PDA

View Full Version : Who is more ready?



TRF
12-12-2007, 09:57 AM
I got the idea for this reading the "How untouchable is Jay Bruce" thread.

Bailey or Cueto? Which is the better prospect? If you go by the numbers, IMO, it HAS to be Cueto. Bailey has the hype, Cueto the results.

The one thing Cueto really has over Bailey is control. Sick ridiculous control based on the numbers. His BB/9 improves at every level it seems. His H/9 and his K/9 are just a tick, the merest of ticks below Baileys, but his BB/9 is half of what baileys is (Cueto 2.12, Bailey 4.23 in the minors)

Cueto also pitched a lot more innings than Bailey did this year. Including winter ball, Cueto ended up with over 180 IP. Bailey due to injury ended up with just over 120 IP, with 45 of those with the Reds.

They are three months apart in age. Both will be 22 in 2008, Cueto in Feb., Bailey in May.

Based on last years numbers and development, who is more ready? to pitch for the Reds in 2008. Assume for the sake of argument that one of them HAS to be in the rotation. Do not think like you are a member of the Reds coaching staff. Think like an outside consultant.

dougdirt
12-12-2007, 01:41 PM
I think they are both about the same in terms of readiness. Bailey has the better fastball, but he doesn't control it as well as Cueto does. However Cueto's height doesn't do him as much since the downward plane on the ball isn't as good. Bailey has the better offspeed pitch with his curveball, in my mind, being better than his fastball and better than anything Cueto offers. He actually showed good control of his curveball this season as well (67% of the ones he threw in the majors were strikes).
Bailey has the better stuff to succeed with.
Cueto has the better control to succeed with.

If I were an outside consultant I would look at Bailey as the frontrunner to be in my rotation based on his 100 innings above AA, including some in the majors, over Cueto and his 22 innings above AA.

Superdude
12-12-2007, 03:09 PM
I'm sure Bailey will probably be given the opportunity just because you sort of know what you have in him based on his innings in AAA and the majors, but the one thing Cueto has going for him is 22 lights out innings in AAA. Bailey hasn't shown dominance above AA yet in my opinion.

AmarilloRed
12-12-2007, 10:29 PM
I think they both could pitch for the Reds in 2008. Bailey is on the roster, and Cueto is a non-roster invitee to spring training who will be given every chance to make the roster.

reds44
12-12-2007, 10:30 PM
Cueto, and it's been that way for a year.

Danny Serafini
12-12-2007, 10:32 PM
Let's not forget that while Cueto may have put up better numbers than Bailey, he was also a level behind him. Bailey wasn't ready when he got the call this past June, but at the same time Cueto isn't ready now.

HokieRed
12-12-2007, 10:37 PM
I'm rooting for Cueto 150%, but I think the height is a bigger issue than has generally been mentioned. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more than it has. At present, are there any right-handed starters in baseball under 6 feet tall? If there are, it's no more than a handful.

dougdirt
12-12-2007, 11:23 PM
I'm rooting for Cueto 150%, but I think the height is a bigger issue than has generally been mentioned. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more than it has. At present, are there any right-handed starters in baseball under 6 feet tall? If there are, it's no more than a handful.

Tim Lincecum was the first guy that jumped to mind. I don't want to do the research right now, but I bet there are others.

OnBaseMachine
12-12-2007, 11:26 PM
I'm rooting for Cueto 150%, but I think the height is a bigger issue than has generally been mentioned. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more than it has. At present, are there any right-handed starters in baseball under 6 feet tall? If there are, it's no more than a handful.

Pedro Martinez
Tim Lincecum
Roy Oswalt
Greg Maddux
Ian Snell

Those are guys off the top of my head listed at 6'0" and under.

OldRed1966
12-12-2007, 11:42 PM
Cueto has been compared a lot to Mario Soto. They are very similar in stature.

Blue
12-13-2007, 12:55 AM
When Bailey came back from his groin injury we saw his fastball consistently in the mid-90s, better control, and more strikeouts. I think he is more ready and still the better prospect.

camisadelgolf
12-13-2007, 05:00 AM
Statistically, I think they'd produce similarly in the Majors, so in that sense, I'd say they're about equal. However, I believe Homer Bailey has more to learn, and I think that comes from having a higher ceiling.

TRF
12-13-2007, 10:54 AM
Cueto does have the advantage of more innings built up. He might be more ready endurance-wise than Bailey.

Highlifeman21
12-13-2007, 11:33 AM
Cueto, and it's been that way for a year.

Agreed.

Cyclone once said, the C in Cueto stands for Command or Control (take your pick). The B in Bailey stands for Ball 4.

Regardless, both of them are still at least a year away from the MLB level. So, slight advantage to Cueto.

dougdirt
12-13-2007, 11:51 AM
Agreed.

the C in Cueto stands for Command or Control (take your pick). The B in Bailey stands for better stuff.


Fixed that for you.

HBP
12-13-2007, 01:50 PM
The B in Bailey stands for Ball 4.


He needs some glasses and a new haircut.

http://cache.reelzchannel.com/assets/content/blog/vaughn.jpg

Betterread
12-13-2007, 10:02 PM
The answer is easy - Bailey. If Cueto was ready, he would have been brought up to the Reds. Its not like the Reds were loaded with effective starters at the end of last year, remember?
Cueto has better control than Bailey but he throws a lot of high strikes. He has to work on that weakness or he will get shelled in the majors. Bailey's control at the majors was substandard, but he keeps the ball down. He made a lot of improvement with his curveball and he developed a cutter in 2007 but his changeup is poor and that is his weakness.
I hope they both commit to off-season work and show up equally ready to make the majors in spring training.

Bigredfan#1
12-13-2007, 10:10 PM
I got the idea for this reading the "How untouchable is Jay Bruce" thread.

Bailey or Cueto? Which is the better prospect? If you go by the numbers, IMO, it HAS to be Cueto. Bailey has the hype, Cueto the results.

The one thing Cueto really has over Bailey is control. Sick ridiculous control based on the numbers. His BB/9 improves at every level it seems. His H/9 and his K/9 are just a tick, the merest of ticks below Baileys, but his BB/9 is half of what baileys is (Cueto 2.12, Bailey 4.23 in the minors)

Cueto also pitched a lot more innings than Bailey did this year. Including winter ball, Cueto ended up with over 180 IP. Bailey due to injury ended up with just over 120 IP, with 45 of those with the Reds.

They are three months apart in age. Both will be 22 in 2008, Cueto in Feb., Bailey in May.

Based on last years numbers and development, who is more ready? to pitch for the Reds in 2008. Assume for the sake of argument that one of them HAS to be in the rotation. Do not think like you are a member of the Reds coaching staff. Think like an outside consultant.


What stats are you comparing, Bailey was totally dominant 2 years ago in AA ball. He has awesome stuff and is only 21. It is really hard to say who is best but BB America had Bailey rated right at the top last year. I hope we are having this discussion about who is the best for years to come!

HBP
12-13-2007, 11:22 PM
What stats are you comparing, Bailey was totally dominant 2 years ago in AA ball. He has awesome stuff and is only 21. It is really hard to say who is best but BB America had Bailey rated right at the top last year. I hope we are having this discussion about who is the best for years to come!

Pure stuff will only get you so far. You have to throw strikes. Let's compare Bailey's 2006 AA campaign vs. Cueto's in 2007:


IP ERA H/9 K/9 BB/9 HR/9 WHIP
Bailey 68.0 1.59 6.62 10.19 3.71 0.13 1.15
Cueto 61.0 3.10 7.67 11.36 1.62 0.89 1.03


Bailey's BB/9 went up to 4.28 in Louisville (Cueto's down to 0.82 in AAA) and all the way to 5.56 for the Reds. He'll absolutely have to lower those numbers if he wants to be a successful major league SP. He's only 21, so there's still time left. For another comparison, Aaron Harang has ranged between 2.17 through 2.02 since 2005. TRF summed in up really well in the first post, Cueto has definitely shown he's almost there. Good thing for the Reds is they both have more raw talent than any SP on the roster save Harang.

dougdirt
12-13-2007, 11:25 PM
Lets also note that Bailey in AA was 20 and Cueto in AA was 21.

mlbfan30
12-14-2007, 12:46 AM
Let's Compare 2007... Cueto vs. Bailey

In A+ ` ERA 3.33 WHIP 1.19 / 10.13 2.50
In AAA ` ERA 2.05 WHIP 1.09 / 3.07 1.20

Same age, same levels, and guess who's better?

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 01:15 AM
Let's Compare 2007... Cueto vs. Bailey

In A+ ` ERA 3.33 WHIP 1.19 / 10.13 2.50
In AAA ` ERA 2.05 WHIP 1.09 / 3.07 1.20

Same age, same levels, and guess who's better?

Yes, lets use Baileys what, 8 inning REHAB numbers in A+ this year.... Lets also use Homers injured innings in AAA too.

Lets look at what Bailey did pre MLB call up in AAA this year.
58.1 innings, 38 hits, 3 HR, 24 walks, 51 strikeouts, 2.31 ERA, 1.06 WHIP

Cueto went 22 innings, 22 hits, 2 HR, 2 walks, 21 strikeouts, 2.05 ERA, 1.09 WHIP

Bailey allowed a ton fewer hits (5.86 per 9 innings compared to 9 per 9 innings for Cueto), a ton fewer HR (0.46/9 compared to 0.81/9) and had a lower WHIP. Cueto ran with the much better walk rate and a slightly better strikeout rate.

Personally the biggest things each guy has over the other is Baileys ridiculously lower hit rate and Cuetos much better walk rate. I like the guy allowing more than 3 fewer hits per game myself.....

Topcat
12-14-2007, 03:46 AM
either way I make sure both Pitch at some time in the bigs next year!

TRF
12-14-2007, 10:08 AM
Yes, lets use Baileys what, 8 inning REHAB numbers in A+ this year.... Lets also use Homers injured innings in AAA too.

Lets look at what Bailey did pre MLB call up in AAA this year.
58.1 innings, 38 hits, 3 HR, 24 walks, 51 strikeouts, 2.31 ERA, 1.06 WHIP

Cueto went 22 innings, 22 hits, 2 HR, 2 walks, 21 strikeouts, 2.05 ERA, 1.09 WHIP

Bailey allowed a ton fewer hits (5.86 per 9 innings compared to 9 per 9 innings for Cueto), a ton fewer HR (0.46/9 compared to 0.81/9) and had a lower WHIP. Cueto ran with the much better walk rate and a slightly better strikeout rate.

Personally the biggest things each guy has over the other is Baileys ridiculously lower hit rate and Cuetos much better walk rate. I like the guy allowing more than 3 fewer hits per game myself.....

I prefer the guys that won't walk the two guys in front of Pujols myself.

That isn't a ton fewer HR's. Bailey allowed .51 HR/9 in his minor league career. Cueto has allowed .62 HR/9. Source is baseball cube. Bailey allowed a TON more walks, twice as many per 9 innings. And that is a very telling stat illustrating the difference between the two pitchers at this stage of their development. Also note that Cueto has managed more minor league innings despite his first year starting in the short season GCL. This doesn't include winter ball. Cueto has steadily been able to increase his workload without sacrificing command. Bailey has not been able to harness anything resembling command yet.

Bailey has the advantage of 45 innings with the Reds, but Cueto has had the better overall minor league numbers. He just might be the better prospect.

bucksfan2
12-14-2007, 10:27 AM
Its nice to have both isn't it. I just hope when Cueto comes up to the bigs and struggles a little people don't jump off his bandwagon like they did Bailey's.

TRF
12-14-2007, 10:48 AM
Hey, I'm still on the Tyler Pelland bandwagon. I was never 100% on Homer's though.

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 12:20 PM
I prefer the guys that won't walk the two guys in front of Pujols myself.

That isn't a ton fewer HR's. Bailey allowed .51 HR/9 in his minor league career. Cueto has allowed .62 HR/9. Source is baseball cube. Bailey allowed a TON more walks, twice as many per 9 innings. And that is a very telling stat illustrating the difference between the two pitchers at this stage of their development. Also note that Cueto has managed more minor league innings despite his first year starting in the short season GCL. This doesn't include winter ball. Cueto has steadily been able to increase his workload without sacrificing command. Bailey has not been able to harness anything resembling command yet.

Bailey has the advantage of 45 innings with the Reds, but Cueto has had the better overall minor league numbers. He just might be the better prospect.

Its all a matter of what you like I guess. I just feel that Homer's command is going to improve and given his hit rates all the way up the ladder, when that happens he is going to be very, very good. Don't get me wrong, I love Cueto, but I just don't see him having batters struggle as much with his stuff. As far as the numbers in the minor leagues go, it is a little more difficult to compare them in the sense that Homer had different things to deal with than Cueto. He had the piggy back pitching system while he was in Dayton. Then he was also a year younger along the way than Cueto for every comparison and that makes it a little different when comparing numbers as well.

jojo
12-14-2007, 12:25 PM
Cueto and it's probably not even close. His command is significantly better and frankly he probably could be a high leverage arm for the Reds bullpen in '08.

mlbfan30
12-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Yes, lets use Baileys what, 8 inning REHAB numbers in A+ this year.... Lets also use Homers injured innings in AAA too.

Lets look at what Bailey did pre MLB call up in AAA this year.
58.1 innings, 38 hits, 3 HR, 24 walks, 51 strikeouts, 2.31 ERA, 1.06 WHIP

Cueto went 22 innings, 22 hits, 2 HR, 2 walks, 21 strikeouts, 2.05 ERA, 1.09 WHIP

Bailey allowed a ton fewer hits (5.86 per 9 innings compared to 9 per 9 innings for Cueto), a ton fewer HR (0.46/9 compared to 0.81/9) and had a lower WHIP. Cueto ran with the much better walk rate and a slightly better strikeout rate.

Personally the biggest things each guy has over the other is Baileys ridiculously lower hit rate and Cuetos much better walk rate. I like the guy allowing more than 3 fewer hits per game myself.....

I know the innings made them impossible to compare them fairly, but still in A+ and AAA, Cueto was better

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 12:33 PM
I know the innings made them impossible to compare them fairly, but still in A+ and AAA, Cueto was better

A+ this year? Because if you are going to use it, then we need to stop having this conversation. Bailey pitched 8 innings of REHAB in Sarasota this year. To use those numbers in a cmoparison is beyond silly.

mlbfan30
12-14-2007, 01:44 PM
A+ this year? Because if you are going to use it, then we need to stop having this conversation. Bailey pitched 8 innings of REHAB in Sarasota this year. To use those numbers in a cmoparison is beyond silly.

Yea I know, but still..... when Bailey and when Cueto pitched in A+, Cueto did better. Will you not agree with that? I don't care if Bailey pitched 1 inning lefty, Cueto did better in A+ at the same age.

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 01:57 PM
Yea I know, but still..... when Bailey and when Cueto pitched in A+, Cueto did better. Will you not agree with that? I don't care if Bailey pitched 1 inning lefty, Cueto did better in A+ at the same age.

That might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. The guy was on rehab and you want to use it as a comparison to someone else who wasn't? I am sorry for saying its dumb, but it really is a dumb argument. Yes, Cueto pitched better in Sarasota this year than Bailey. Bailey also was on rehab after not pitching for 5 weeks too.

Bailey also pitched better than Cueto did in Sarasota last year compared to Cueto this year, and he was a full year younger in 2006 in Sarasota than Cueto was this year in Sarasota in 2007.

Bailey had a WHIP of 1.00 compared to Cuetos 1.19, he had a lower ERA, a lot fewer hits, a VERY similar walk rate (2.41 for Cueto and 2.80 for Bailey) and Bailey had a much stronger strikeout rate (10.06 to Cuetos 8.27).

TRF
12-14-2007, 02:54 PM
Its all a matter of what you like I guess. I just feel that Homer's command is going to improve and given his hit rates all the way up the ladder, when that happens he is going to be very, very good. Don't get me wrong, I love Cueto, but I just don't see him having batters struggle as much with his stuff. As far as the numbers in the minor leagues go, it is a little more difficult to compare them in the sense that Homer had different things to deal with than Cueto. He had the piggy back pitching system while he was in Dayton. Then he was also a year younger along the way than Cueto for every comparison and that makes it a little different when comparing numbers as well.

Well, he isn't that much younger, and if you consider their respective backgrounds, I bet Bailey had the benefit of better coaching growing up.

There is no question that Cueto has better command, yet you think Bailey's will improve when he's never shown that he can do that. His BB rate has gone UP every year. You say Cueto cannot make hitters struggle yet Cueto in his ML career allows only about a hit more per 9 than Bailey. So Bailey can improve in an area where he's never shown that ability, but Cueto can't even though his H/9 dropped when he went from A+ to AA.

For all the insight you provide about the Reds' minor league system and it's players, you tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to your favorites. The warts on Bailey are bigger than the ones on Cueto. Cueto's biggest knock against him is his size. I hope Bailey can become Nolan Ryan, I'm pretty sure Cueto can be Roy Oswalt.

Joseph
12-14-2007, 03:35 PM
I'm pretty sure Cueto can be Roy Oswalt.

So we've got a guy who will win 112 games over the next 7 seasons while posting an ERA of no worse than 3.49?

Sign me up.

Remember, he doesn't get to pitch against the Reds. ;)

TRF
12-14-2007, 03:48 PM
I think a Roy Oswalt like career is his ceiling, but that he's more likely to hit his ceiling than Bailey is RIGHT NOW. If Bailey can ever get his command issues and his stamina issues under control perhaps he can be even better than that. But so far, his body of work has not shown it.

jojo
12-14-2007, 03:59 PM
It's kind of a cliche but, while stuff will get you signed, command will get you promoted to the dance....

Command is the first prerequisite for a pitcher to be successful in the majors.

In other words when considering the pitcher's trifecta: BB/9 >>> K/9 >>>>>>> BIP tendencies.

It takes really, really exceptional K/9 and BIP tendencies to overcome bad BB/9.

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 05:48 PM
It's kind of a cliche but, while stuff will get you signed, command will get you promoted to the dance....

Command is the first prerequisite for a pitcher to be successful in the majors.

In other words when considering the pitcher's trifecta: BB/9 >>> K/9 >>>>>>> BIP tendencies.

It takes really, really exceptional K/9 and BIP tendencies to overcome bad BB/9.
And thats generally where 'stuff' comes in handy.

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 05:54 PM
Well, he isn't that much younger, and if you consider their respective backgrounds, I bet Bailey had the benefit of better coaching growing up.

There is no question that Cueto has better command, yet you think Bailey's will improve when he's never shown that he can do that. His BB rate has gone UP every year. You say Cueto cannot make hitters struggle yet Cueto in his ML career allows only about a hit more per 9 than Bailey. So Bailey can improve in an area where he's never shown that ability, but Cueto can't even though his H/9 dropped when he went from A+ to AA.
I have seen Baileys control improve with my eyes. Likewise I have seen Cueto's stuff get a little bit better too from April of last year to the end of this year. Bailey's walk rate also dropped BIG TIME from 2005 to 2006. If I made a comment where Cueto couldn't improve his stuff, I didn't mean that. At the same time though, Baileys stuff is far and away the better of the two players.



For all the insight you provide about the Reds' minor league system and it's players, you tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to your favorites. The warts on Bailey are bigger than the ones on Cueto. Cueto's biggest knock against him is his size. I hope Bailey can become Nolan Ryan, I'm pretty sure Cueto can be Roy Oswalt.

Cueto is one of my favorites, so I don't know what you are trying to say. Heck, Cueto is right there with Bailey in my mind as a prospect. He has a higher floor than Bailey, but the cieling isn't there. Personally, I don't think the 'warts' on Bailey are all that big. I think he did a lot of growing up this year in the majors. The numbers overall don't look that good, but he was dominant at times in his 9 starts at the age of 21 in the major leagues. I saw improvement big time from April in Louisville to June in Cincinnati to September in Cincinnati. The numbers don't always bear things out that you can tell that, but my eyes told me a lot from those different points in time about Bailey.

TRF
12-14-2007, 06:02 PM
I do hope you are right, but the numbers say your eyes were a bit misleading. If anything, Bailey's command has worsened, not gotten better. I expect that somewhat at the major league level, as that is a whole 'nother world than AAA, but his command was bad in AAA. Cueto's has been outstanding at EVERY level. I'm not sure what pitches each throws, but right now I think Cueto is better prepared for a SP role on the Reds than Bailey based on numbers alone. And since some of the Red's brass has been quoted as saying Cueto might be the better prospect, I think that lends some credence to the idea.

Of course I'm not sure either should be anywhere but AAA in 2008.

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 06:32 PM
I do hope you are right, but the numbers say your eyes were a bit misleading. If anything, Bailey's command has worsened, not gotten better. I expect that somewhat at the major league level, as that is a whole 'nother world than AAA, but his command was bad in AAA. Cueto's has been outstanding at EVERY level. I'm not sure what pitches each throws, but right now I think Cueto is better prepared for a SP role on the Reds than Bailey based on numbers alone. And since some of the Red's brass has been quoted as saying Cueto might be the better prospect, I think that lends some credence to the idea.

Of course I'm not sure either should be anywhere but AAA in 2008.
His command got better, the hitters did too though and were able to foul more stuff off. There is some Reds brass that may think Cueto is better suited to succeed, but likewise there are the other group saying Bailey is. I just think we see the real Homer Bailey next year, not the guy we saw at times this year.

jojo
12-14-2007, 06:37 PM
And thats generally where 'stuff' comes in handy.

I think you're ignoring the elephant in the closet. How many major league starters with a BB\9>4.25 (aka Homer's minor league career numbers) were effective last season? Heck, how many were even given enough rope to be qualified?

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 06:58 PM
I think you're ignoring the elephant in the closet. How many major league starters with a BB\9>4.25 (aka Homer's minor league career numbers) were effective last season? Heck, how many were even given enough rope to be qualified?

Well that also makes the assumption that I believe Bailey is going to fall in that category next year and I just don't see it happening. However if he does fall into that range, then yes, he needs more time. I just don't see that one playing itself out that way.

pedro
12-14-2007, 07:43 PM
Well that also makes the assumption that I believe Bailey is going to fall in that category next year and I just don't see it happening. However if he does fall into that range, then yes, he needs more time. I just don't see that one playing itself out that way.

But Doug, Bailey walked 4.23 / 9 over the course of his minor league career and walked 4.28 / 9 last year at Louisville. How can you honestly assert that he's going to fair better in the major leagues against vastly better competition in his first full year in the majors? It just doesn't make sense.

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 07:49 PM
I guess its just a little bit of faith that he continues to improve along with the actual improvement that I did see. As far as his control goes, 2005 was long ago and his BB rate was very high that year. 2006 it got a whole lot better. I think he still falls between 3.5 and 4 next year, but don't see it being higher than that. I think his strikeouts come in at 8 per 9 as well next year.

pedro
12-14-2007, 07:57 PM
I guess its just a little bit of faith that he continues to improve along with the actual improvement that I did see. As far as his control goes, 2005 was long ago and his BB rate was very high that year. 2006 it got a whole lot better. I think he still falls between 3.5 and 4 next year, but don't see it being higher than that. I think his strikeouts come in at 8 per 9 as well next year.

I certainly hope you're right but I don't hold out much hope. I think that's expecting a lot from a guy who IMO clearly hasn't proven in the minors that he's ready to put up such a performance at the major league level. Personally I think the best thing for his development would be to spend at least the first half of next year at AAA. Unfortunately, warts and all, it's going to be hard to keep him off of this lousy (as it stands now) staff. I really hope that the Reds land some other starters because at the very least I'd prefer to see Bailey begin the year in middle relief.

Will M
12-14-2007, 09:13 PM
I would be happy to see the Reds keep all four of our 'A' prospects ( and Hamilton ).
Put both Cueto and Bailey in the rotation for 2008.
Pick up someone who could be a #5/swingman in case one of them falters. If we win in 2008 great but I think 2009 and beyond is what the Reds should be going for. Why trade the farm for a one year shot? Try to field a competetive team year after year.

I do admit innings are an issue. We don't want to overuse the young arms. That is why getting a #5/swingman would be a good idea.

dougdirt
12-14-2007, 09:18 PM
I would be happy to see the Reds keep all four of our 'A' prospects ( and Hamilton ).
Put both Cueto and Bailey in the rotation for 2008.
Pick up someone who could be a #5/swingman in case one of them falters. If we win in 2008 great but I think 2009 and beyond is what the Reds should be going for. Why trade the farm for a one year shot? Try to field a competetive team year after year.

I do admit innings are an issue. We don't want to overuse the young arms. That is why getting a #5/swingman would be a good idea.

Harang, Arroyo, Belisle, Bailey and Cueto with Maloney as insurance in AAA. Cueto is not the one that worries me so much with innings, seeing as he pitched 196 this year between the minors and winter league. I would love to have a veteran arm to come in and be able to give the Reds a solid 4.75 ERA and 185 innings next year, I am just not sure they can get that at any type of reasonable price.

Superdude
12-15-2007, 12:35 AM
Bailey allowed a ton fewer hits (5.86 per 9 innings compared to 9 per 9 innings for Cueto), a ton fewer HR (0.46/9 compared to 0.81/9) and had a lower WHIP. Cueto ran with the much better walk rate and a slightly better strikeout rate.

Personally the biggest things each guy has over the other is Baileys ridiculously lower hit rate and Cuetos much better walk rate. I like the guy allowing more than 3 fewer hits per game myself.....

IMO, the reason for Bailey's 3 point lower hit rate was nothing more than luck. He had a .254BABIP in Louisville. You could maybe argue that pitchers can control this stat somewhat against minor league hitters, but Bailey's career BABIP was .309 before he reached Lousville. Chris Welsh might call this being crafty, but it seems more realistic to attribute this to good fortune and the fact that Chris Dickerson can cover half the field with a broken leg. Here's both their numbers in the minor leagues...


Bailey: 317.2IP 3.43FIP 3.43ERA .297BABIP 9.85K/9 7.15H/9 4.23BB/9 0.51HR/9
Cueto: 348.1IP 3.05FIP 3.28ERA .301BABIP 9.26K/9 7.76H/9 2.12BB/9 .062HR/9

Bailey's stuff is obviously a tick better, but Cueto has out pitched him in my mind.

Blue
12-15-2007, 02:23 AM
I think Maloney has a better shot at making the team out of Spring Training than Cueto. I wouldn't mind seeing Bailey, Cueto, and Maloney all three in there if we can't find another vet starter. I don't think any of them would be any worse than Belisle or something we can find on the scrap heap.

Ron Madden
12-15-2007, 03:09 AM
I believe Bailey may have a higher ceiling than Cueto but...

I also believe that Cueto could help the Reds more than Bailey can in the 2008 season.

DanielJ
12-15-2007, 03:49 AM
Well, he isn't that much younger, and if you consider their respective backgrounds, I bet Bailey had the benefit of better coaching growing up.

There is no question that Cueto has better command, yet you think Bailey's will improve when he's never shown that he can do that. His BB rate has gone UP every year. You say Cueto cannot make hitters struggle yet Cueto in his ML career allows only about a hit more per 9 than Bailey. So Bailey can improve in an area where he's never shown that ability, but Cueto can't even though his H/9 dropped when he went from A+ to AA.

For all the insight you provide about the Reds' minor league system and it's players, you tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to your favorites. The warts on Bailey are bigger than the ones on Cueto. Cueto's biggest knock against him is his size. I hope Bailey can become Nolan Ryan, I'm pretty sure Cueto can be Roy Oswalt.

Hi, first time poster here. I'm just curious. Wouldn't Bailey's BB/9 numbers going up be a result of his trying to work his breaking pitches in more? I recall that was a major knock against Bailey before he was called up that he was almost strictly a fastball pitcher?

If so, I think that what will make or break Bailey this year is if he can somehow gain command of those pitches.

mth123
12-15-2007, 04:49 AM
Hi, first time poster here. I'm just curious. Wouldn't Bailey's BB/9 numbers going up be a result of his trying to work his breaking pitches in more? I recall that was a major knock against Bailey before he was called up that he was almost strictly a fastball pitcher?

If so, I think that what will make or break Bailey this year is if he can somehow gain command of those pitches.

I think that is part of it. Welcome to the board. Keep posting.

The problem that many on here have is that it doesn't seem like Bailey has been able to solve the problem with his breaking pitches and that he'll struggle similarly next season. If he goes to his fastball too much in the majors (especially if its after falling behind in the count with secondary pitches that he hasn't harnesed command of), he'll get killed.

Personally I don't want to see Bailey or Cueto in the rotation next season, but that doesn't mean I want them traded. I'd rather see both stay in AAA. Bailey needs to build up his innings and continue to refine those pitches. Cueto is more ready IMO - having thrown nearly 200 innings between the minor leagues and winter ball. He has faced some high level hitters in winter ball so the knock of only 22 AAA innings isn't really a true reading. I do agree with the posters who say they would rather see Cueto and Bailey than to spend $50 Million on Carlos Silva or Kyle Lohse or to ravage the rotation and the pen with someone of the Kirk Saarloos or Brett Tomko caliber.

I'd like to see one more year for the entire minor league pitching depth to mature. With Bailey and Cueto ready later in 2008 or 2009. By 2009 Fisher, Thompson, Lecure and maybe Wood will be knocking at the door and the Reds may be on the verge of having a pipeline of pitching to supplement the big league staff. Bailey and Cueto don't really seem like supplements to Harang and Arroyo as much as they're successors at the top of the rotation with these other guys coming along for the lower spots on the cheap. That is how the team will stay competetive for years (though I hope they keep Harang around for a long time).

Maloney seems more like Dumatrait to me. He's looked good in the minors but I'm sleptical about his chances in the majors. IMO he's one to deal this year in a package for a mid rotation guy.

I'd like to see the Reds add a mid-level starter or two (it doesn't have to be a star like Bedard) that can be around for a few years while keeping the top two guys in AAA to ripen. A couple of mid-level additions while keeping Bailey and Cueto should begin a run of many years of pitching for the big club.

Highlifeman21
12-15-2007, 09:51 AM
Just b/c Bailey's pitched at the MLB level and Cueto hasn't doesn't mean Cueto's not more ready now.

FWIW, I also think both of them should spend the full 2008 season in AAA. With or without them at the MLB level, the Reds aren't winners in 2008.

Betterread
12-15-2007, 11:27 AM
As we debate their comparative readiness, let's remember a few things.
They are both 21 years old. They are both healthy. They are the two most talented pitchers the Reds organization has seen since Jose Rijo.
If they need a year (or even more) to transition to the rigors of major league starting - that would be reasonable.
Then after that, it is entirely predictable that they may take a year or two of inconsistent performances (that would be reflected in their statistical measures of performance) before they reach their projected ceilings.
My advice is to have patience with these two young, talented pitchers. All pitchers need time to develop, these two are no different. Right now they are years ahead of schedule. Lets give them credit for that.

Caveat Emperor
12-15-2007, 02:14 PM
I guess its just a little bit of faith that he continues to improve along with the actual improvement that I did see. As far as his control goes, 2005 was long ago and his BB rate was very high that year. 2006 it got a whole lot better. I think he still falls between 3.5 and 4 next year, but don't see it being higher than that. I think his strikeouts come in at 8 per 9 as well next year.

If you get Bailey to 175 innings, you're looking at seeing upwards of 80 walks from him. That's crazy, and it's inviting arm trouble because of the increased number of pitches he'll be throwing just to make it through 5 innings and number of "high stress" pitches he'll be making with runners on.

To put that number in perspective -- Aaron Harang threw 231 IP and only walked 52 batters. Fifty more innings pitched, roughly 30 fewer free passes than Bailey would be projected to. Matt Belisle threw 177.2 IP and only walked 43.

Until Homer Bailey gets his walks under control -- at the very least into the 3 to sub-3 range -- he's a poor option for any role on the major league club. If I'm running the Reds, he gets parked at AAA until he figures that out.

dougdirt
12-15-2007, 02:32 PM
If you get Bailey to 175 innings, you're looking at seeing upwards of 80 walks from him. That's crazy, and it's inviting arm trouble because of the increased number of pitches he'll be throwing just to make it through 5 innings and number of "high stress" pitches he'll be making with runners on.

To put that number in perspective -- Aaron Harang threw 231 IP and only walked 52 batters. Fifty more innings pitched, roughly 30 fewer free passes than Bailey would be projected to. Matt Belisle threw 177.2 IP and only walked 43.

Until Homer Bailey gets his walks under control -- at the very least into the 3 to sub-3 range -- he's a poor option for any role on the major league club. If I'm running the Reds, he gets parked at AAA until he figures that out.

There aren't that many power pitchers with sub 3.00 walk rates.... You are picking out two of the better controled pitchers in all of baseball to make a comparison.
Carlos Zambrano walked 101 in 216 last year..... would you put him in AAA too?

fearofpopvol1
12-15-2007, 02:49 PM
I think Maloney has a better shot at making the team out of Spring Training than Cueto. I wouldn't mind seeing Bailey, Cueto, and Maloney all three in there if we can't find another vet starter. I don't think any of them would be any worse than Belisle or something we can find on the scrap heap.

I don't. Maloney has spent next to no time at 3a. Bailey has spent a lot and Cueto has spent a decent amount.

dougdirt
12-15-2007, 02:57 PM
I don't. Maloney has spent next to no time at 3a. Bailey has spent a lot and Cueto has spent a decent amount.

Cueto has 5 more AAA innings than Maloney does. 17 innings for Maloney and 22 for Cueto. Hardly a difference.

kentjett
12-15-2007, 07:32 PM
A lot of people are down on Homer because he got roughed up when he tried to pitch through his injury. His fastball was down to low 90's and he was struggling w/ his curve. His fastball was back up to mid to high 90's when he returned and his #'s were better. He is usually accurate w/ his fastball but if that fastball is in the low 90's, it will get smacked. He started to throw his curve more than usual and he struggled. He will eventually get better control of his curve like pitchers usually do when they mature and he will show that he has ace potential. Cueto is the most major league ready but he will never be a #1. If I had to put one in the rotation right now, it would definitely be Cueto. Bailey will be better in 2-3 years.

TRF
12-15-2007, 07:40 PM
A lot of people are down on Homer because he got roughed up when he tried to pitch through his injury. His fastball was down to low 90's and he was struggling w/ his curve. His fastball was back up to mid to high 90's when he returned and his #'s were better. He is usually accurate w/ his fastball but if that fastball is in the low 90's, it will get smacked. He started to throw his curve more than usual and he struggled. He will eventually get better control of his curve like pitchers usually do when they mature and he will show that he has ace potential. Cueto is the most major league ready but he will never be a #1. If I had to put one in the rotation right now, it would definitely be Cueto. Bailey will be better in 2-3 years.

Almost none of Bailey peripheral are better than Cueto's, and the ones that are, are only a tick better. Plus Cueto walks about half as many guys.

Cueto projects as a future #1 as much as Bailey does.

kentjett
12-15-2007, 08:05 PM
I've watched Cueto pitch while at Dayton and his curve doesn't have near as much break as Bailey's and his fastball is 3-4 mph off. Cueto is a lot better pitcher when it comes to placement and knowing the game but if you judge them by stuff alone, Cueto isn't in Homers league. Cueto could eventually be a #1 but I think he is more like a #2 or #3 starter. I just don't see him being that player to build a team around but a nice piece to add to the puzzle. I do believe that if they are both healthy that they are both better right now than anybody on the reds not named Harang or Arroyo.

OnBaseMachine
12-15-2007, 08:09 PM
Cueto doesn't throw a curveball. He throws a fastball, slider, and changeup. His slider is described as being quite nasty.

Superdude
12-15-2007, 08:59 PM
His fastball was back up to mid to high 90's when he returned and his #'s were better.

When was his fastball ever high 90's? 95-96 tops when I saw him.

kentjett
12-15-2007, 10:25 PM
I read numerous reports of his fastball touching 98 mph and consistently reaching 94-95 mph. I just think Homers potential exceeds Cueto, Cueto is a safer bet but I don't think he is a power pitcher like Homer. When I watched Homer, he was around 92-95 on a regular basis and Cueto was throwing between 88-92.

OnBaseMachine
12-16-2007, 01:25 AM
Cueto changes speeds a lot. According to BA, he regularly hits 93-94 and can dial it up to 96 or 97 when he needs to.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 03:02 AM
When was his fastball ever high 90's? 95-96 tops when I saw him.

Bailey hit 95 MPH or higher 40 times out of 172 fastballs.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 03:03 AM
Cueto changes speeds a lot. According to BA, he regularly hits 93-94 and can dial it up to 96 or 97 when he needs to.

Cueto sits 89-94 but can dial it up when he really needs to from what I have seen and heard about him. He tends to stay low the first time through the line ups, then dials it up the second go around.

SteelSD
12-16-2007, 12:43 PM
Bailey hit 95 MPH or higher 40 times out of 172 fastballs.

Homer Bailey threw 815 MLB pitches in 2007. If the data you're using shows that only 172 of those were fastballs, then said data is completely worthless.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 12:50 PM
Homer Bailey threw 815 MLB pitches in 2007. If the data you're using shows that only 172 of those were fastballs, then said data is completely worthless.

No, I guess I should have stated he threw 40 FB's that hard out of 172 FB's thrown while pitching in parks with the pitch f/x system set up. That works out to about half of his starts.

jojo
12-16-2007, 01:03 PM
Homer Bailey threw 815 MLB pitches in 2007. If the data you're using shows that only 172 of those were fastballs, then said data is completely worthless.

The f/x data for Homer is only a sample of his entire season (356 pitches) but it suggests homer threw his fastball about 70% of the time. Out of the 246 fastballs he threw in f/x parks, 95 were called balls and 10 resulted in hits suggesting 57% of them were either strikes (called/swinging/foul tip) or put into play for outs (40; 16%).

Obviously the results could be effected by sample size/park but I think the 70% fastball tendency agrees with my eyes.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 01:14 PM
The f/x data for Homer is only a sample of his entire season but it suggests homer threw his fastball about 70% of the time. Out of the 246 fastballs he threw in f/x parks, 95 were called balls and 10 resulted in hits suggesting 57% of them were either strikes (called/swinging/foul tip) or put into play for outs (40; 16%).

Obviously the results could be effected by sample size/park but I think the 70% fastball tendency agrees with my eyes.

Bailey needs to have a little more control of his fastball for sure. From what I recall though I think he threw his fastball 67% of the time last year according to the data. That is a lot, but not out of line for power pitcher types (Lincecum was at 70%, Beckett was at 66% for example).

SteelSD
12-16-2007, 01:20 PM
There aren't that many power pitchers with sub 3.00 walk rates.... You are picking out two of the better controled pitchers in all of baseball to make a comparison.

Carlos Zambrano walked 101 in 216 last year..... would you put him in AAA too?

Of the 18 MLB pitchers who posted at least 150 IP with a K/9 rate above 8.00, ten (56%) posted BB/9 rates less than 3.00. Only one of those pitchers posted a BB/9 rate higher than 4.00. Had Carlos Zambrano's K/9 rate qualifiied, that would make it two. It's not Caveat who's positioning the outliers here.

While it's possible that Bailey could produce a combination of an 8.00+ K/9 rate and a < 4.00 BB rate, he didn't do it at any level last season. Projecting such at the MLB level in 2008 is pretty aggressive. If he doesn't produce those rates and ends up tossing 17 to 18 pitches per Inning, we need to remember that he doesn't have the kind of workload history that would project well.

SteelSD
12-16-2007, 01:29 PM
The f/x data for Homer is only a sample of his entire season (356 pitches) but it suggests homer threw his fastball about 70% of the time. Out of the 246 fastballs he threw in f/x parks, 95 were called balls and 10 resulted in hits suggesting 57% of them were either strikes (called/swinging/foul tip) or put into play for outs (40; 16%).

Obviously the results could be effected by sample size/park but I think the 70% fastball tendency agrees with my eyes.

While I appreciate the info, if the data doesn't track all pitches thrown then I have no interest in it.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 01:32 PM
While I appreciate the info, if the data doesn't track all pitches thrown then I have no interest in it.

So you think every players pitch f/x data from this year is basically useless?

jojo
12-16-2007, 01:38 PM
While I appreciate the info, if the data doesn't track all pitches thrown then I have no interest in it.

Next year every park should be f/x equipped.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 01:45 PM
Of the 18 MLB pitchers who posted at least 150 IP with a K/9 rate above 8.00, ten (56%) posted BB/9 rates less than 3.00. Only one of those pitchers posted a BB/9 rate higher than 4.00. Had Carlos Zambrano's K/9 rate qualifiied, that would make it two. It's not Caveat who's positioning the outliers here.

I guess using two players with walk rates under 2.20 isn't some kind of outlier.... Still, I don't care what other pitchers can and do, I am worried about what Homer Bailey will do. It is not going to be some shocking outlier if a pitcher goes 150 or more innings with an 8.00 K/9 and a 3.00 or higher BB/9. It happens to about 40% of the guys posting an 8.00 K/9. That is hardly some outlier.



While it's possible that Bailey could produce a combination of an 8.00+ K/9 rate and a < 4.00 BB rate, he didn't do it at any level last season. Projecting such at the MLB level in 2008 is pretty aggressive. If he doesn't produce those rates and ends up tossing 17 to 18 pitches per Inning, we need to remember that he doesn't have the kind of workload history that would project well.
Of course projecting Ryan Braun to do what he did this year was insane too, but it happened. Even last year, when he was struggling at times, he was not throwing 18 pitches an inning. The key to Bailey is getting more pitches to miss bats. As his curveball improved, the strikeout numbers got better. We think opposite things on him. I don't want this to turn into a 5 page long argument between the two of us. I think he goes 7.75 K/9 or higher next year with a sub 4.00 BB/9. You likely don't. Lets leave it at that.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 01:46 PM
Next year every park should be f/x equipped.

I think they are actually all equipped now (with the exception of Washingtons new park since I am unsure of its construction time line).

SteelSD
12-16-2007, 01:47 PM
So you think every players pitch f/x data from this year is basically useless?

Why would I have any interest in data that tracks less than half of a player's behavior?

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 01:49 PM
Why would I have any interest in data that tracks less than half of a player's behavior?

I don't know.... probably because it gives at the least a glimpse at what they are doing? While I would love to have full data on everyone, the data that we do have is pretty good for the most part on a lot of guys (although in some cases the data value is low).

SteelSD
12-16-2007, 02:13 PM
I guess using two players with walk rates under 2.20 isn't some kind of outlier.... Still, I don't care what other pitchers can and do, I am worried about what Homer Bailey will do. It is not going to be some shocking outlier if a pitcher goes 150 or more innings with an 8.00 K/9 and a 3.00 or higher BB/9. It happens to about 40% of the guys posting an 8.00 K/9. That is hardly some outlier.

Here's what Caveat said:

Caveat: Until Homer Bailey gets his walks under control -- at the very least into the 3 to sub-3 range -- he's a poor option for any role on the major league club.

A "3 to sub-3 range" includes everything from 3.00 to 3.99. Might you have misinterpreted his post? I'd suggest that's a possibility as he's looking for something that you're expecting- a sub-4.00 BB/9 rate.


Of course projecting Ryan Braun to do what he did this year was insane too, but it happened. Even last year, when he was struggling at times, he was not throwing 18 pitches an inning.

What in the world does Ryan Braun have to do with Homer Bailey? Seems like a "Well, anything can happen" reach.

And if you check, Homer Bailey threw exactly 18 pitches per Inning in 2007 at the MLB level. In fact, Bailey produced only four Starts the resulted in fewer than 18.0 Pitches per Inning.


The key to Bailey is getting more pitches to miss bats. As his curveball improved, the strikeout numbers got better. We think opposite things on him. I don't want this to turn into a 5 page long argument between the two of us. I think he goes 7.75 K/9 or higher next year with a sub 4.00 BB/9. You likely don't. Lets leave it at that.

Yes, I realize that you're thinking best case scenario with Bailey, while I feel there are a goodly number of reasons to be a lot more cautious. What I don't understand is why "cautious" seems so offensive to you, doug.


I don't know.... probably because it gives at the least a glimpse at what they are doing? While I would love to have full data on everyone, the data that we do have is pretty good for the most part on a lot of guys (although in some cases the data value is low).

"Glimpses" don't allow us to see a complete picture. The data you have is corrupt, doug.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 02:26 PM
What in the world does Ryan Braun have to do with Homer Bailey? Seems like a "Well, anything can happen" reach.

Because Ryan Braun's numbers never suggested he would do what he did this year. You say Bailey's numbers this year would suggest he isn't likely to do this, that and the other. That is more what I was saying.



And if you check, Homer Bailey threw exactly 18 pitches per Inning in 2007 at the MLB level. In fact, Bailey produced only four Starts the resulted in fewer than 18.0 Pitches per Inning.
He threw 17.85 according to Reds.com.




Yes, I realize that you're thinking best case scenario with Bailey, while I feel there are a goodly number of reasons to be a lot more cautious. What I don't understand is why "cautious" seems so offensive to you, doug.
Best case scenario is a whole lot better than what I think he will do. Cautious isn't offensive to me at all. I don't know where I seemed offended at here?

OUReds
12-16-2007, 02:37 PM
Why would I have any interest in data that tracks less than half of a player's behavior?

356/815 is over 40% of his pitches logged. That's more then enough to make it a representative sample I would think.

SteelSD
12-16-2007, 02:44 PM
356/815 is over 40% of his pitches logged. That's more then enough to make it a representative sample I would think.

Especially with a player who was as volatile as Bailey, it's not even close. Just to put a sample size of 356 pitches in perspective, Aaron Harang threw 3,591 pitches in 2007.

*BaseClogger*
12-16-2007, 02:51 PM
356/815 is over 40% of his pitches logged. That's more then enough to make it a representative sample I would think.

I am going to assume that the pitch f/x data represents the population without bias, so therefore I'm calling it random (even though it is not trully random)...

"How large a random sample do we need for the sample to be reasonably representative of the population? Obviously, if your sample is too small, it can't give much information. You might think that we need a large percentage, or fraction, of the population. That's what people think, but it turns out that all that matters is the number of individuals in the sample. The size of the population doesn't matter at all. A random sample of 100 students in a college represents the student body just about as well as a random sample of 100 voters represents the entire electorate of the United States. This is the third idea and probably the most surprising one in designing samples.
How can it be that only the number in the sample, and not how big the population is, matters?... The fraction of the population that you've sampled doesn't matter. It's the sample size itself that's important.
How big a sample do you need? That depends on what you're estimating.... For a sample that tries to find the proportion of the population that fall into a category, you'll usually need a large enough sample to see several responses in each category- usually severall hundred responses- to say anything precise enough to be usefull."
-My AP Statistics book

OUReds
12-16-2007, 02:52 PM
Especially with a player who was as volatile as Bailey, it's not even close. Just to put a sample size of 356 pitches in perspective, Aaron Harang threw 3,591 pitches in 2007.

Your point is taken, but it's good enough to get a feel for what he would do next year if thrown into the rotation.

Edit: Why would the data obtained in the f/x parks be biased to the point of being unusable? I assume that we're getting data from road games and that GABP was not f/x equiped? that means were getting data from some road games?

Edit 2: Thinking about it more, that means we got data from 4 games. Ya'll are probably right that this simply isn't enough to draw any conclusions about the future.

jojo
12-16-2007, 03:24 PM
Especially with a player who was as volatile as Bailey, it's not even close. Just to put a sample size of 356 pitches in perspective, Aaron Harang threw 3,591 pitches in 2007.

Really the appropriate sample size is determined by the question you want to ask (i.e. what you're trying to measure and the magnitude of the effect you're trying to detect) and the variation in the data.

While more is always better, 43&#37; of Homer's pitches in '07 is probably large enough to determine his overall pitch tendencies for the season (i.e. those 356 pitches are representative of his 815), get an idea of his stuff looked (velocity/break), and probably get an idea how he attacked lefties vs righties.

That said, there are certainly questions that these data couldn't inform.

RedlegJake
12-16-2007, 03:38 PM
I'm just happy we can even have a discussion as to who is the best 'ace' prospect. Sure beats the years when we debated which prospects were most likely to hang on without totally stinking.

Highlifeman21
12-16-2007, 04:26 PM
I'm just happy we can even have a discussion as to who is the best 'ace' prospect. Sure beats the years when we debated which prospects were most likely to hang on without totally stinking.

It still doesn't change the fact that the Reds continue to pull the wool over our eyes when it comes to our prospects. Until Bailey or Cueto turn out to actually be TOR guys, then the propaganda machine rolls on.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 04:36 PM
It still doesn't change the fact that the Reds continue to pull the wool over our eyes when it comes to our prospects. Until Bailey or Cueto turn out to actually be TOR guys, then the propaganda machine rolls on.

I guess so.... although they both are going to spend next year at the ripe old age of 22 (although Bailey starts the year at age 21 and theoretically could have 4 or 5 starts under his belt by the time he turns 22).

I don't really consider it 'pulling wool over our eyes' when we are talking about guys that are 22. Telling us Mike Stanton is a good move is one thing, this is entirely another.

Highlifeman21
12-16-2007, 04:50 PM
Cueto and Bailey are two of the more legit prospects we've had in quite some time, but let's put away the stamp that says "Next Big Thing" before they are jinxed for their careers. It seems every last Reds prospect that got that stamp ended up getting another stamp... "Bust".

The Reds have been great throughout the years to create hype (most of the time false hype) about our prospects. It would be refreshing to have a prospect fly under the radar and actually turn out to be something.

Caveat Emperor
12-16-2007, 04:50 PM
I guess so.... although they both are going to spend next year at the ripe old age of 22 (although Bailey starts the year at age 21 and theoretically could have 4 or 5 starts under his belt by the time he turns 22).

It doesn't change the fact that Bailey was legitimately awful last year.

He's certainly got lots of time to figure it out, but right now he's completely hype and no substance.

dougdirt
12-16-2007, 04:59 PM
It doesn't change the fact that Bailey was legitimately awful last year.

He's certainly got lots of time to figure it out, but right now he's completely hype and no substance.

Eh, regardless of what I think about his pitching 'hurt' and how he pitched when 'healthy', he pitched pretty well in specific games last year at the major league level, no? I would say that certainly gives him some semblence of substance wouldn't it? Hype doesn't come off to me that way.

jojo
12-16-2007, 05:59 PM
It doesn't change the fact that Bailey was legitimately awful last year.

He's certainly got lots of time to figure it out, but right now he's completely stuff and no command.

I edited that because I think "the stuff" is substance that gives him significant value at his age (i.e. homer is a legit prospect because there is a tangible skill set there). This of course all changes if he fails to develop command as he ages or if he develops arm problems. He's probably getting close to the put up or shut up age if he's going to continue to be considered an elite prospect but certainly I think it's too early right now to lose patience.

I guess I view language like "hype" to be pejorative in the sense that it's misleading concerning Homer's current value. He's a consensus elite pitching prospect due to his projectable frame/mechanics coupled with his two plus pitches. In any event I don't think the Reds have mounted a campaign suggesting Homer is a sure thing-he's just one of the better pitching prospects they've had in a long time and he came along during a period when their farm really needed some good news.

SteelSD
12-17-2007, 02:41 AM
Really the appropriate sample size is determined by the question you want to ask (i.e. what you're trying to measure and the magnitude of the effect you're trying to detect) and the variation in the data.

While more is always better, 43% of Homer's pitches in '07 is probably large enough to determine his overall pitch tendencies for the season (i.e. those 356 pitches are representative of his 815), get an idea of his stuff looked (velocity/break), and probably get an idea how he attacked lefties vs righties.

43% of Homer Bailey's pitches tell us nothing other than what Homer Bailey did during those particular 356 pitches. It's not large enough to project anything. In fact, it's around 13% of the pitches thrown by the MLB ERA qualifier who tossed the least pitches in 2007 (Josh Fogg).

Considering the size of the sample, we can't pretend to know the first thing about what Homer Bailey actually did during 2007 even if the data was 100% reliable. It's akin to using a sample size of 60 PA to figure out a hitter's behavior if he played a full season.


That said, there are certainly questions that these data couldn't inform.

You think? ;)

jojo
12-17-2007, 06:48 AM
43% of Homer Bailey's pitches tell us nothing other than what Homer Bailey did during those particular 356 pitches. It's not large enough to project anything. In fact, it's around 13% of the pitches thrown by the MLB ERA qualifier who tossed the least pitches in 2007 (Josh Fogg).

Considering the size of the sample, we can't pretend to know the first thing about what Homer Bailey actually did during 2007 even if the data was 100% reliable. It's akin to using a sample size of 60 PA to figure out a hitter's behavior if he played a full season.



You think? ;)

I think you're really overstating the case from a statistical standpoint. It's pretty likely that 43% of Homer's pitches are enough to inform the other 459.

It's actually akin to using roughly 1600 pitches to estimate how Harang did across his whole 3500...

BTW, I haven't used Homer's f/x data to project any future performance.

SteelSD
12-17-2007, 12:47 PM
I think you're really overstating the case from a statistical standpoint. It's pretty likely that 43% of Homer's pitches are enough to inform the other 459.

It's actually akin to using roughly 1600 pitches to estimate how Harang did across his whole 3500...

BTW, I haven't used Homer's f/x data to project any future performance.

While you've wisely avoided the trap of using those 356 pitches to project future 2008-and-on performance, you are using them to project how Bailey likely did over the remainder of his sample. That's still a projection and it's a projection derived from 3-4 games worth of data.

Unless someone can give me the exact games from which the 356 pitches were tracked, it's a sudoku-like puzzle. Using the espn.com game logs, the only combination of games equalling 356 pitches include:

Sept 25th: 94 Pitches (@GAB)
Sept 20th: 80 Pitches (@SF)
July 7th: 89 Pitches (@GAB)
June 19th: 93 Pitches (@OAK)

Maybe I'm missing something, but that really is the only combination of games I can get to add up. They also happen to be Bailey's best games of the 2007 season. If those are the games being tracked, we're missing a lot- like the combined 139 pitches from June 26th and July 1st where Bailey wasn't able to put the ball over the plate half the time.

I'd suggest there's likely more wrong with that data than you think, jojo. There's a good chance that the data includes only behavior from the best of Homer Bailey.

Blue
12-17-2007, 01:22 PM
"I was told there wouldn't be any math!"

RedsManRick
12-17-2007, 02:45 PM
Why would I have any interest in data that tracks less than half of a player's behavior?

Because, given a big enough sample and an assumption of randomness, half is usually plenty to infer enough to make the point. Not saying we have enough data on Homer, but in terms of pitch selection, I imagine 4 or 5 starts gets you with a few points of the true percentages. As far as performance goes, I would hope we can all agree that we're woefully short of any amount of data at the major league level to draw assumptions, particularly given the injury effect.

I think the real point which should be stated is that Bailey doesn't need to be over 8 K/9 and under 4 BB/9 to be an upgrade to the Reds rotation in 2008. Bailey could utterly fail to meet Doug's expectations and still be a valuable member of the Reds rotation in 2008.

A line of 160 IP, 150 H (8.4 H/9), 80 BB (4.5 BB/9), 125 K (7.0 K/9), 15 HR (0.84 HR/9) gives us a FIP of 4.36 -- and that's ballowing a higher HR/9 than he ever has before. Stir in some Reds defense and some GABP and you're looking at something like a 4.6-4.7 ERA.

FIP formula: FIP = 3.20 + ((13*HR + 3*BB - 2*SO) / IP)

Most people would be quite happy with that, and that doesn't require any outlying assumptions.

jojo
12-17-2007, 03:32 PM
While you've wisely avoided the trap of using those 356 pitches to project future 2008-and-on performance, you are using them to project how Bailey likely did over the remainder of his sample. That's still a projection and it's a projection derived from 3-4 games worth of data.

Unless someone can give me the exact games from which the 356 pitches were tracked, it's a sudoku-like puzzle. Using the espn.com game logs, the only combination of games equalling 356 pitches include:

Sept 25th: 94 Pitches (@GAB)
Sept 20th: 80 Pitches (@SF)
July 7th: 89 Pitches (@GAB)
June 19th: 93 Pitches (@OAK)

Maybe I'm missing something, but that really is the only combination of games I can get to add up. They also happen to be Bailey's best games of the 2007 season. If those are the games being tracked, we're missing a lot- like the combined 139 pitches from June 26th and July 1st where Bailey wasn't able to put the ball over the plate half the time.

I'd suggest there's likely more wrong with that data than you think, jojo. There's a good chance that the data includes only behavior from the best of Homer Bailey.

Here's the games comprising Homer's f/x data:
6/19, 9/20, 9/25, and 9/30.....

The pitch totals wont match up exactly because f/x sometimes throws up a blank on a pitch etc.

While it's true that Homer's era is much better in the f/x games (3.20) vs. his non-f/x games (6.20) because the f/x data doesn't included his two worst starts (Philly and St Louis), his strike percentage (61&#37; vs 58%), Krate (16% vs 15%) and walk rate (11% vs 13%) were all very similar between the two samples. So really the samples aren't nearly as divergent when examining Homer's rate stats as his ERA for the samples might suggest.

Just for fun, if you ignore the 5 innings (and 13 ER) spanning his consecutive starts in Philly and St Louis, Homer's overall numbers are remarkably similar to the f/x sample (ERA: 3.75; Strike%=60; Krate: 15%; BBrate: 12%).

My guess is that the f/x data captured Homer's performance pretty well for '07.

pahster
12-17-2007, 04:24 PM
I am going to assume that the pitch f/x data represents the population without bias, so therefore I'm calling it random (even though it is not trully random)...

It's not random at all; it's a convenience sample. Thankfully, next year we'll be able to look at populations of pitch data and report parameter values rather than statistics.

I'm interested in what these data show, but quite hesitant to draw generalizations from a sample that is (1) far from random and (2) could be quite skewed because of the relatively small n involved here.

SteelSD
12-17-2007, 10:37 PM
Here's the games comprising Homer's f/x data:

6/19, 9/20, 9/25, and 9/30.....

Well, I was close.


The pitch totals wont match up exactly because f/x sometimes throws up a blank on a pitch etc.

That's soothing. Not trying to be snarky. It's just that glitches like that don't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.


While it's true that Homer's era is much better in the f/x games (3.20) vs. his non-f/x games (6.20) because the f/x data doesn't included his two worst starts (Philly and St Louis), his strike percentage (61% vs 58%), Krate (16% vs 15%) and walk rate (11% vs 13%) were all very similar between the two samples. So really the samples aren't nearly as divergent when examining Homer's rate stats as his ERA for the samples might suggest.

So if the second sample isn't included in the f/x data, where'd you get it?

Just for fun, if you ignore the 5 innings (and 13 ER) spanning his consecutive starts in Philly and St Louis, Homer's overall numbers are remarkably similar to the f/x sample (ERA: 3.75; Strike%=60; Krate: 15%; BBrate: 12%).

My guess is that the f/x data captured Homer's performance pretty well for '07.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, we can't ignore those two starts.

Caveat Emperor
12-17-2007, 10:44 PM
I don't know why this caught my eye, but it did. Two Reds players, both "power" pitchers with good stuff. Both with a late-season set of games that everyone attempts to project forward on.

Numbers look quite similar, other than the ERA on Pitcher A, which is quite low despite the peripherals.


Player W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
PITCHER A 4 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 48.3 36 16 13 3 25 38 2 5 204 1 0 2.42 4.27 176 1.262
PITCHER B 4 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 45.3 43 32 29 3 28 28 3 1 205 1 1 5.76 4.66 81 1.566


Pitcher A: Luke Hudson
Pitcher B: Homer Bailey

Like I said, I don't know that it means anything, just found it a little interesting.

dougdirt
12-17-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't know why this caught my eye, but it did. Two Reds players, both "power" pitchers with good stuff. Both with a late-season set of games that everyone attempts to project forward on.

Numbers look quite similar, other than the ERA on Pitcher A, which is quite low despite the peripherals.


Player W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
PITCHER A 4 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 48.3 36 16 13 3 25 38 2 5 204 1 0 2.42 4.27 176 1.262
PITCHER B 4 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 45.3 43 32 29 3 28 28 3 1 205 1 1 5.76 4.66 81 1.566


Pitcher A: Luke Hudson
Pitcher B: Homer Bailey

Like I said, I don't know that it means anything, just found it a little interesting.
It means little considering that Bailey was 6 years younger when those two seasons happened, and regardless of what some people want to say had nothing to do with Bailey's performance (despite the fact that his obvious bad games all came directly after this happened before he went on the dl), he also pitched hurt for 3 of those games. Even if you want to toss that last part out, Hudson was 27 when that happened. Bailey wont turn 27 until May of the 2013 season.

SteelSD
12-17-2007, 11:42 PM
I think the real point which should be stated is that Bailey doesn't need to be over 8 K/9 and under 4 BB/9 to be an upgrade to the Reds rotation in 2008. Bailey could utterly fail to meet Doug's expectations and still be a valuable member of the Reds rotation in 2008.

While I appreciate the rest of your post, I felt it was most important to address this point. I actually agree that Homer Bailey doesn't have to hit a 8.00 K/9 and a sub-4.00 BB/9 rate to be of help. My concern has always been that a projection of performance of 8.00+ K/9 and sub-4.00 BB/9 is, IMHO, far too aggressive considering Bailey's historical performance.

My second concern is that I've seen a lot of analysis/opinion over the last few months using our new data toy de' jour. One day it's specious RZR data from THT, the next day it's theoretical xFIP, then we switch to dubious run valuations drawn from our earlier fixation on said specious RZR data, and when we're bored with that we dive into not-yet-properly-vetted pitch f/x data, throwing it around as if we were kids in a sandbox.

As an aside, I honestly can't believe I'm the first person who noted that the folks pushing RZR don't understand how normal Zone Rating is calculated during their denouncements of the metric latter metric. That boggles my mind. Well, that's not entirely true. Dave Studeman was involved, after all. Agh! My brain almost got my hands to start typing "WPA". Darnit. I did type "WPA". Twice. Dang it. End digression...

I know that sometimes we're able to work through data validity, relevance, and methodology concerns while discussing a player when data is being used, but that seems so cart-before-horse to me. I'll apologize in advance if I missed something (and I can), but I shouldn't have to find out in this thread after much discussion, and after the data has already been thrown around in multiple threads, that only 43% of Homer Bailey's season was tracked (excluding his worst performances). Of course, we can't be sure that 43% was actually tracked, because sometimes the f/x system just fires blanks. I do, however appreciate the fact that jojo did proactively note the latter item.

Call me attentive to detail, I guess, but when I first learned of something called "Zone Rating" I spent a couple of days looking at it from every angle while asking all the questions I knew would be asked of me should I use it in a public player analysis. Runs Created? I broke that sucker down to actual component valuations prior to speaking of it. I run correlation studies on pretty much everything and turn formulas (when available) upside down and inside out. Heck, a couple times I received emails from Microsoft noting that my Excel program filed a former complaint citing owner abuse.

Sorry for the rant, Rick. It's not directed at you. In fact, I think you do things the right way, as demonstrated by your discussion-first approach on RZR-driven defense run valuation. I just feel like I've recently spent far too much time pointing out data or methodology issues that should be apparent to the poster prior to analysis, and certainly before posting conclusions based on said data.

mlbfan30
12-17-2007, 11:48 PM
It's amazing how behind some of you could be at math. 40&#37; of a sample size is enough data to notice tendencies of that pitcher. All if is is a fraction of the total, but the composition of that fraction would be roughly the same no matter how large of the sample size. You don't need pitches from every start to get the general idea of the way he throws. It's not like he would go from 70% fastballs to 55% fastballs in 1 year. It just doesn't happen. The range of error increases with a smaller sample size, but the 400 or so pitches is enough data to get a range of +- 2% I would say. That's the difference of throwing 68 or 72 fastballs per 100 pitches, which when you think about it is faily significant over a full season. But say if every type of pitch was +-3%, that is still enough info to find out the general idea of what he throws. Speed would probably have a smaller range of error.
Sample size is important, but the context matters a lot. 80 IP is generally (2.5 months) enough to see how good a pitcher is. You would most likely expect similar peripherals for each 80 IP increment of a pitcher say over 1 year. That's also 40%

mlbfan30
12-17-2007, 11:53 PM
Also saying it fires blanks isn't really a big deal at all. Say it misses 50 pitches. The compositions of those pitches would be roughly the same as that of the entire 2000 sample size. If it misses only a few, it might affect a sample size of less than 100, but at 500+ pitches the 5 that it missed is only 1&#37;

SteelSD
12-18-2007, 12:27 AM
It means little considering that Bailey was 6 years younger when those two seasons happened, and regardless of what some people want to say had nothing to do with Bailey's performance (despite the fact that his obvious bad games all came directly after this happened before he went on the dl), he also pitched hurt for 3 of those games.

While I agree that a Hudson/Bailey comparison isn't quite right, Bailey's July 7th effort was likely his best start of the season.

BTW, Bailey's excuse for the two starts prior to July 7th wasn't injury. It was "flaw in delivery". If a guy is really hurting and knows that his injury is likely affecting his performance (as he should), does he actually spend time watching video to detect and correct a flaw in his delivery?

At this point, Krivsky was obviously not concerned with an alleged groin injury. Krivsky is on record noting that the optioning of Bailey to AAA wouldn't have happened if not for the All-Star break.

After being sent to the minors, Wayne Krivsky was quoted: "Go pitch and get people out. The better you pitch, the better chance you have to get back." Bailey needed 90 pitches to traverse 3.1 Innings (6 Runs, 5 BB) in his Start prior to that comment. His last start prior to the DL stint resulted in a 5-Run (2 ER) 5.2 IP outing.

Now, keep in mind that Bailey is not someone who has a history of not reporting injuries. And the Reds are not a team that has a history of running Homer Bailey to the mound with even a minor injury. In fact, what Bailey considered to be a "minor" injury reportedly pushed back Bailey's 2005 debut. While the current Reds' Front Office has obviously been more aggressive with Bailey's advancement, it seems odd that the Reds MLB and AAA coaching staffs and executives couldn't identify what Krivsky described as a "moderate" groin strain well before he was finally put on the DL. It's sure possible that a minor strain was exacerbated in his two mid-season AAA starts, it's also possible that the injury was caused by either of those starts.

doug, do you have a quote or source that identifies the initial groin injury being prior to July 19th, 2007? If so, I'd very much appreciate that information.

Caveat Emperor
12-18-2007, 12:33 AM
It means little considering that Bailey was 6 years younger when those two seasons happened, and regardless of what some people want to say had nothing to do with Bailey's performance (despite the fact that his obvious bad games all came directly after this happened before he went on the dl), he also pitched hurt for 3 of those games. Even if you want to toss that last part out, Hudson was 27 when that happened. Bailey wont turn 27 until May of the 2013 season.

I just thought it was an intriguingly similar stat line.

I'm very aware that Hudson was nowhere near the talent that Bailey is alleged to be and that he was already full developed when he posted that season.

It suggests nothing as a comp, I just thought people might find it interesting. FWIW -- everyone gravitated towards Hudson's ERA and projected him as a fix in the Red's rotation. That never worked out so well.

Goes to show you that 9 games are just that -- 9 games. Bailey had a bad run of 9 games. Tough to project anything at all from that with any degree of certainty.

dougdirt
12-18-2007, 12:48 AM
doug, do you have a quote or source that identifies the initial groin injury being prior to July 19th, 2007? If so, I'd very much appreciate that information.

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/redsinsider/2007/09/homer-report.asp



The big thing for Bailey is hes healthy. He tried to pitch through the groin problem. He said he originally hurt it on June 26 in Philadelphia. He made four starts after that two for the Reds and two for Louisville before going on the disabled list.

While it doesn't note it here, I know that I read John Fay say it somewhere that he hurt it in the bullpen session before this game. That however was the best thing I could find online after searching for about 15 minutes.

dougdirt
12-18-2007, 12:50 AM
I just thought it was an intriguingly similar stat line.

I'm very aware that Hudson was nowhere near the talent that Bailey is alleged to be and that he was already full developed when he posted that season.

It suggests nothing as a comp, I just thought people might find it interesting. FWIW -- everyone gravitated towards Hudson's ERA and projected him as a fix in the Red's rotation. That never worked out so well.

Goes to show you that 9 games are just that -- 9 games. Bailey had a bad run of 9 games. Tough to project anything at all from that with any degree of certainty.

Bailey had a bad run of 3 games really.... all in which he was pitching with a bum groin.

SteelSD
12-18-2007, 01:16 AM
It's amazing how behind some of you could be at math. 40% of a sample size is enough data to notice tendencies of that pitcher. All if is is a fraction of the total, but the composition of that fraction would be roughly the same no matter how large of the sample size. You don't need pitches from every start to get the general idea of the way he throws. It's not like he would go from 70% fastballs to 55% fastballs in 1 year. It just doesn't happen. The range of error increases with a smaller sample size, but the 400 or so pitches is enough data to get a range of +- 2% I would say. That's the difference of throwing 68 or 72 fastballs per 100 pitches, which when you think about it is faily significant over a full season. But say if every type of pitch was +-3%, that is still enough info to find out the general idea of what he throws. Speed would probably have a smaller range of error.

Sample size is important, but the context matters a lot. 80 IP is generally (2.5 months) enough to see how good a pitcher is. You would most likely expect similar peripherals for each 80 IP increment of a pitcher say over 1 year. That's also 40%

80 IP is good enough to see how good a pitcher is? No. No way. I'm not sure you're considering the impact of randomness in the game of baseball. Less than half of a full season might indicate something about behavioral tendencies, but it says little about actual performance quality.

Here's a data set involving 56.2% of a MLB hitter's season in 2006:

.275 BA/.353 OBP/.445 SLG

And here's another from 2007 (50.99% of the season):

.270 BA/.353 OBP/.391 SLG

Here's a data set from 44.7% of a pitcher's season in 2007:

4.04 ERA/1.47 HR per 9/10.89 K per 9/2.02 BB per 9

The first player is Mark Teixiera from pre-ASB 2006. The second is Edwin Encarnacion from pre-ASB 2007. The last player is Johan Santana from Post-ASB 2007.

I didn't look hard to find those samples. They were the first three players that popped up in my head. Single-season samples above 40% don't necessarily clue us in to actual propensities or ability. And you don't have the data to tell us that a player can't possibly go from 70% Fastballs to 55% fastballs- particularly when working with lower sample sizes. If you do have the data to tell us that, then by all means show your work. Otherwise, that's an intuitive reach on your part, and it has nothing to do with math (good, bad, or otherwise). You're guessing. That's not math. It's lazy.


Also saying it fires blanks isn't really a big deal at all. Say it misses 50 pitches. The compositions of those pitches would be roughly the same as that of the entire 2000 sample size. If it misses only a few, it might affect a sample size of less than 100, but at 500+ pitches the 5 that it missed is only 1%

Do you know the margain for error for tracked f/x pitches or the actual percentage of pitches the system misses? If not, then your claims of being a superior mathemetician really don't matter because your methodology starts from a position of assumption rather than fact. Sorry, but I'm not really interested in that kind of pseudo-logic.

jojo
12-18-2007, 06:55 AM
Well, I was close.

Yes and I'm guessing it wasn't the highlight of your day.... :D


That's soothing. Not trying to be snarky. It's just that glitches like that don't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I don't really consider it an issue especially given the possibilities the system opens up for research. BTW, for Homer, f/x missed 4&#37; of the pitches he threw in the games tracked. It's something i'd gladly live with.... No one is saying the system is perfect but the possibilities it allows are pretty exciting.



So if the second sample isn't included in the f/x data, where'd you get it?

The data you're referring too (Homer's rate stats) can be easily compiled from multiple sources on the web (I think I used fan graphs but there other places that provide the raw data) and it's pretty easy to parse between starts in a spreadsheet.


Unfortunately, we can't ignore those two starts.

Once again, you don't have to in order to appreciate that the f/x data was taken from a sample that wasn't dramatically different from either Homer's non-f/x games or his complete season.

I included the "just for fun" comparison just for fun.

Anyway like stated earlier:

Obviously the results could be effected by sample size/park but I think the 70% fastball tendency agrees with my eyes.


While more is always better, 43% of Homer's pitches in '07 is probably large enough to determine his overall pitch tendencies for the season (i.e. those 356 pitches are representative of his 815), get an idea of how his stuff looked (velocity/break), and probably get an idea of how he attacked lefties vs righties.

That said, there are certainly questions that these data couldn't inform.

I don't think those assertions overstep/ignore the limitations of the data.

If the total of my comments posted on the ORG about Homer were distilled into a few sentences, they would look something like this:

Great stuff/poor command; prematurely promoted to the majors; over reliance on his fastball with a need to refine his secondary pitches, too soon to call him a bust.

Certainly, I'm not using that data to argue that Homer will post a K/9: >8 and a BB/9: <4.0 next season (because I agree with you that such a projection is beyond aggressive). In fact the f/x data suggests he didn't have anything close to major league quality command in '07 while demonstrating a below-average make 'em miss ability despite above average velocity on his fastball and above average break on his curve. That data BTW, agrees very well with my eyes.

jojo
12-18-2007, 08:34 AM
the next day it's theoretical xFIP

To be fair, xFIP is very useful for starters.

lollipopcurve
12-18-2007, 08:51 AM
Great stuff/poor command; prematurely promoted to the majors; over reliance on his fastball with a need to refine his secondary pitches, too soon to call him a bust.

Certainly, I'm not using that data to argue that Homer will post a K/9: >8 and a BB/9: <4.0 next season (because I agree with you that such a projection is beyond aggressive). In fact the f/x data suggests he didn't have anything close to major league quality command in '07 while demonstrating a below-average make 'em miss ability despite above average velocity on his fastball and above average break on his curve. That data BTW, agrees very well with my eyes.

I'd agree with this assessment in large part -- and I saw just about every one of Homer's starts. I would add -- he made progress with his curveball. It was much better in the starts he made after coming back from injury. So -- in my opinion, he took a step forward in a relatively short period of time, despite having been knocked around in some earlier starts. A nice trait to see.

RedsManRick
12-18-2007, 11:45 AM
Pitcher A: Luke Hudson
Pitcher B: Homer Bailey

It means ERA is a crap statistic for performance projection. There's so much variance in the things that cause runs to score that ERA is nearly useless as a measure of pitcher effectiveness over a small number of innings.

What I think we're all forgetting about Bailey is just how young he is. If he were still in Chattanooga blowing people away, we'd all still be singing his praises. We should appreciate the difference between a 27 year old Luke Hudson who was essentially a finished product and a 21 year old Homer Bailey who has just 317.7 professional innings under his belt.

CE, I really like your comment:

It suggests nothing as a comp, I just thought people might find it interesting. FWIW -- everyone gravitated towards Hudson's ERA and projected him as a fix in the Red's rotation. That never worked out so well.

Goes to show you that 9 games are just that -- 9 games. Bailey had a bad run of 9 games. Tough to project anything at all from that with any degree of certainty.

RedsManRick
12-18-2007, 12:09 PM
Steel, I appreciate your post. Few people really understand fully the metrics being tossed around (the assumptions, implications, history, etc.), and I consider myself on the periphery of understanding at best.

We usually know enough to make the case or counterpoint, and often that's not a problem. But we should be careful about just how far we run with our conclusions. I think that generally speaking, we'd all be better off using data to make "observations" than "points".

It's interesting to me that a few tenants of analysis are constantly violated in thread after thread. Things like sample size, variance, etc. are routinely given lip service but not wholly informing the points being made. I know it's not fun to come to the conclusion that "Homer Bailey's 2007 MLB performance tells us very little about what he's likely to do in 2008". "I don't know" is usually a conversation ender. We should be willing to do that more than we seem to be.

jojo
12-18-2007, 12:14 PM
Steel, I appreciate your post. Few people really understand fully the metrics being tossed around (the assumptions, implications, history, etc.), and I consider myself on the periphery of understanding at best.

We usually know enough to make the case or counterpoint, and often that's not a problem. But we should be careful about just how far we run with our conclusions. I think that generally speaking, we'd all be better off using data to make "observations" than "points".

It's interesting to me that a few tenants of analysis are constantly violated in thread after thread. Things like sample size, variance, etc. are routinely given lip service but not wholly informing the points being made. I know it's not fun to come to the conclusion that "Homer Bailey's 2007 MLB performance tells us very little about what he's likely to do in 2008". "I don't know" is usually a conversation ender. We should be willing to do that more than we seem to be.

How many people are solely using Homer's '07 to predict his '08 though?

RedsManRick
12-18-2007, 12:36 PM
How many people are solely using Homer's '07 to predict his '08 though?

Soley? Quite few. But I've seen a lot of posts recently which suggest people's opinions of him have been significantly altered by his MLB performance. Frankly, I don't think his 2007 performance in the majors tells us anything that we didn't already know in May of last year. Throw in the complication of an injury which we don't know everything about and the 50 innings from this year should only be a tiny part of our evaluation.

jojo
12-18-2007, 12:39 PM
Frankly, I don't think his 2007 performance in the majors tells us anything that we didn't already know in May of last year. Throw in the complication of an injury which we don't know everything about and the 50 innings from this year should only be a tiny part of our evaluation.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/score010.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

TRF
12-18-2007, 01:18 PM
How many people are solely using Homer's '07 to predict his '08 though?

Personally, I'm not. I'm looking at his entire body of work as a professional and I see a lot of high BB rates. If you are walking 4+ batters per 9 at the minor league level, you are going to get ripped in the show by any team with the slightest bit of patience. Yes, age has something to do with his performance at the major league level, but it was easy to predict that he was going to walk a lot of batters.

Cueto on the other hand has never had a BB/9 higher than 3.36 and his career minor league BB/9 is half Bailey's. (4.23 to 2.12)

Using Cueto's entire body of work I think if he got the exact same AAA treatment Bailey did, followed by the same PROJECTED number of starts, you'll get a similar result in that Cueto's BB/9 will probably go up a bit. His K/9 will probably go down a bit. But because right now his command is better than Bailey's the overall result will be far better.