds simply cannot compete while paying fair market value for the production required to do so. They need significant production from pre-arb and early arb players. Bailey represents an amazing opportunity to get just that.

M2
10-03-2007, 11:44 AM
Homer Bailey isn't a bust. He also might not be a successful major league pitcher. What he is, indisputably, is a hot property (though not as hot as he was a year ago).

I'd say how the team handles him should have a lot to do with what the overall plan is. Are the Reds going to make a concerted effort to challenge for the division in 2008-9 (as opposed to the half-assed efforts of previous seasons)? If so, then trading Bailey for a guy who can deliver a good 200 innings would make sense.

Yet if the plan is to cobble together a major league club while amassing young talent for something like a 2010 push, then you keep Bailey and probably resist any impulse to pitch him in the majors in 2008.

Mind you, the Reds probably won't dare to make so fundamental a decision as that, meaning that we'll get confused moves in both directions. What it may ultimately look like is the Reds will rush Bailey, he'll struggle over the next two years and then they'll give away in a fairly minor deal.

westofyou
10-03-2007, 11:50 AM
It's not exactly every day a 21 year old starts for the Reds, in the division era only 12 guys have done it for the Reds. Homer is the 13th.


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1969-2007

AGE <= 21
ERA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

GAMES STARTED YEAR GS ERA AGE
1 Don Gullett 1971 31 0.83 20
T2 Wayne Simpson 1970 26 1.04 21
T2 Ross Grimsley 1971 26 -.10 21
4 Scott Scudder 1989 17 -.98 21
5 Don Gullett 1972 16 -.48 21
T6 John Roper 1993 15 -1.58 21
T6 Gary Nolan 1969 15 0.05 21
8 Tom Carroll 1974 13 -.06 21
T9 Mario Soto 1977 10 -1.43 20
T9 Jeff Russell 1983 10 0.61 21
11 Frank Pastore 1979 9 -.51 21
12 Don Gullett 1970 2 1.63 19

Highlifeman21
10-03-2007, 12:34 PM
I don't see how Homer is a bust at all. He was overpromoted before he was ready because of injuries to the big league club and he did not succeed. He's way ahead of the developmental curve and still has all the raw tools. Yes, he needs to continue to develop before he can be a real contributor on the 25 man, but anybody judging him as any kind of failure based on his current level of development must be confusing Homer Bailey with Drew Stubbs.

He doesn't need to "bounce back". To paraphrase Denny Green, he is what we thought he is. Namely, a young power pitcher who dominated the low minors, and had success in the upper minors, but needs further refinement before taking the next step. Outside of a groin injury, there's nothing from which he needs to bounce back.

The problem with trading him for a #3 type guy is that, presumably, that guy is going to cost money in terms of salary. The Reds simply cannot compete while paying fair market value for the production required to do so. They need significant production from pre-arb and early arb players. Bailey represents an amazing opportunity to get just that.

I'm curious how you've determined that he's way ahead of the developmental curve.

To me, he's on the wrong side of the bell.

lollipopcurve
10-03-2007, 12:38 PM
To me, he's on the wrong side of the bell.

Turn the bell over.

Chip R
10-03-2007, 12:40 PM
What I liked about Homer's last start is that he realized his fastball was getting hit hard and/or wasn't locating it well. After a couple of innings he went to mostly breaking stuff and shut the Cubs down. Granted, Lou pulled most of the starters by then but a lot of pitchers would have been too stubborn to go with the breaking stuff and would have tried to blow them away with the fastball. I don't know if that is going to make him a failure or a success but it was nice to see that especially in a young pitcher.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 01:53 PM
I'm curious how you've determined that he's way ahead of the developmental curve.

To me, he's on the wrong side of the bell.

At age 21 he pitched 67.1 IP in AAA with a 3.07 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, and 7.89 K/9.

The developmental curve is time(age) on the X axis and level of performance on the Y. Below is a rough guess to illustrate the point. Call 60&#37; about replacement level. (Yes, I know that ability level varies too. 70% of Bailey could be a better pitcher than 90% of Matt Beilsle -- just trying to keep it simple for now)

Homer is the pink dots. Is he ready to be in the majors today? Maybe not. Is he more ready than virtually every other 21 year old out there? Without a doubt.

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/1194/abilityxv8.jpg

Yes, he's got lots of room to grow and improved. But he's further along than the vast majority of his peers are.

Highlifeman21
10-03-2007, 04:22 PM
At age 21 he pitched 67.1 IP in AAA with a 3.07 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, and 7.89 K/9.

The developmental curve is time(age) on the X axis and level of performance on the Y. Below is a rough guess to illustrate the point. Call 60% about replacement level. (Yes, I know that ability level varies too. 70% of Bailey could be a better pitcher than 90% of Matt Beilsle -- just trying to keep it simple for now)

Homer is the pink dots. Is he ready to be in the majors today? Maybe not. Is he more ready than virtually every other 21 year old out there? Without a doubt.

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/1194/abilityxv8.jpg

Yes, he's got lots of room to grow and improved. But he's further along than the vast majority of his peers are.

So how did you figure out the Y axis component of that graph? The X was very self-explanatory, but how did you determine level of performance? Are we simply giving Bailey the benefit of the developmental doubt b/c he pitched at the MLB level for a team lacking legitimate MLB talent, while not being ready, or is he really at just under 60% of his projected potential?

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:09 PM
Seriously, those of you who say there is no way Homer Bailey is ready are blind. Look at what he did while pitching healthy. If you can look at those numbers and say 'he isn't close to having the ability to pitch in the major leagues', you have the highest standards ever and probably feel 40&#37; of the pitchers in baseball are actually ready to pitch in the major leagues. He had an ERA under 4 at the age of 21 while healthy in the major leagues this year. What the heck do you want the kid to do, throw 70% strikes, walk no one, allow no home runs and win every game while hitting a solo HR so he can win all by himself 1-0?

registerthis
10-03-2007, 07:14 PM
What the heck do you want the kid to do, throw 70% strikes, walk no one, allow no home runs and win every game while hitting a solo HR so he can win all by himself 1-0?

That's still 30% balls. Too many unnecessary pitches.

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:23 PM
That's still 30% balls. Too many unnecessary pitches.

You were joking.... right?

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 07:28 PM
Seriously, those of you who say there is no way Homer Bailey is ready are blind. Look at what he did while pitching healthy. If you can look at those numbers and say 'he isn't close to having the ability to pitch in the major leagues', you have the highest standards ever and probably feel 40% of the pitchers in baseball are actually ready to pitch in the major leagues. He had an ERA under 4 at the age of 21 while healthy in the major leagues this year. What the heck do you want the kid to do, throw 70% strikes, walk no one, allow no home runs and win every game while hitting a solo HR so he can win all by himself 1-0?

I'd like to see at least one dominating performance. He didn't dominate anything.

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:34 PM
I'd like to see at least one dominating performance. He didn't dominate anything.

Yeah, he didn't dominate in 6 healthy starts. He just posted a 3.85 ERA over them. I guess Kyle Lohse was pretty good then? He had several dominating performances.

pedro
10-03-2007, 07:36 PM
Seriously, those of you who say there is no way Homer Bailey is ready are blind. Look at what he did while pitching healthy. If you can look at those numbers and say 'he isn't close to having the ability to pitch in the major leagues', you have the highest standards ever and probably feel 40% of the pitchers in baseball are actually ready to pitch in the major leagues. He had an ERA under 4 at the age of 21 while healthy in the major leagues this year. What the heck do you want the kid to do, throw 70% strikes, walk no one, allow no home runs and win every game while hitting a solo HR so he can win all by himself 1-0?

I think you're blinded by your optimism and youth.

pedro
10-03-2007, 07:39 PM
Seriously, when they start printing the "while healthy" stats in the paper then maybe I'll start to buy into that line of thinking.

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:40 PM
I think you're blinded by your optimism and youth.

I don't know what my age has anything to do with it. But if we are going to play that game, maybe you are blinded by your bitterness and old age? :thumbdown

M2
10-03-2007, 07:46 PM
maybe you are blinded by your bitterness and old age? :thumbdown

Now that I'm getting older I've come to realize that very few older folks are bitter. Quite the opposite. Just because you've been to this dance before doesn't mean you're bitter.

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:47 PM
Seriously, when they start printing the "while healthy" stats in the paper then maybe I'll start to buy into that line of thinking.

Yes, because Homer Bailey is going to likely pitch 33% of his starts next year with a hurt groin, right?

We are talking about Homer Bailey heading to the future, arent we? Why would we look at the starts he had where he was injured to get an idea of what he will do in the future? It doesn't make any sense to do so.

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Now that I'm getting older I've come to realize that very few older folks are bitter. Quite the opposite. Just because you've been to this dance before doesn't mean you're bitter.
Oh I meant nothing by it. I was more attempting to make a point that just becuase someone is of a certain age has nothing to do with what they believe or know. I was being quite stereotypical on purpose becuase he was being quite the same toward me.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Yeah, he didn't dominate in 6 healthy starts. He just posted a 3.85 ERA over them. I guess Kyle Lohse was pretty good then? He had several dominating performances.

I'd be careful with that comparison of Homer to Lohse. Sounds eerily like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:53 PM
I'd be careful with that comparison of Homer to Lohse. Sounds eerily like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

I don't see anything in the comparison. Bailey, even including his injured starts, allowed fewer hits than innings at age 21 in the majors. Kyle Lohse has still yet to do that in his major league career.

Patrick Bateman
10-03-2007, 07:55 PM
Seriously, those of you who say there is no way Homer Bailey is ready are blind. Look at what he did while pitching healthy. If you can look at those numbers and say 'he isn't close to having the ability to pitch in the major leagues', you have the highest standards ever and probably feel 40% of the pitchers in baseball are actually ready to pitch in the major leagues. He had an ERA under 4 at the age of 21 while healthy in the major leagues this year. What the heck do you want the kid to do, throw 70% strikes, walk no one, allow no home runs and win every game while hitting a solo HR so he can win all by himself 1-0?

When healthy, Bailey was very shaky in AAA, plus in his "healthy starts" which I don't really buy, he still had a bad K/BB ratio amongst other things that suggest his ERA was on the flukish side. He wasn't ready when he came up, and his performance backed this notion. His ERA during those starts is a poor tool because of the sample size issue amongst other things.

I do appreciate that I think he pitched his best in his final 3 starts. He seemed to have his control a little better (similar to the improvements he was making in his last few starts in Louisville). That gives me some hope that he is closer than I originally thought that his AAA stats had dictated. Being 21, I'm not too concerned about his lack of development overall this season, and I feel as long as the Reds make the right decisions with Bailey he can develop.

Still, I think you are highly overstating Bailey's success this season. We can't just pick and choose his "injury free" starts because we don't really know for sure. To be honest, I thought he looked like a similar pitcher throughout his injured/healthy starts, and that it was mainly a combination of luck/opponents that dictated his numbers.

Based on Bailey's AAA and major league numbers, I feel that it's pretty clear that he needs more time in AAA so that he can continue learning his craft. The Reds don't seem to feel the same way, so hopefully he can pick things up a lot faster than I anticipate, though I think the aggresive approach is only going to hurt his development, and I doubt any kind of consistent success is in his near future at the major league level.

pedro
10-03-2007, 07:56 PM
I don't know what my age has anything to do with it. But if we are going to play that game, maybe you are blinded by your bitterness and old age? :thumbdown

It's called experience. It comes with age. You'll see.

(just not for a few years)

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 07:58 PM
It's called experience. It comes with age. You'll see.

(just not for a few years)

Experience of what? Knowing about baseball? Trust me, I know the history of baseball just fine. I may be no WOY in terms of knowing some crazy historical things like he does, but I know plenty to draw a fine conclusion about any player in baseball.

pedro
10-03-2007, 07:59 PM
Yes, because Homer Bailey is going to likely pitch 33% of his starts next year with a hurt groin, right?

We are talking about Homer Bailey heading to the future, arent we? Why would we look at the starts he had where he was injured to get an idea of what he will do in the future? It doesn't make any sense to do so.

I just think he needs more time in AAA and just as much as you don't like people bringing up your age many folks don't like being called blind because they aren't as over optimistic as you are.

What doesn't make any sense is projecting the certainty of success upon someone who has clearly not yet earned it.

pedro
10-03-2007, 08:01 PM
Experience of what? Knowing about baseball? Trust me, I know the history of baseball just fine. I may be no WOY in terms of knowing some crazy historical things like he does, but I know plenty to draw a fine conclusion about any player in baseball.

You'll see. Just wait. Someday you too will be old and bitter and you'll think about what an optimistic young turk you were and you'll laugh.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 08:01 PM
Experience of what? Knowing about baseball? Trust me, I know the history of baseball just fine. I may be no WOY in terms of knowing some crazy historical things like he does, but I know plenty to draw a fine conclusion about any player in baseball.

No offense. But I would trust about 75 % of this board's knowledge about ballplayers before yours. Your bias dwarfs my pessimism, and that's saying something.

M2
10-03-2007, 08:01 PM
Yes, because Homer Bailey is going to likely pitch 33% of his starts next year with a hurt groin, right?

We are talking about Homer Bailey heading to the future, arent we? Why would we look at the starts he had where he was injured to get an idea of what he will do in the future? It doesn't make any sense to do so.

A) I find the supposedly debilitating nature of Homer's groin injury to be somewhat suspect. My take was, is and will be, that he tweaked his groin a bit and other pitchers would have pitched through it. The Reds certainly thought he could.

B) There is no such animal as a healthy season for a starting pitcher. Pain and fatigue come with the job.

C) I wasn't that impressed by the six supposedly healthy starts either. That said, he's 21 and there's no real reason to have expected him to impress much at that age.

D) If he made it through this season without any residual damage to his elbow or shoulder then he's a year closer to the point in time where he might be an effective major league pitcher. Time and health are my keys with him.

Cedric
10-03-2007, 08:02 PM
No offense. But I would trust about 75 % of this board's knowledge about ballplayers before yours. Your bias dwarfs my pessimism, and that's saying something.

Am I in the 75% or not? I mean we know you hate me, but I'm just wondering for the hell of it.

:)

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 08:03 PM
When healthy, Bailey was very shaky in AAA, plus in his "healthy starts" which I don't really buy, he still had a bad K/BB ratio amongst other things that suggest his ERA was on the flukish side. He wasn't ready when he came up, and his performance backed this notion. His ERA during those starts is a poor tool because of the sample size issue amongst other things.
His defensive independent ERA over his healthy starts was 4.30. It was not very fluky at all. The fact that he allowed 1 HR over 35 healthy innings is what kept his ERA down.



Still, I think you are highly overstating Bailey's success this season. We can't just pick and choose his "injury free" starts because we don't really know for sure. To be honest, I thought he looked like a similar pitcher throughout his injured/healthy starts, and that it was mainly a combination of luck/opponents that dictated his numbers.
Sure we can.... becuase going forward he is healthy. Maybe it was just me, but he looked tons better while healthy. His curveball had more bite to it and his fastball was faster. He didn't throw his change up enough to make any real conclusions one way or the other.



Based on Bailey's AAA and major league numbers, I feel that it's pretty clear that he needs more time in AAA so that he can continue learning his craft. The Reds don't seem to feel the same way, so hopefully he can pick things up a lot faster than I anticipate, though I think the aggresive approach is only going to hurt his development, and I doubt any kind of consistent success is in his near future at the major league level.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree here. Homer was getting by with too much in AAA against lesser competition, and didn't understand he needed to work on things (or so it seemed at times). Facing guys who will make you pay for your mistakes is the only way that some people learn.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 08:04 PM
Am I in the 75% or not? I mean we know you hate me, but I'm just wondering for the hell of it.

:)

At least you understand that defensive metrics are crap. :)

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 08:05 PM
No offense. But I would trust about 75 % of this board's knowledge about ballplayers before yours. Your bias dwarfs my pessimism, and that's saying something.
Thats fine. I trust everyone in the ORG's opinion before yours.... and probably 80% of the Sun decks posters as well.

Ltlabner
10-03-2007, 08:05 PM
At least you understand that defensive metrics are crap. :)

Wow....that's a damn nice political answer. Most diplomatic.

:laugh:

Cedric
10-03-2007, 08:05 PM
At least you understand that defensive metrics are crap. :)

You are a straight shooter. Answer the damn question :)

dougdirt
10-03-2007, 08:07 PM
You'll see. Just wait. Someday you too will be old and bitter and you'll think about what an optimistic young turk you were and you'll laugh.

No, I won't. My brain works plenty fine right now. I am about as bitter as they come in life. My bitterness does not have anything to do with the opinions I form based on what I see. Nor does any 'optimistic' views have anything to do with youth or an optimistic outlook on things....they are based upon what I see.

Ltlabner
10-03-2007, 08:08 PM
After Wayne spent all that time telling us he wasn't bringing Homer up "untill he was ready" I would really be intrested to know what specific events took place to make him suddenly switch gears and decide "he was ready".

Was it pressure from BCast? Homers massive resume in AAA? Tired of being asked why Homer wasn't being brought up by the man on the street?

Something changed his mind and it would be interesting to know the *real* answer as to what it was.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 08:08 PM
You are a straight shooter. Answer the damn question :)

Absolutely. I wasn't kidding when I say that you know which crap to overlook for the most part. There's great wisdom in not placing too much emphasis on statistical analysis. The big picture matters too; granularity often misses the point.

pedro
10-03-2007, 08:09 PM
No, I won't. My brain works plenty fine right now. I am about as bitter as they come in life. My bitterness does not have anything to do with the opinions I form based on what I see. Nor does any 'optimistic' views have anything to do with youth or an optimistic outlook on things....they are based upon what I see.

Ah, the irony runs thick with this one.

reds44
10-03-2007, 08:09 PM
I just can not buy into the "when healthy" argument. It's really impossible to know how hurt is groin really was, and how often he we have to pitch through minor injuries throughout is career and how his groin injury will compare to those injuries. It's just too easy to take out the majority of his poor stats because of his heath.

With that being said, I saw some good and I saw some bad in him this year. In the end, he was 21 years old and he is by no means a bust yet. Not even close. Hopefully he can stay healthy and improve in 2008.

pedro
10-03-2007, 08:10 PM
I will say this. Bailey's curve ball looked way better in his last 3 starts than it did when he first came up.

jojo
10-03-2007, 08:12 PM
I don't know what my age has anything to do with it. But if we are going to play that game, maybe you are blinded by your bitterness and old age? :thumbdown

I think he might've meant Homer's youth..... ???????

Cedric
10-03-2007, 08:19 PM
Absolutely. I wasn't kidding when I say that you know which crap to overlook for the most part. There's great wisdom in not placing too much emphasis on statistical analysis. The big picture matters too; granularity often misses the point.

Thanks. I just shed a tear.

jojo
10-03-2007, 08:20 PM
I don't see anything in the comparison. Bailey, even including his injured starts, allowed fewer hits than innings at age 21 in the majors. Kyle Lohse has still yet to do that in his major league career.

I think at 21, i'm more still willing to ignore Homer's stats to an extent and judge him on his stuff, command, and pitchability.

I think it's a bit of a reach for Homer to be described as ready if by that it's meant he's ready to dominate. He's got major league stuff but he still has to prove major league command especially with his secondary pitches.

He'd be in my rotation next year If I was the Reds GM but I wouldn't be asking him to dominate.

RFS62
10-03-2007, 08:21 PM
Doug, you're a smart guy with a lot of baseball knowledge.

For whatever reason, you either don't know or don't care that you don't win arguments by calling people "blind" if they don't see it your way.

You are perfectly able to make a sensible case without that approach.

I disagree with you on this one. I think we rushed him for all the wrong reasons. Another geezer who used to patrol these halls a bit had a saying that I believe. "Coddle your pitchers".

We did just the opposite this year with Homer. We paid a ton of lip service to not bringing him up until his secondary pitches were more refined. We said all the right things. Then, BOOM.... billboards announcing his arrival. He HAD to be ready, I thought. The reports from the development people HAD to be wrong, or we'd never make such a radical change in our approach.

I didn't see it. I saw a kid who looked like a 21 year old with a great ceiling, but not yet refined. I saw an unacceptable risk in a lost season.

I respect your opinion and your baseball knowledge. But not the way you're making your case.

Patrick Bateman
10-03-2007, 08:21 PM
His defensive independent ERA over his healthy starts was 4.30. It was not very fluky at all. The fact that he allowed 1 HR over 35 healthy innings is what kept his ERA down.

And Bailey's not a groundball machine. Pitchers don't have a ton of ability ro control HR/FB rates, and as such, it's a virtual lock that he would give up a much higher ratio of homeruns provided a larger sample size. His BB/9 of (4.68/9) and K/9 of (5.14/9) during his "healthy starts" tell msot of the story. It's the same story that Bailey has had since coming up. That of a guy with major control issues. A guy with Bailey's stuff will strike out 8+ guys per 9 if they have their control intact. He didn't, and as such continuously got behind hitters making it extremely difficult to make use of his great stuff to finish off hitters.

His K/BB for the entire season was 1.00, which is marginally worse than when he was "fully healthy". The stats just aren't as different as you make them out to be. Provided more ealthy innings, it's a virtual lock that his DIPS would explose into the 5.00+ range when the homeruns started coming out of the park.


Sure we can.... becuase going forward he is healthy. Maybe it was just me, but he looked tons better while healthy. His curveball had more bite to it and his fastball was faster. He didn't throw his change up enough to make any real conclusions one way or the other.

My point is that I question how much his groin injury really effected him. If you believe in small samples, the stats would indicate that he was marginally better when healthy (but still a hige work in progress). That seems pretty fair to me.



Well we will just have to agree to disagree here. Homer was getting by with too much in AAA against lesser competition, and didn't understand he needed to work on things (or so it seemed at times). Facing guys who will make you pay for your mistakes is the only way that some people learn.

He was getting by in AAA with a low BAPIP. His .254 wasn't going to continue especially in the majors. In AAA his K/BB was still a little under 2. That's not good. That would be subpar if he were a major leaguer. That right there should have showed the control difficulties he has experienced. He wasn't pitching well in AAA, and obviously that carried over to the majors where he predictably struggled. That's why I don't buy the groin injury as a valid excuse for his struggles. Because he was never pitching effectively in the first place.

He still hasn't come close to mastering AAA, and as such I think he needs more time there. Until he can, he is going to have plenty of struggles in the major leagues where the Reds will waste perhaps a couple of his pre-arb years on a crap pitcher. I'd rather he develop in the minors so that when/if he is ready, the Reds can capitalize on his cheap seasons.

Patrick Bateman
10-03-2007, 08:23 PM
I will say this. Bailey's curve ball looked way better in his last 3 starts than it did when he first came up.

I definitely agree with this. For that reason, I think his last 3 starts were a step up on his others. Something to build on for next season.

Cedric
10-03-2007, 08:26 PM
Doug, you're a smart guy with a lot of baseball knowledge.

For whatever reason, you either don't know or don't care that you don't win arguments by calling people "blind" if they don't see it your way.

You are perfectly able to make a sensible case without that approach.

I disagree with you on this one. I think we rushed him for all the wrong reasons. Another geezer who used to patrol these halls a bit had a saying that I believe. "Coddle your pitchers".

We did just the opposite this year with Homer. We paid a ton of lip service to not bringing him up until his secondary pitches were more refined. We said all the right things. Then, BOOM.... billboards announcing his arrival. He HAD to be ready, I thought. The reports from the development people HAD to be wrong, or we'd never make such a radical change in our approach.

I didn't see it. I saw a kid who looked like a 21 year old with a great ceiling, but not yet refined. I saw an unacceptable risk in a lost season.

I respect your opinion and your baseball knowledge. But not the way you're making your case.


He was rushed and everyone knew it. It's not something that should even be debated. I'm not being a jerk, it's just obvious.

jojo
10-03-2007, 08:30 PM
He was rushed and everyone knew it. It's not something that should even be debated. I'm not being a jerk, it's just obvious.

Many in the ORG were screaming "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" before he was even called up in fact.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 08:31 PM
So how did you figure out the Y axis component of that graph? The X was very self-explanatory, but how did you determine level of performance? Are we simply giving Bailey the benefit of the developmental doubt b/c he pitched at the MLB level for a team lacking legitimate MLB talent, while not being ready, or is he really at just under 60% of his projected potential?

It's a complete and utter fudge for illustrative purposes. In reality, there is a third axis, potential.

A guy like Brady Clark has just enough potential to crack the majors if he fully realizes it. He did fully realize it, cracked the majors at the peak of his aging curve (age 27) and is now a replacement level player at age 34.

Ok, forgive me for the chart I'm about to post, but I think it's more succinct than trying to write it all. The X axis is still age, but this time the Y axis is just plain old actual ability. You could conceivably have another Y axis which represents potential, but I'll leave that alone for now. The scale is 100% made up, but it's enough to relative scale to illustrate the point.

Also, the aging curves are a 100% aggregate concept. Very few if any players follow this specific trajectory. Rather, they have quite a bit of variance around these lines on a year to year basis based on injury, random luck, etc. Some guy might have a HOF year, then have a career ending/altering injury. Another guy, let's call him Wontrelle Dillis, might start off with a big bang and then just peter out before he reaches 30.

The question discussed here is whether Bailey is a stud or Bailey is a bust or somewhere in between. I posit that many guys who follow Bailey's current trajectory follow the Bailey Stud trajectory and that you shouldn't get rid of guys who show that potential. And that even though he isn't there yet, very few guys are at age 21. When I say he's "ahead of the curve", that curve I'm referring to is the dark blue on on this chart.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/619/ability2lw6.jpg

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 08:35 PM
When healthy, Bailey was very shaky in AAA.

Firstly, don't get me wrong, Bailey could have been better at AAA. He was over-reliant on his fastball and his command came and went. That said...

3.07 ERA
1.20 WHIP
6.55 H/9
7.89 K/9
4.28 BB/9

The hit rate is nearly off the chart. The K rate is solid, but not spectacular. The walk rate is plain ol' bad.

Now, he did this at age 21, when the average AAA prospect is 2-3 years older. That's VERY good -- not "shaky". Shaky is what Drew Stubbs did in A ball this year as a 22 year old.


The whole "the injury is no excuse for pitching poorly" is a load. Yes, he was less than stellar at the major league level when healthy. However, having a groin issue isn't just a pain issue. Any lower body injury is going to affect both command and velocity -- both which were worse when he was injured. The injury isn't an excuse such that he would've been an all-star if healthy. A fatigued arm and a strained groin are two very different things. Ask Roger Clemens and Pedro Martinez if injuries are just pain like regular old pitcher soreness or if they can have a significant affect on performance. I don't think any of us can say exactly how much it affected him. But dismissing it entirely is laughable.

I think AK had it right. He wasn't great when he was healthy. He was worse when he wasn't. He's a work in process. But he's also a work that shows a lot of promise.

pedro
10-03-2007, 08:37 PM
He is not going to have sustained success in the majors if he can't bring that walk rate down. Down a lot. He is absolutely not going to learn to do that in the majors.

Chip R
10-03-2007, 08:38 PM
After Wayne spent all that time telling us he wasn't bringing Homer up "untill he was ready" I would really be intrested to know what specific events took place to make him suddenly switch gears and decide "he was ready".

Was it pressure from BCast?


That's my guess although I'm sure Wayne would deny it if he were asked. In a perfect world, when Homer was called up he should have been put in long relief. God knows we needed all the help we could get there.

Highlifeman21
10-03-2007, 08:56 PM
It's a complete and utter fudge for illustrative purposes. In reality, there is a third axis, potential.

A guy like Brady Clark has just enough potential to crack the majors if he fully realizes it. He did fully realize it, cracked the majors at the peak of his aging curve (age 27) and is now a replacement level player at age 34.

Ok, forgive me for the chart I'm about to post, but I think it's more succinct than trying to write it all. The X axis is still age, but this time the Y axis is just plain old actual ability. You could conceivably have another Y axis which represents potential, but I'll leave that alone for now. The scale is 100% made up, but it's enough to relative scale to illustrate the point.

Also, the aging curves are a 100% aggregate concept. Very few if any players follow this specific trajectory. Rather, they have quite a bit of variance around these lines on a year to year basis based on injury, random luck, etc. Some guy might have a HOF year, then have a career ending/altering injury. Another guy, let's call him Wontrelle Dillis, might start off with a big bang and then just peter out before he reaches 30.

The question discussed here is whether Bailey is a stud or Bailey is a bust or somewhere in between. I posit that many guys who follow Bailey's current trajectory follow the Bailey Stud trajectory and that you shouldn't get rid of guys who show that potential. And that even though he isn't there yet, very few guys are at age 21. When I say he's "ahead of the curve", that curve I'm referring to is the dark blue on on this chart.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/619/ability2lw6.jpg

You've convinced me that he's ahead of the game based on him being 21, but I'm not sure his ceiling is as high as once advertised, so for that reason, I'd concede that he's on par with his developmental curve.

Injured or not, the kid just didn't look ready in 2007, and was clearly rushed to the MLB level. I'm hoping that he gains some command and control between now and Opening Day 2008, or else he'll still be on the "bust" track, rather than the "real deal" track.

Him being 21 is the only number giving me any hope at this point. Maybe it's the pessimist in me, or just years of stomaching failed pitching prospects. I still haven't gotten over Ty Howington.

M2
10-03-2007, 09:13 PM
He'd be in my rotation next year If I was the Reds GM but I wouldn't be asking him to dominate.

Why promote him to the majors and burn his pre-arbitration years before he learns to command his secondary pitches?

I question how likely he'd be to learn to command those pitches when he's pitching to survive more often than not. Blown confidence and bad habits might be all that reaps. Plus, it's an enticement to overthrow, which is the best way I know of to get an arm injury.

On top of that, the kid's current season-high innings total is 138. I'd suggest that you might want to increase that 20% in the minors one season before putting him in line for a 180+ IP in the majors.

We know that, as a general rule, 22-year-old pitchers are pretty lousy. Supposedly each one is real deal, the phenom who isn't like the rest.

A line from the movie "Colors" comes to mind: There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and [get with] one of them cows." The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and [get with] 'em all."

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 09:31 PM
He is not going to have sustained success in the majors if he can't bring that walk rate down. Down a lot. He is absolutely not going to learn to do that in the majors.

That's the alpha and the omega of this entire situation.

Patrick Bateman
10-03-2007, 09:43 PM
Firstly, don't get me wrong, Bailey could have been better at AAA. He was over-reliant on his fastball and his command came and went. That said...

3.07 ERA
1.20 WHIP
6.55 H/9
7.89 K/9
4.28 BB/9

The hit rate is nearly off the chart. The K rate is solid, but not spectacular. The walk rate is plain ol' bad.

Now, he did this at age 21, when the average AAA prospect is 2-3 years older. That's VERY good -- not "shaky". Shaky is what Drew Stubbs did in A ball this year as a 22 year old.



Perhaps we are arguing semantics, but 4.28 BB/9 in AAA is pretty shaky to me. That's a guy that isn't locating. The K's are solid, but not great. Certainly not great enough to offset his high walks.

As I said earlier, his hit rate is partially a factor of luck. His .250ish BAPIP wasn't going to continue. What really matters is his peripherals and they just weren't there yet. His peripherals suggested he was still a raw pitcher with command problems which was fully reflected in his MLB innings.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 09:45 PM
Perhaps we are arguing semantics, but 4.28 BB/9 in AAA is pretty shaky to me. That's a guy that isn't locating. The K's are solid, but not great. Certainly not great enough to offset his high walks.

As I said earlier, his hit rate is partially a factor of luck. His .250ish BAPIP wasn't going to continue. What really matters is his peripherals and they just weren't there yet. His peripherals suggested he was still a raw pitcher with command problems which was fully reflected in his MLB innings.

Yes, shaky control. That's not shaky as a complete package. Perhaps semantics, but to me shaky implies unreliable -- unsustainable. Yes, his control is poor and needs to improve if he's going to replicate his AAA success at the major league level.

I'm more worried about the rate at which he allows runs and if that rate can be sustained. Your point about his BABIP is well taken, but his peripherals as a whole still suggest an ERA under 4.00 at AAA by a 21 year old. And he'll improve.

Shaky is Matt Belisle's status as a major league starter -- not Homer Bailey's status as a top pitching prospect. If Homer goes through his age 22 season repeating AAA or getting killed in the majors and doesn't improve, then we can worry that his development has stagnated and his lack of control will sabotage his chances for a great career. For now, his 6 starts in the majors were just a bump in the road for a great prospect who was rushed.

We should be wary against counting on Homer to reach his potential. The odds are stacked against every pitcher in that regard. But we shouldn't take his performance and development to date as some greater sign that he's any more likely to fail than we would have thought in June.

An interesting quick observation, at age 21, Cole Hamels walked 19 guys in 36 IP in high A and AA. He allowed just 2 homers and struck out 37. At age 22, in AAA he went nuts and the rest is history. There's some precedence for young guys with great stuff and control issues figuring it out.

RedFanAlways1966
10-03-2007, 09:49 PM
He is not going to have sustained success in the majors if he can't bring that walk rate down. Down a lot. He is absolutely not going to learn to do that in the majors.

Nolan Ryan won 20+ games in a season only twice in his career (1973 & 1974). Both times he did it... he led the AL in walks allowed. I guess I should mention... he also had the 1st (1973) and 3rd (1974) all-time single season strikeouts records (383 & 367). ;)

p.s. No, I don't think Homer will get 300+ Ks in a season (for those who might think it)!

Patrick Bateman
10-03-2007, 09:54 PM
Yes, shaky control. That's not shaky as a complete package. Perhaps semantics, but to me shaky implies unreliable -- unsustainable. Yes, his control is poor and needs to improve if he's going to replicate his AAA success at the major league level.

I'm more worried about the rate at which he allows runs and if that rate can be sustained. Your point about his BABIP is well taken, but his peripherals as a whole still suggest an ERA under 4.00 at AAA by a 21 year old. And he'll improve.

Shaky is Matt Belisle's status as a major league starter -- not Homer Bailey's status as a top pitching prospect. If Home goes through his age 22 season and doesn't improve, then we can worry.

To make my stance perfectly clear, my point isn't to say that his AAA season was poor for a 21 year old, or that I'm using it as a reason to suggest that he will be a bust.

My point in deaming his AAA performance "shaky" was that he was not dominating down there. That he was kind of meh....

Perhaps by AAA standards he was okay rather than shaky, but I meant that his AAA performance would suggest that by MLB standards he would be shaky.... which is definitely true..... I don't think I really made that clear.

As far as his long term outlook, I think Bailey is ahead of the game. This season was disapointing to me because he didn't make many steps forward. For the most part he was a similar pitcher to he was last season. For the most part I think Bailey just needs some innings to refine his game and development should continue to take place. I'd just rather that happen in the minors where he won't get pounded and knocked out after 2 innings. He needs to be able to work through 175+ innings, which I'm not sure he can do in the majors. Plus having him in the majors now just eats up his pre-arb years.

pedro
10-03-2007, 09:55 PM
Nolan Ryan won 20+ games in a season only twice in his career (1973 & 1974). Both times he did it... he led the AL in walks allowed. I guess I should mention... he also had the 1st (1973) and 3rd (1974) all-time single season strikeouts records (383 & 367). ;)

p.s. No, I don't think Homer will get 300+ Ks in a season (for those who might think it)!

Nolan Ryan was also a freak of nature.

When the comparisons start with a very unique HOF pitcher then generally it's just grasping at straws, but I'm sure you know that.

One thing about this comparison though is I bet Nolan Ryan threw scads of pitches back in the 70's. With pitch counts being what they are today I doubt even Nolan would have had as much success because when it takes you 100 pitches to get through 5 innings you just aren't going to win many games.

Aronchis
10-03-2007, 09:58 PM
Homer's AAA season was injury plagued. When he went back down the 2nd time, he clearly was banged up.

I will take it a step further, the Homer that pitched late in September was the Homer Bailey of 2006. I hadn't seen or read reports of that Homer all year long. The game against the Astros, he touched 98 and then threw a 91mph fastball the next pitch wow!!!. Where had that guy been?

Walks aren't important at this stage for Bailey, but improving his pitches and command enough to get the 9+ K/9 we seek in the Majors down the road.

M2
10-03-2007, 10:00 PM
Yes, shaky control. That's not shaky as a complete package. Perhaps semantics, but to me shaky implies unreliable -- unsustainable. Yes, his control is poor and needs to improve if he's going to replicate his AAA success at the major league level.

I'm more worried about the rate at which he allows runs and if that rate can be sustained. Your point about his BABIP is well taken, but his peripherals as a whole still suggest an ERA under 4.00 at AAA by a 21 year old. And he'll improve.

My take is all young pitchers are shaky per your definition. Who knows what they can sustain over time.

Highlifeman21
10-03-2007, 10:04 PM
Homer's AAA season was injury plagued. When he went back down the 2nd time, he clearly was banged up.

I will take it a step further, the Homer that pitched late in September was the Homer Bailey of 2006. I hadn't seen or read reports of that Homer all year long. The game against the Astros, he touched 98 and then threw a 91mph fastball the next pitch wow!!!. Where had that guy been?

Walks aren't important at this stage for Bailey, but improving his pitches and command enough to get the 9+ K/9 we seek in the Majors down the road.

Walks are important at every stage for Homer Bailey. A 9+ K/9 rate is great, but only if his BB/9 is sub 3. Until Homer Bailey gets his K:BB above 3:1, there's cause for concern.

RedFanAlways1966
10-03-2007, 10:05 PM
Nolan Ryan was also a freak of nature.

When the comparisons start with a very unique HOF pitcher then generally it's just grasping at straws, but I'm sure you know that.


Oh, yes. That was tongue-in-cheek.

But back to 3 future Cooperstown pitchers... Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine. They all stayed in the bigs after very shaky control years in the bigs at the age of 21. None of the three saw "super" improvement the following year as ML starters, but it got better. And the years that followed kept getting better. I am not saying Homer will ever reach their levels, but I do not want to give up on him or label him a bust. 21 has proven to be hard on ML pitchers. Even for those who are destined for Cooperstown (save a few). Perhaps a good coaching staff helps as well.

As a REDS fan and a person who is very aware of their pitching problems in the last decade, I am willing to give Homer plenty of time to development as he ages. The REDS do not have the cash to buy pitching. Hopefully they have the coaches and the patience to develop it from within.

Patrick Bateman
10-03-2007, 10:06 PM
Walks are important at every stage for Homer Bailey. A 9+ K/9 rate is great, but only if his BB/9 is sub 3. Until Homer Bailey gets his K:BB above 3:1, there's cause for concern.

That's a disgusting benchmark. That's what Jake Peavy has basically done in his career.

westofyou
10-03-2007, 10:08 PM
Walks are important at every stage for Homer Bailey. A 9+ K/9 rate is great, but only if his BB/9 is sub 3. Until Homer Bailey gets his K:BB above 3:1, there's cause for concern.

Last year (2006) there were 16 qualifying pitchers that fit that criteria

That's out of the 84 who qualified... so he has to be in the top 19% before he's safe?



SEASON
2006


STRIKEOUTS/WALKS SO/BB
1 Curt Schilling 6.54
2 Johan Santana 5.21
3 Mike Mussina 4.91
T4 Roy Oswalt 4.37
T4 David Bush 4.37
6 Chris Carpenter 4.28
7 Jon Lieber 4.17
8 Danny Haren 3.91
9 C.C. Sabathia 3.91
10 Roy Halladay 3.88
11 Aaron Harang 3.86
12 John Smoltz 3.84
13 Chris Capuano 3.70
14 Brandon Webb 3.56
15 Jake Peavy 3.47
16 Javier Vazquez 3.29
17 Greg Maddux 3.16
18 Jeremy Bonderman 3.16
19 Brett Myers 3.00

Patrick Bateman
10-03-2007, 10:17 PM
Last year (2006) there were 16 qualifying pitchers that fit that criteria

That's out of the 84 who qualified... so he has to be in the top 19% before he's safe?



SEASON
2006


STRIKEOUTS/WALKS SO/BB
1 Curt Schilling 6.54
2 Johan Santana 5.21
3 Mike Mussina 4.91
T4 Roy Oswalt 4.37
T4 David Bush 4.37
6 Chris Carpenter 4.28
7 Jon Lieber 4.17
8 Danny Haren 3.91
9 C.C. Sabathia 3.91
10 Roy Halladay 3.88
11 Aaron Harang 3.86
12 John Smoltz 3.84
13 Chris Capuano 3.70
14 Brandon Webb 3.56
15 Jake Peavy 3.47
16 Javier Vazquez 3.29
17 Greg Maddux 3.16
18 Jeremy Bonderman 3.16
19 Brett Myers 3.00

And from that list only Santana and Peavy had K/9 rates over 9.00.

You don't need to be a control artist by any means if you can strike out over 9 guys per innings. If you do get top notch control to boot, then that's when you become elite, which Bailey doesn't have to do to be a success.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 10:25 PM
Perhaps by AAA standards he was okay rather than shaky, but I meant that his AAA performance would suggest that by MLB standards he would be shaky.... which is definitely true..... I don't think I really made that clear.

I think perhaps were in violent agreement. You're right. His AAA performance suggested that while he was a great prospect, he wasn't ready for prime time just yet. I also agree, that there's no reason to waste his pre-arb time throwing 5.50 ERA ball in the majors for a 75 win team when he still has developing he could be doing in AAA.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 10:29 PM
My take is all young pitchers are shaky per your definition. Who knows what they can sustain over time.

So by your logic, we should never develop a young pitcher ever. Trade them all for "proven guys", even if those proven guys are costly and slipped significantly from their peak performance.

There's no sure things, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't build a strategy that requires developing good talent.

Bottom line, if the Reds aren't able to develop above average major leaguers and get production from them at below market cost, we will never win. We cannot afford to field a 90 win team if we have to pay most of our significant contributors fair market prices. Trading away our opportunities for those players who might fill that role is locking ourselves in to mediocrity.

As for the Bailey must do X or we should worry... Carlos Zambrano has a career 7.86 K/9 and 4.13 BB/9. He pairs those with a 7.44 H/9 and 0.74 HR/9 to achieve a 3.41 ERA and legitimate ace status. If I were the Cubs, I'd be constantly worried about Zambrano. And I'd thank God every day that I had him.

Clearly Bailey needs to start missing significantly more major league bats to have any success with an above average BB rate. But the level of "concern" about him just leaves me flabbergasted.

Highlifeman21
10-03-2007, 10:29 PM
That's a disgusting benchmark. That's what Jake Peavy has basically done in his career.

I was basing the K:BB rate off another poster's 9+ K/9 rate desire from Bailey. If he's striking 9 out per 9, then I'd hope that he's not walking more than 4 per 9. Anything more than 4 BB per 9, then I'd say he definitely has a problem to overcome.

jojo
10-03-2007, 10:42 PM
Why promote him to the majors and burn his pre-arbitration years before he learns to command his secondary pitches?

I question how likely he'd be to learn to command those pitches when he's pitching to survive more often than not. Blown confidence and bad habits might be all that reaps. Plus, it's an enticement to overthrow, which is the best way I know of to get an arm injury.

On top of that, the kid's current season-high innings total is 138. I'd suggest that you might want to increase that 20% in the minors one season before putting him in line for a 180+ IP in the majors.

We know that, as a general rule, 22-year-old pitchers are pretty lousy. Supposedly each one is real deal, the phenom who isn't like the rest.

A line from the movie "Colors" comes to mind: There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and [get with] one of them cows." The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and [get with] 'em all."

Mostly because the Reds rotation is three deep going into spring training assuming Belisle is #3. If Bailey handles spring training then he should start the year in the rotation. If he flames out in his first 5 or so starts, thats not much service time and only one option burned. It's safe to assume that option would get burned sometime next season anyway.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 10:44 PM
Trading away our opportunities for those players who might fill that role is locking ourselves in to mediocrity.
.

Everyone knows the Reds will need cheap talent to succeed. Similarly, you're lying to yourself if you think that a Marlins-esque 2003 run isn't a total outlier of an event (that is to say, a model to be emulated--all kids winning it all basically). Teams that win have to have veteran performers, just as much as the kids. If the decision is to get that veteran performer because he's available in a deal, then on occasion, you might sacrifice the future--like a Bailey. Maybe that deal isn't out there right now. Probably isn't: I don't guess there are upper tier veteran pitchers available, even for Bailey. But it is context, and Bailey is just one commodity. If you stubbornly hold on to Bailey based on principle and not context, you could pass on something much greater. Also, if you're holding on to Bailey because you never know when another Bailey might come along, that is similarly wrongheaded, IMO. If you're a decent drafter and trader, those cheap pitchers will emerge. And they often do, coming out of obscurity instead of the blinding glare of hype that Bailey's being asked to emerge from. A conservative approach to one's prospects is probably good overall for a mid/low payroll team like the Reds, but it shouldn't be an exclusive, inflexible approach.

jojo
10-03-2007, 10:45 PM
That's a disgusting benchmark. That's what Jake Peavy has basically done in his career.

Right, if three is a benchmark, a BB/9 in the threes is a more appropriate one....

Chip R
10-03-2007, 11:18 PM
Mostly because the Reds rotation is three deep going into spring training assuming Belisle is #3. If Bailey handles spring training then he should start the year in the rotation. If he flames out in his first 5 or so starts, thats not much service time and only one option burned. It's safe to assume that option would get burned sometime next season anyway.


It would actually be his second option. The Reds optioned him down to LOU earlier this year.

jojo
10-03-2007, 11:23 PM
It would actually be his second option. The Reds optioned him down to LOU earlier this year.

Right but it only burns one option to start him in the rotation in '08 and as stated, it's an option that's a safe bet will get burned next season anyway.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 11:25 PM
Everyone knows the Reds will need cheap talent to succeed. Similarly, you're lying to yourself if you think that a Marlins-esque 2003 run isn't a total outlier of an event (that is to say, a model to be emulated--all kids winning it all basically). Teams that win have to have veteran performers, just as much as the kids. If the decision is to get that veteran performer because he's available in a deal, then on occasion, you might sacrifice the future--like a Bailey. Maybe that deal isn't out there right now. Probably isn't: I don't guess there are upper tier veteran pitchers available, even for Bailey. But it is context, and Bailey is just one commodity. If you stubbornly hold on to Bailey based on principle and not context, you could pass on something much greater. Also, if you're holding on to Bailey because you never know when another Bailey might come along, that is similarly wrongheaded, IMO. If you're a decent drafter and trader, those cheap pitchers will emerge. And they often do, coming out of obscurity instead of the blinding glare of hype that Bailey's being asked to emerge from. A conservative approach to one's prospects is probably good overall for a mid/low payroll team like the Reds, but it shouldn't be an exclusive, inflexible approach.

Context tells me that Bailey has a good shot to be as good as if not better than Dontrelle Willis in 2008, and even more so in 2009. I do know that Willis will definitely cost about $18M more.

Further, we already have over $20M invested in Harang and Arroyo in 2009, 10, and 11.

What this really comes down to is the expectations of Willis. It's not about a stubborn refusal to deal Bailey. It's about this specific deal. It's about only controlling Willis for 2 years. It's about him coming off his 2nd straight year of decline. It's about a funky delivery that he's had trouble repeating during that decline. It's about 241 hits allowed in 205.3 IP and an increasing walk rate -- up to 3.81 in fact -- dangerously close to "shaky" if you ask me. If I thought Willis was a solid bet for 200 IP of 4.00 ERA ball, this would be a different discussion. However, he's not in my opinion. He's a specific risk, and not one I want to bet the promise of Bailey on.

If we want to spend money on a #3 starter in FA, why not spend 12M for a mid rotation starter and keep Bailey? Again, it comes back to the unstated idea that you and others think Willis is a good bet to return to his 2005 self, or close to it. I don't.

And your insistence that Bailey is all hype is preposterous. As we've shown at great length, he's way ahead of the curve and still one of the best prospects in baseball. Is he overhyped? YES. That doesn't make him any less of a great prospect, just not the guaranteed savior that he's apparently being hyped as. Regardless, he's not just another "cheap pitcher", of whom there are many lying around. If Homer Bailey isn't a truly special talent, then there are 1000's of people who evaluate talent for a living who are wrong. That doesn't mean he's definitely going to turn that talent in to all-star production -- but there is a middle ground between guaranteed savior and just another young cheap arm. You don't seem to appreciate that -- or think that somehow his 6 major league starts have somehow proven wrong everything else thought about him up to that point.

I wish you'd stop asserting that I have some dogmatic inflexible approach. I have never said that Bailey is untouchable or that you should never trade prospects for proven talent. But as you said, context matters, and this isn't the right Bailey for proven talent deal for all the reasons I've stated above.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2007, 11:26 PM
Context tells me that Bailey has a good shot to be as good as if not better than Dontrelle Willis in 2008, and even more so in 2009. I do know that Willis will definitely cost about $18M more.

Further, we already have over $20M invested in Harang and Arroyo in 2009, 10, and 11.

What this really comes down to is the expectations of Willis. If I thought Willis was a good bet for 200 IP of 4.00 ERA ball, this would be a different discussion. However, he's not in my opinion. He's a risk, and not one I want to bet the promise of Bailey on.

I'm not talking about Bailey for Willis per se. In general.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 11:36 PM
double post

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 11:41 PM
I'm not talking about Bailey for Willis per se. In general.

Perhaps I've said that Bailey is untouchable, but I don't think so. What I have said is that within the current context of the Reds roster and salary commitments, and considering the various possibilities of Bailey's developmental path, that I don't think trading him would be smart --- at least not for any of the various deals I've seen floated.

If you can find my "absolutely never trade a prospect for proven talent" statement, by all means, call me on it.

RFS62
10-03-2007, 11:58 PM
Regarding context, I don't think Bailey is untouchable. I do think, however, that we'll not get an offer that I'd take right now.

I do think he was rushed this year. But that doesn't mean he can't continue to refine and develop his game, which I believe is all of our fervent hope. I think he has a potentially tremendous ceiling and it's in our best interest to treat him like a very valuable asset instead of a circus freak to pump up attendance in an already lost season, which is what I think we did this summer.

The starting point of all discussions regarding Bailey should be the fact that he's 21 YEARS OLD.

dougdirt
10-04-2007, 12:10 AM
The starting point of all discussions regarding Bailey should be the fact that he's 21 YEARS OLD.

Yeah, but he will be 22 in May. If he isn't a finished product by the time he is 22, he won't ever make it :rolleyes:

gonelong
10-04-2007, 12:21 AM
A line from the movie "Colors" comes to mind: There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and [get with] one of them cows." The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and [get with] 'em all."

I first heard that in 1983, from my neighbor, who's diary farm I was working on. It left quite an impression on a 13 year old, ha ha. Still, sometimes I think the young bull had the right idea. :eek:

I'd prefer that Baily start the year in AAA next year and work on his control. I don't see that the Reds are likely to be close enough to contending to either trade him or take him north.

GL

Chip R
10-04-2007, 12:23 AM
I do think he was rushed this year. But that doesn't mean he can't continue to refine and develop his game, which I believe is all of our fervent hope. I think he has a potentially tremendous ceiling and it's in our best interest to treat him like a very valuable asset instead of a circus freak to pump up attendance in an already lost season, which is what I think we did this summer.

The starting point of all discussions regarding Bailey should be the fact that he's 21 YEARS OLD.


Great points, RFS. The problem with Homer is that he was hyped so much that there was no way he couldn't be a starter when he initially got called up. Perhaps now that the hype has worn off and people don't think he's Superman anymore he can go to the bullpen and work on his game without having to live up to the hype.

I don't think M2 was trying to say that you shouldn't ever have kids as starters. What I think he was saying is that 22 year old kids are a mixed bag. It's hard to tell if they are going to be good, bad or mediocre. They need patience and understanding. Only a select few are going to be great from Day 1 on. Cole Hamels has been the Phillies ace for the last year and a half. He's an outstanding young pitcher who has been that way from the get go. But he took the loss today in the NLDS. He didn't pitch bad but he wasn't dominating. Doesn't mean he's going to stink it's just one game. Kerry Wood and Dwight Gooden dominated from Day 1 but Wood has had to deal with injuries and Gooden fell victim to substance abuse. You just never know.

Falls City Beer
10-04-2007, 12:25 AM
Yeah, but he will be 22 in May. If he isn't a finished product by the time he is 22, he won't ever make it :rolleyes:

Who knows when he'll "make" it?

That's a central part of my argument--things more often than not don't line up temporally the way you want them to. Frequently, a competition schedule needs to be speeded up to accommodate pre-existing players. Or maybe the kids that are there need some veterans added to them quickly because they defied expectations and reached the MLB more rapidly than predicted.

The "last piece of the puzzle" scenario is frequently trotted out on this board: in other words, so and so would trade Bailey if it meant acquiring "that last piece" to put an 85 win over the hump. But when does that scenario "actually" occur? I'd contend almost never. Sure, teams look and smell like 85 win teams on paper, but how on earth can anyone say when attrition or injury isn't going to decimate a roster? There are so many factors. In the end, you try to fill your roster with the most talent possible within the confines of your budget. Maybe that means waiting on Bailey, maybe it means trading him. But there's just no gauging when things are going to line up. What if Bailey emerges in two years--Arroyo's career is in the tank, Cueto didn't pan out, Harang is soon to be gone, and no other minor league arms followed Bailey to the majors. Now that's not a particularly outlandish scenario. So then what? Bailey's the only arm worth having in the rotation in 2010? I'm saying that what the Reds have right now (Arroyo and Harang locked up to very reasonable deals) is pretty freakish for this organization. I hope Bailey puts it together over the next three seasons because if not, this unique window could close for a very long time. Or if the right deal opens up....

RedsManRick
10-04-2007, 12:49 AM
I hope Bailey puts it together over the next three seasons because if not, this unique window could close for a very long time. Or if the right deal opens up....

But I thought cheap young pitchers with great promise are easy to come by. Which is it? Is Bailey a run of the mill young guy with little hope of making an impact who can be fairly easily replaced or is he the guy on which the fortunes of the next 5 years rest? :rolleyes:

You want to talk bad scenarios, how's this? Trade Bailey for Willis. Willis' decline is real and the Reds on are the hook for Eric Milton v2.0 - getting replacement level production at mid-rotation starter price. Meanwhile Homer Bailey goes Josh Beckett on the Marlins who get great value out of him while he's cheap and then flip him for another top prospect, who goes on to give them incredible value for next to nothing...

This game is fun!

M2
10-04-2007, 01:35 AM
So by your logic, we should never develop a young pitcher ever.

That's not what I said at all. Just understand the context in which you're trying to develop them and don't turn development into a romance novel.

Of course you should constantly be trying to develop talent. That's obvious. That said, sometimes you should trade the talent you're developing to get a more immediate return. Turning every prospect into an All-Star-or-bust proposition is a habit the Reds can't afford. Refusing to think about how to manipulate your roster, especially for a smaller market club, will lock you into perpetual mediocrity.

Maybe Homer Bailey is the guy you trade for some key element and Johnny Cueto is the cheap, young stud who emerges. Maybe three years from now Carlos Fisher is better than both of them.

My main concern with Bailey, aside from health, is gross mismanagement. His hype's ahead of his talent. That's not a bad thing if the organization realizes it.

Seems to me that if the Reds are going after the division in 2008 and 2009, then Bailey should be available for the right high price. If the club is marking time until the next decade then it's time to start collecting more arms like Bailey and Cueto and not just through the draft.

M2
10-04-2007, 01:50 AM
Mostly because the Reds rotation is three deep going into spring training assuming Belisle is #3. If Bailey handles spring training then he should start the year in the rotation. If he flames out in his first 5 or so starts, thats not much service time and only one option burned. It's safe to assume that option would get burned sometime next season anyway.

They've got an entire offseason to avoid a situation where they throw Bailey to the dogs and perhaps screw him up something fierce.

If the Reds are going to pretend that development is going to be their calling card, then they ought to show some fundamental mastery of its basics - like understanding that kids develop at their own pace, not at the one that's most convenient for you.

Hopefully the Reds have the good sense to look at the current roster and admit that they need two more starting pitchers, if for no other reason than to act as a buffer so that Bailey and Cueto can mature a bit more.