PDA

View Full Version : Bailey to Start for Reds on Saturday



camisadelgolf
06-25-2009, 07:43 PM
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090625&content_id=5529926&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin
By Mark Sheldon / MLB.com

06/25/09 7:00 PM ET

TORONTO -- The Reds made it official on Thursday that Saturday's starter vs. the Indians will be Homer Bailey, who will be recalled again from Triple-A Louisville.

Based on the timing and his recent performances, it really couldn't have been anyone else.

Not only was Bailey's next turn for Louisville to be Saturday, he's been its hottest starter. The 23-year-old is 4-0 with a 0.47 ERA in his last five starts, with three of them lasting at least eight innings.

Over his last 38 1/3 innings, Bailey has allowed just one run with seven walks and 38 strikeouts.

In 14 starts overall for Louisville, Bailey is 8-5 with a 2.71 ERA. The right-hander struggled during his previous one-start callup on May 23, also vs. the Indians, when he gave up six earned runs on three hits with a career-high six walks over 4 1/3 innings in a 7-6 loss.

Bailey is taking the spot that belongs to Edinson Volquez, who has been on the disabled list since June 2 with right elbow tendinitis. Left-hander Matt Maloney most recently occupied the spot but was 0-2 with a 6.11 ERA in three starts for the Reds. Maloney was sent back to Louisville last Saturday when the Reds didn't need a fifth starter.

At one time the brightest of Reds prospects, Bailey has yet to find any traction in the Majors. Over his five previous callups, he is 4-8 with a 7.01 ERA in 18 starts for Cincinnati.

With Volquez expected to be out through the All-Star break, this could be a great chance for Bailey to establish himself.

A corresponding move to make room for Bailey on the 25-man roster will be announced before Saturday's game.

Heath
06-25-2009, 07:56 PM
Say good-by to Danny Richar.

redsfandan
06-25-2009, 08:02 PM
A quality start. That's all I want to see. Hopefully he ends up with quality starts more often than not the next month.

klw
06-25-2009, 08:22 PM
Say good-by to Danny Richar.

I would think that Richar stays until EE comes back. I would expect a pitcher to be sent out.

Tornon
06-25-2009, 10:28 PM
I would think that Richar stays until EE comes back. I would expect a pitcher to be sent out.

Probably Carlos Fisher, right?

LINEDRIVER
06-25-2009, 10:30 PM
Why am I thinking I'm gonna see the same ole' Homer?
5 innings, 4 ER, 3 Walks, 3 K's, 100 pitches.

Blitz Dorsey
06-25-2009, 11:10 PM
Why am I thinking I'm gonna see the same ole' Homer?
5 innings, 4 ER, 3 Walks, 3 K's, 100 pitches.

Why even think negative like that? I'm thinking 4 K's at least.

traderumor
06-25-2009, 11:33 PM
Why am I thinking I'm gonna see the same ole' Homer?
5 innings, 4 ER, 3 Walks, 3 K's, 100 pitches.That is up to him. Will he pitch the way he pitched in AAA and trust his stuff, or will he talk himself into needing to do something different to get major league hitters out?

OnBaseMachine
06-26-2009, 12:50 AM
At Louisville this year, he has won five of his last six starts with three games in which he gave up no runs and one in which he gave up only one.

Has he improved?

Bailey faced the Columbus Clippers on June 12. Using his newly acquired split-finger fastball he pitched 8 2/3 innings, giving up six hits and one run while walking two and striking out nine.

Clippers pitching coach Scott Radinsky told Columbus Dispatch writer Jim Massie that the split-finger “was dropping like a Kamikaze on a battle ship” and he had never seen him better.

Reports said Homer was throwing 94 in the first inning, 95 to 96 in the middle innings and 97 in the ninth. And the baseball doesn’t move any quicker in Columbus than it should in Cleveland.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2009/06/25/as_if_everybody_didnt_already.html

Big Klu
06-26-2009, 02:01 AM
I would think that Richar stays until EE comes back. I would expect a pitcher to be sent out.

Richar could stick around even after Encarnacion comes back. The Reds may decide to send Rosales down.


Probably Carlos Fisher, right?

I think it will be one of the three young righties--Burton, Fisher, or Roenicke. My guess is that it will be Fisher.


Why am I thinking I'm gonna see the same ole' Homer?
5 innings, 4 ER, 3 Walks, 3 K's, 100 pitches.

I'm hoping he pitches well, but I'm expecting about what you predicted. (I hope we're both wrong about that.)

redsfandan
06-26-2009, 05:43 AM
I think it will be one of the three young righties--Burton, Fisher, or Roenicke. My guess is that it will be Fisher.
With the shape the rotation is in we may just need those relievers more than Richar or Rosales.

Big Klu
06-26-2009, 10:51 AM
13 pitchers are too many, though. Seven relief pitchers are more than enough.

I(heart)Freel
06-26-2009, 01:17 PM
Off day Monday too. Built in rest day for the 'pen, if things go really bad.

IslandRed
06-26-2009, 04:21 PM
13 pitchers are too many, though. Seven relief pitchers are more than enough.

I'm okay with having the extra pitcher just in case, since playing in the AL park means we won't need the extra pinch-hitter. We can always shuffle back to 12 pitchers before Tuesday.

alexad
06-27-2009, 09:52 AM
I am looking for great things out of Bailey. Look at what Sowers did last night against us. This kid is only 22 years old. Did I say this kid? He just needs to be thrown into the rotation like they did with Cueto last year. Let him take his bumps. He needs to know that you are up here for awhile. One start is not going to determine what happens. He needs to be allowed the opportunity to adjust and learn how to come back from a bad outing or a good outing. Time is what Bailey needs at this level.

He can pitch, he has to be given time to adjust and then I feel we should look out.

Homer go out and pitch a gem tonight. It can be no worse than the top two guys last outing of Arroyo and Harang!

BuckeyeRedleg
06-27-2009, 10:21 AM
I have a feeling something special happens today. I don't know why. Just a gut feeling.

OnBaseMachine
06-27-2009, 11:39 AM
Bailey returns to Reds with new pitch
Cincinnati (35-37) at Cleveland (31-44), 7:05 p.m. ET
By Matt O Donnell / MLB.com

06/26/09 11:35 PM ET

CLEVELAND -- Josh Roenicke has seen Homer Bailey pitch in parts of the last two seasons. But he said Bailey has never looked better.

Roenicke, who was Bailey's teammate with the Triple-A Louisville Bats, said the 23-year-old pitcher has added a new pitch to his repertoire -- a split-finger fastball -- which is baffling Minor League hitters. Bailey will get a chance to test his new pitch when he is called up again to start against the Cleveland Indians, Saturday at Progressive Field.

Roenicke said Bailey learned the pitch after he was demoted to Louisville on May 24. He and Bats pitcher Justin Lehr were throwing it in batting practice. Bailey liked the pitch so much, that he decided to use it in games.

Bailey can throw the split-finger pitch in the mid- to upper-90s. Roenicke said the pitch comes out like a fastball and then dives to the left or right of hitters.

After a recent start against the Cleveland Indians' Triple-A affiliate, the Columbus Clippers, the Tribe's top prospect, Matt LaPorta, said it's the best pitch he's seen all year. That statement is pretty impressive considering LaPorta has played 13 games in the Majors this season.

"In one game, he threw it 11 times in a row, eight times for strikes," said Roenicke, who has been with Cincinnati since June 17. "He has a good arm and a good arm slot to throw it out of."

The results have been impressive. Bailey, who is expected to join the team on Saturday, is 8-5 with a 2.71 ERA, 82 strikeouts and 27 walks on the season for the Bats. But he has turned it on as of late.

Bailey is 4-0 with a 0.47 ERA, 38 strikeouts and seven walks in his past five starts.

"He's been absolutely dominating," Roenicke said. "He has been locked in and throwing strikes."

That was something Bailey had trouble doing in his previous big league stints.

When Bailey pitched against the Indians on May 23, in his only other start for Cincinnati this season, he pitched 4 1/3 innings, giving up six earned runs and three hits with three strikeouts and a career-high six walks.

When Bailey is officially called up Saturday, it will be the sixth different time he has done so since the Reds drafted him with the No. 7 pick in the 2004 First-Year Player Draft. He is 4-8 with a 7.01 ERA in 18 starts for Cincinnati. A corresponding move will have to be made before Bailey is called up.

Manager Dusty Baker is holding off on praising Bailey's new pitch. He said it doesn't matter what pitches Bailey has added, if he can't throw his fastball for strikes.

"You have to control your fastball first before you try a split-finger or any other finger," Baker said. "If he gets his fastball down, it will make his split-finger and any of his other pitches better."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090626&content_id=5547016&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Tom Servo
06-27-2009, 11:53 AM
Hey our old friend Tomo Ohka is pitching for Cleveland. Remember when he used to baffle the Reds in 2006?

Falls City Beer
06-27-2009, 11:59 AM
Hey our old friend Tomo Ohka is pitching for Cleveland. Remember when every slop-throwing pitcher in the world used to baffle the Reds this decade?

Fixed.

Highlifeman21
06-27-2009, 12:28 PM
Bailey returns to Reds with new pitch
Cincinnati (35-37) at Cleveland (31-44), 7:05 p.m. ET
By Matt O Donnell / MLB.com

06/26/09 11:35 PM ET

CLEVELAND -- Josh Roenicke has seen Homer Bailey pitch in parts of the last two seasons. But he said Bailey has never looked better.

Roenicke, who was Bailey's teammate with the Triple-A Louisville Bats, said the 23-year-old pitcher has added a new pitch to his repertoire -- a split-finger fastball -- which is baffling Minor League hitters. Bailey will get a chance to test his new pitch when he is called up again to start against the Cleveland Indians, Saturday at Progressive Field.

Roenicke said Bailey learned the pitch after he was demoted to Louisville on May 24. He and Bats pitcher Justin Lehr were throwing it in batting practice. Bailey liked the pitch so much, that he decided to use it in games.

Bailey can throw the split-finger pitch in the mid- to upper-90s. Roenicke said the pitch comes out like a fastball and then dives to the left or right of hitters.

After a recent start against the Cleveland Indians' Triple-A affiliate, the Columbus Clippers, the Tribe's top prospect, Matt LaPorta, said it's the best pitch he's seen all year. That statement is pretty impressive considering LaPorta has played 13 games in the Majors this season.

"In one game, he threw it 11 times in a row, eight times for strikes," said Roenicke, who has been with Cincinnati since June 17. "He has a good arm and a good arm slot to throw it out of."

The results have been impressive. Bailey, who is expected to join the team on Saturday, is 8-5 with a 2.71 ERA, 82 strikeouts and 27 walks on the season for the Bats. But he has turned it on as of late.

Bailey is 4-0 with a 0.47 ERA, 38 strikeouts and seven walks in his past five starts.

"He's been absolutely dominating," Roenicke said. "He has been locked in and throwing strikes."

That was something Bailey had trouble doing in his previous big league stints.

When Bailey pitched against the Indians on May 23, in his only other start for Cincinnati this season, he pitched 4 1/3 innings, giving up six earned runs and three hits with three strikeouts and a career-high six walks.

When Bailey is officially called up Saturday, it will be the sixth different time he has done so since the Reds drafted him with the No. 7 pick in the 2004 First-Year Player Draft. He is 4-8 with a 7.01 ERA in 18 starts for Cincinnati. A corresponding move will have to be made before Bailey is called up.

Manager Dusty Baker is holding off on praising Bailey's new pitch. He said it doesn't matter what pitches Bailey has added, if he can't throw his fastball for strikes.

"You have to control your fastball first before you try a split-finger or any other finger," Baker said. "If he gets his fastball down, it will make his split-finger and any of his other pitches better."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090626&content_id=5547016&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

So Homer's fallen in love with a different fastball? Is that like having an affair?

Can't wait to see him overuse his latest pitch...

redsfandan
06-27-2009, 02:15 PM
My hopes for tonight are:
1) a quality start
2) that people don't get too carried away with their reactions to whether Bailey does or doesn't pitch well. In the short-term the only thing that matters is that the Reds win no matter how it happens. In the long-term how he pitches for the Reds over the next month will still mean more then his start tonight.
3) and that Bailey doesn't use his new pitch too much and end up ruining his arm in the process.

_Sir_Charles_
06-27-2009, 03:55 PM
8 ip , 4 hits, 1 bb (intentional), 7 k's, 1 run (unearned), 111 pitches....and a double uwe.

Or is that prediction being too specific? :O)

Always Red
06-27-2009, 04:10 PM
I am looking for great things out of Bailey. Look at what Sowers did last night against us. This kid is only 22 years old. Did I say this kid? He just needs to be thrown into the rotation like they did with Cueto last year. Let him take his bumps. He needs to know that you are up here for awhile. One start is not going to determine what happens. He needs to be allowed the opportunity to adjust and learn how to come back from a bad outing or a good outing. Time is what Bailey needs at this level.

He can pitch, he has to be given time to adjust and then I feel we should look out.

Homer go out and pitch a gem tonight. It can be no worse than the top two guys last outing of Arroyo and Harang!

Homer's already taken a lot of lumps, that's for sure. The last 3 years have surely been a bit humbling for him. Which is good, in that him consider what he needed to do in order to improve.

IMO, this is a much different Homer Bailey (mentally and maturity-wise) than the one we first saw 2 years ago.


I have a feeling something special happens today. I don't know why. Just a gut feeling.

I agree, in a way. Not so much about tonight specifically, but I firmly believe Homer is here to stay. He has adjusted, and he is flourishing, currently. All he has to be is a decent #4-5 SP.

camisadelgolf
06-27-2009, 04:19 PM
Any guesses on the roster move that will be made? Fisher to be optioned? Richar to be DFAed again?

OnBaseMachine
06-27-2009, 04:21 PM
It shouldn't be Fisher or Roenicke, IMO. If a pitcher goes, it needs to be Burton.

fearofpopvol1
06-27-2009, 04:45 PM
It shouldn't be Fisher or Roenicke, IMO. If a pitcher goes, it needs to be Burton.

I agree...I think you send Burton down for now. But Fisher hasn't looked wonderful as of late either.

KoryMac5
06-27-2009, 05:07 PM
So Homer's fallen in love with a different fastball? Is that like having an affair?

Can't wait to see him overuse his latest pitch...

No different than any young pitcher out there today. I am sure we have all seen Cueto and Volquez fall in love with the change up from time to time.

Highlifeman21
06-27-2009, 05:45 PM
No different than any young pitcher out there today. I am sure we have all seen Cueto and Volquez fall in love with the change up from time to time.

Actually, I wish they threw their offspeed stuff more often.

It's their love for their breaking stuff which concerns me at times.

SMcGavin
06-27-2009, 11:34 PM
Two strikeouts, seven walks. I was encouraged by his recent AAA success but good grief, that is brutal.

redsfandan
06-28-2009, 12:41 AM
Bailey said something on the news about not being able to grip the ball. Hopefully that really is the case. Next friday should be interesting. That excuse won't fly two starts in a row.

RedlegJake
06-28-2009, 12:52 AM
He got squeezed a bit - maybe two of the walks worth. Still not terrific but the bright spot - only three hits, a lot of movement and I didn't think he lost his composure out there even struggling all night with control.

OnBaseMachine
06-28-2009, 01:15 AM
The stuff was there - his fastball was consistently at 93-96 and even touched 97 and 98 a couple times. He also threw a few nice sliders and an occasional curve, and about six or seven split-fingers. He said something on the postgame show about not being able to grip the ball well. All the guys that pitched tonight said they were having trouble gripping the ball for some reason. Again, I thought his stuff looked pretty good but obviously his control has a long ways to go. I thought he got squeezed a little early in the game (especially on the 3-2 pitch to Carroll in the first inning) but in the middle innings he had no idea where the ball was going at times. His control was pretty good in Louisville, so hopefully with a few more starts his control will begin to translate to the majors. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Caveat Emperor
06-28-2009, 01:33 AM
Two strikeouts, seven walks. I was encouraged by his recent AAA success but good grief, that is brutal.

The team needs to commit to giving him 4 or 5 starts -- trying to judge his "improvements" based on one outing here or another outing there is simply foolhardy, IMO.

It's the functional equivalent of calling up a hot hitter from AAA and then sending him back to the minors after 1 game because he had an 0-fer night at the dish.

OnBaseMachine
06-28-2009, 01:45 AM
Pulling for Homer Bailey’s succes
By Hal McCoy | Saturday, June 27, 2009, 11:22 PM

Former Chicago baseball writer Jerome Holtzman wrote a book, “No Cheering in the Pressbox” and, for the most part, that credo is followed. No cheering.

The only time in my 37-year career when I saw everybody in a pressbox cheer was when Pete Rose slapped his 4,192nd career hit off San Diego’s Eric Show to pass Ty Cobb. Everybody in the pressbox stood and cheered and applauded.

To me, that was acceptable. I was one of those who stood and cheered. We’ll never see that happen again.

I SAY THIS because I didn’t stand and cheer for Homer Bailey Saturday night. It’s hard to stand and applaud when a guy staggers through five innings and walks seven guys.

But, to be truthful, I’m pulling for him.

Here is a guy who signed out of high school, an 18-year-old drafted No. 1. Talk about pressure. So he has struggled with his tastes of major-league baseball, bouncing back and forth between the minors and the majors like a Standard Duncan yo-yo.

Think about it this way - and manager Dusty Baker says it all the time. If Bailey hadn’t signed and gone to college, he would have been drafted last year and probably been in Class A ball. Instead, he has pitched some in the majors for three years.

“He is an underclassman pitching against upperclassmen,” said Baker. “The guys who didn’t sign out of high school the year Bailey did and went on to college, well, they’re just starting their pro careers and Homer is three or four years ahead of them.”

It wasn’t pretty or fun Saturday night watching Homer stagger and struggle with his command. Despite the seven walks in five innings, he gave up only three hits and the best party? He won. The Reds won, 7-3, beating the Cleveland Indians.

It was Bailey’s first win in the majors since September 30, 2007 against the Cubs and after the victory he said, “Truthfully, all I thought about today was getting a win. And thanks to great help from my teammates, I got that win and the team got that win. I was terrible, but we won, so who cares?”

What I like most about Bailey is how much he has changed as a person. His first four years he was short and snotty and condescending to the media. But either somebody got to him or he has matured. This year he is a delight - cooperative, smiling, throwing out good quotes, self-deprecating.

So I pull for him. I don’t cheer. That’s not allowed. But inside my gut, I’d like to see him succeed. He has had it rough, battling high expectations at a young age. A lot of kids would have folded, but Bailey hasn’t.

And here’s a tip. If you meet him, put your hands in your pockets. DO NOT shake hands with him. I shook hands with him today and my knuckles still ache. His grip would squeeze the head off a rattlesnake.

I’d like to say, “Homer, this Blue’s for you.” But after shaking hands with him, I can’t hold a beer.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2009/06/27/pulling_for_homer_baileys_succ.html

OnBaseMachine
06-28-2009, 01:45 AM
Baker said Bailey spoke of slippery baseballs and trouble getting the grip, and that Arthur Rhodes also mentioned a slippery ball the day before. Bailey said that was part of it, but not a major part.

“It must have been something in the air, because it definitely affected it,” Bailey said. “That’s really no excuse. I was just trying to be a little too fine, since I was barely missing.”

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3a6354e986-b467-4e22-84f8-7c71b7a4b0b0&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

reds44
06-28-2009, 01:58 AM
That was typical Homer. Color me unimpressed.

fearofpopvol1
06-28-2009, 02:02 AM
Ehh...you can't judge too much off of 1 start. Let's see how he does the next time or 2.

Matt700wlw
06-28-2009, 02:08 AM
It's the big show or bust.

He's got nothing left to prove in AAA...he can get them out and in dominant fashion.



He's here for a while due to injuries, regardless, so let's see what he can do.

redsfandan
06-28-2009, 02:15 AM
That was typical Homer. Color me unimpressed.
Which part were you unimpressed by? His line or his quotes? All the walks stink but it's 1 game. I have no problem with anything he said though. I'm not thinking of how he pitched for the Reds in the past. That's the past. He has July to convince us he belongs. Why not let him do that?

Patrick Bateman
06-28-2009, 03:02 AM
His stuff is waaay better than it's been during his other pit stops. The last few years his stuff has not looked particularly exciting. He was trowing 95 consistently with good movement on his breaking pitches.

The control obviously wasn't there, but I do think he was close early, and then got gassed with the high pitch counts every inning. I think under different circumstances he could have turned in a better linescore, but instead he was starting from behind most batters because he was missing by a bit early.

I takeaway that if his stuff remains that good, that based on his recent control improvements in the minors that he can start putting up some modicum of success from here on in. But for today, I don't think he was as bad as the 7 BB's and 2 K's suggests. Not at all.

Degenerate39
06-28-2009, 08:39 AM
For the most part I liked what we saw from Bailey last night. He was getting squeezed a tad last night. I'd say he very well could've had 4 BB's and 5 K's. I think he'll be fine in the majors and have a good year..

lollipopcurve
06-28-2009, 08:42 AM
I echo the positive stuff folks are saying -- improved velo, some nice breaking stuff, good composure in some tough situations, a small strike zone.

He needs to get a regular turn for awhile. You're not going to see what the future may hold unless he gets a good, long look. I have to say, I am skeptical of Dick Pole's ability to help develop Bailey -- I think it was Pole who wanted him to be a ground ball pitcher, and that went nowhere. A test of both parties is ahead.

BCubb2003
06-28-2009, 09:04 AM
Wasn't there a suspicion that some of the young pitchers were losing their velocity after they came up? I wonder if the coaches will try to cut down on Homer's walks again by having him drop his velocity, going for ground balls and canceling out his stuff. So he goes back to being hittable with fewer but still too many walks.

reds1869
06-28-2009, 09:14 AM
I'm not concerned by his walks last night. The stuff was there in a way it never has been, and many of those balls would have been strikes in a better strike zone. Both teams were getting squeezed last night.

redsfandan
06-28-2009, 09:22 AM
... I have to say, I am skeptical of Dick Pole's ability to help develop Bailey -- I think it was Pole who wanted him to be a ground ball pitcher, and that went nowhere. A test of both parties is ahead.
Don't mean to go off-topic but will some of the members, that are alot more knowledgeable about the development of pitchers than I, please explain why a coach/manager/organization would try to radically change a pitcher? I can understand wanting to make adjustments, especially if they make the pitchers mechanics less risky, but it just seems that a radical change could be the worse thing to do or could at least be an invitation for the pitcher to be with a different organization when/if they eventually succeed.

cincrazy
06-28-2009, 09:32 AM
I'm not thrilled with his lack of control, but if his stuff was as good as being reported, I'm pleased with the start. There's something to be said, especially at his age, about going out there without your best stuff and still pitching well. Seems like he did that. I don't think his recent AAA numbers are a fluke. The guy needs to be left up in the majors to sink or swim. No more pulling back and forth. If Volquez comes back, Mr. Owings, see you in long relief.

redsfan1966
06-28-2009, 10:02 AM
As one who has bashed Homer in the past -- let me give props. It was maddening watching Homer go 3 - 2 on nearly everyone after starting off 0 - 2 or 1 - 2 and give up his seven walks; but he got the job done. His velocity was impressive and his ability to get out of situations, though mostly self created, was also impressive. Leave him in there and see what happens after 4 or 5 starts. On a somewhat related note, Homer, Dickerson and Marty B apparently enjoyed the Rock and Roll H O F before the game; though not necessarily together....

SMcGavin
06-28-2009, 10:16 AM
I am really suprised at what I'm reading - Homer is getting the benefit of the doubt in a way that very few other Reds pitchers would. He was straight up awful last night, pretend he had four or five walks instead of seven if you thought he was getting squeezed, that is still awful.

Walks aren't the only problem though - if his stuff was so good last night, why did he only strike out two of the twenty four batters he faced?

I'm rooting for the guy and I suppose you have to give him a couple more starts now that he's here, but there's no way to spin last night into anything other than a disaster.

BCubb2003
06-28-2009, 10:21 AM
He was throwing harder than we've seen, his split-fingered was moving, but I suppose if the offense had scored like it does for Harang, we wouldn't be so cheerful today.

lollipopcurve
06-28-2009, 10:30 AM
but there's no way to spin last night into anything other than a disaster.

Depends on what your expectations are for a 22/23 year old...

He wasn't crazy wild. He was around the zone, and a lot of the time he was missing down -- good place to miss. Sometimes he got squeezed.

If you're unable to identify any positives in Bailey's outing last night, you probably aren't interested in finding them.

KoryMac5
06-28-2009, 10:33 AM
I am really suprised at what I'm reading - Homer is getting the benefit of the doubt in a way that very few other Reds pitchers would. He was straight up awful last night, pretend he had four or five walks instead of seven if you thought he was getting squeezed, that is still awful.

Walks aren't the only problem though - if his stuff was so good last night, why did he only strike out two of the twenty four batters he faced?

I'm rooting for the guy and I suppose you have to give him a couple more starts now that he's here, but there's no way to spin last night into anything other than a disaster.

I think folks are giving him the benefit of the doubt because they didn't just look at the boxscore in the paper. They watched the game and saw what they wanted to see, velocity, breaking stuff, a sign from above, anything that could give them hope that Homer still has a chance to be a good big league pitcher.

SirFelixCat
06-28-2009, 10:40 AM
I thought there were a lot of good things last night. As many have said, a lot of things to build on, going into his next start. I really hope we see him get 10 starts w/ the team and then we can see what the young man has. Yes there were too many walks, but great velocity and great movement. I'll take that, while keeping his composure when he could have imploded a few times...good stuff to build on for sure!

HokieRed
06-28-2009, 10:45 AM
I think he should get the benefit of the doubt because he's the key to being a real contender this season. IMO, the one and only chance this team has to win the division is for Homer to move the rotation up even one more level. So here's where you roll the dice.

nate
06-28-2009, 10:52 AM
I thought he had good stuff, not good control + an ump that was squeezing him a bit. Very nice velocity on the fastball too. He just needs to throw some strikes so he can set that splitter up.

At this point, putting him on the Louisville/Cinci yo-yo might be pointless. I think it'd be better for him to be up and stay up.

kpresidente
06-28-2009, 10:52 AM
Walks aren't the only problem though - if his stuff was so good last night, why did he only strike out two of the twenty four batters he faced?

If his stuff wasn't good, why did he only give up 3 hits?

SMcGavin
06-28-2009, 11:00 AM
If his stuff wasn't good, why did he only give up 3 hits?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=babip


BABIP is mostly a function of a pitcher's defense and luck, rather than persistent skill

Sea Ray
06-28-2009, 11:58 AM
I'm clearly not a Homer fan but I did like seeing that the Tribe had a hard time centering the ball on him. Sure his control was horrible but he's also been quite hittable in the past. I was glad to see that he wasn't "hittable" especially against a very good fastball hitting team.

I'm glad he won; it wasn't a good outing but it is something to build on. My observations of past Homer outings showed hitters getting good rips on him and looking very comfortable at the plate...kinda like our Reds hitters were last night. The Indians hitters really had their hands full with those 95-98 MPH FBs.

Let's hope Homer can stay in the rotation for awhile. It's up to him, not Dusty. If Homer pitches like he has previously and gives us ERAs in the 6-7 range he will get dropped. They can't afford those kinds of outings. If he can struggle along like last night he'll stay.

RedsManRick
06-28-2009, 12:06 PM
I'm not the most optimistic about Bailey, but we really should give him every opportunity to stick. When Volquez comes back, I'd try and find a spot for him in the pen if I had to. He's going to be with the major league club next year. Unless he's absolutely killing us out there, let's get him as much experience at this level as possible. Jerking him back and forth between Cincy and Louisville can't be doing any good.

alexad
06-28-2009, 12:07 PM
I thought Bailey looked pretty good. He worked out of a few jams and that speaks huge volumes. He also was throwing the ball 95-96 at times. Last year there was talk he lost the fast ball. He was locating his split finger, but the umpire was not giving him much of the plate. (That is an adjustment he will make with Hanny.) He was more frustrated that he was getting the pitch there and not the call. If he gets more of the calls, he goes at least another inning. If he keeps throwing to those spots, the umpires will start to give him the called strike.

He got the win and only gave up three hits. This is what we wanted right??? Baby steps this time around. He did not get rocked or lit up. Location location location. He will have to make the adjustments and I think he will do this.

He showed great stuff last night. To be a 5th starter right now in the rotation, I thought it was exactly what we wanted. It was by far better than Arroyo, Harang and Owings last outing.

Bailey needed this BAD. I think we see an even better Bailey out there next time.

TheNext44
06-28-2009, 12:37 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=babip


BABIP is mostly a function of a pitcher's defense and luck, rather than persistent skill

Another reason to end one's subscription with BP.
That is an outdated notion with most SABER guys. Not that is has been proven false, but there is a lot of controversy around it since Tippett published his findings. Really surprised that that is in a glossary.


From Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_independent_pitching_statistics


Tom Tippett at Diamond Mind published his own findings in 2003. Tippett concluded that the differences between pitchers in preventing hits on balls in play were at least partially the result of the pitcher's skill.[8] Tippett analyzed certain groups of pitchers that appear to be able to reduce the number of hits allowed on balls hit into the field of play (BHFP). Like McCracken, Tippett found that pitchers' BABIP was more volatile on an annual basis than the rates at which they gave up home runs or walks. It was this greater volatility that had led McCracken to conclude pitchers had "little or no control" over hits on balls in play. But Tippet also found large and significant differences between pitchers' career BABIP. In many cases, it was these differences that accounted for the pitchers' relative success. Many subsequent studies have been done, with varying conclusions.

Tony Cloninger
06-28-2009, 12:42 PM
All i see and from what i read...is that this is a guy....who with 2 strikes on a hitter.....and with a league average of below .200 BA in regards to that....gives up close to a .400 BA. Now you throw in that many walks...what happens the next start when he starts falling in love with how hard he can throws and starts getting beat around. He does not seem to be able to throw his other pitches for strikes.

I vary in my degree of patience with players....but this guy can barely get through 5 innings. Jack Armstrong 1988-89 like is what he is and just the same head trip like mannerisms.

TheNext44
06-28-2009, 12:53 PM
I didn't see the game, but heard it on XM Radio with the Indian's announcers. The only thing that I can add is that even they commented many times on how Bailey was not missing by much and getting squeezed.

From what I have seen in the past, my guess is that Bailey nibbles too much at first, doesn't get a few calls, then really tries to be too fine. A common problem for young pitchers.

If he can attack the plate to get early strikes, he has the stuff to put batters away.

Tony Cloninger
06-28-2009, 12:56 PM
I am all for letting him start as much as possible and see what he can continue to do.

I also believe MLB has to have some edict or non-written agreement with some of these umps to not widen the strike zone. They do not want to revert back to the 60's and with no pitchers being taught to throw the high..or letter high fastballs, that do not get called anyways.... you have small strike zones that do not help pitchers like Bailey.

jojo
06-28-2009, 01:19 PM
Another reason to end one's subscription with BP.
That is an outdated notion with most SABER guys. Not that is has been proven false, but there is a lot of controversy around it since Tippett published his findings. Really surprised that that is in a glossary.


From Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_independent_pitching_statistics

It is dramatically overstating Tippet's case to suggest that it's been proven that pitchers have control over the fate of a ball in play. Current data suggest that there is some reason to believe that some pitchers have a slight ability to affect BABIP but this effect, if it exists, must currently be considered very small.

It's possible that hit f/x data will begin to shed more light on this issue but as it stands, suggesting that pitchers have a significant effect on whether a ball in play becomes a hit or an out doesn't jive with available research. BP's definition of BABIP is spot on.

Last night Homer's command was atrocious and it certainly wasn't nearly good enough to be consistently successful in the majors. He's likely going to be up here for a while for better or worse so we don't have to judge him on just 5 innings. Last night though, Homer wasn't a major league caliber pitcher.

Patrick Bateman
06-28-2009, 01:26 PM
Walks aren't the only problem though - if his stuff was so good last night, why did he only strike out two of the twenty four batters he faced?


I'd say because he was behind in basically every count. It's pretty hard to get Ks without getting into some decent pitchers counts.

I think he was trying to be too fine yesterday, not really trusting his stuff, and in conjunction with the small strikezone, I think he got take to town a bit. I think he started really going bad around the 4th and 5th innings where he was clearly gassed.

It's 1 game, and his control had actually been pretty good for the last month in AAA. There's not that big a gap between AAA and the majors that one's walk rate should multiply by like 7. It was a bad game, in his first start back, I think there's actually decent reason to believe he'll turn things around this time.

Ltlabner
06-28-2009, 01:44 PM
It's only one game and since they've bungled his handling from the get-go you might as well keep running him out there and see what you have.

That said, I saw no difference in Homer v.4 from Homer v.3. Lots of nibbling, lots of walks, no confidence in stuff topped off with lots of muttering on the mound.

If we weren't playing the hapless Indians last night Homer would have been destroyed.

OnBaseMachine
06-28-2009, 01:47 PM
The Indians are terrible but it's not because of their offense. Their offense is third in the majors in runs scored.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 01:49 PM
It's only one game and since they've bungled his handling from the get-go you might as well keep running him out there and see what you have.

That said, I saw no difference in Homer v.4 from Homer v.3. Lots of nibbling, lots of walks, no confidence in stuff topped off with lots of muttering on the mound.

If we weren't playing the hapless Indians last night Homer would have been destroyed.

Few things.... Bailey isn't the only pitcher to complain about the condition of the baseballs this weekend, noting that they were slippery. Perhaps one of the reasons he was having problems locating?

Also, this 'hapless' Indians team ROCKED Aaron Harang the night before no?

I didn't watch the game last night, so I can't really comment on how things looked other than what PitchF/X is telling me (which is he got squeezed on about 7-9 pitches and was throwing HARD - FB avg 93.8 MPH).

Ltlabner
06-28-2009, 01:59 PM
Few things.... Bailey isn't the only pitcher to complain about the condition of the baseballs this weekend, noting that they were slippery. Perhaps one of the reasons he was having problems locating?


The list of reasons why Homer struggles continues to grow.

Maybe one day the reason will be "his talent level isn't ready for MLB baseball right now".

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 02:01 PM
The list of reasons why Homer struggles continues to grow.

Maybe one day the reason will be "his talent level isn't ready for MLB baseball right now".

If Homer were the only one who said something I wouldn't have even brought it up. But Arthur Rhodes had the same complaint the night before. Its just strange.

Ltlabner
06-28-2009, 02:05 PM
If Homer were the only one who said something I wouldn't have even brought it up. But Arthur Rhodes had the same complaint the night before. Its just strange.

Yet Homer is the only of the two to issue 7 walks.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 02:12 PM
Yet Homer is the only of the two to issue 7 walks.

Yeah, because Rhodes certainly would have had the chance :rolleyes:

I didn't watch the game. Bailey certainly had issues controlling the ball. I do think there may have been something to it though given the issues brought up by TWO of the Reds pitchers. He certainly hasn't had a problem finding the strikezone in the minors lately. We will know a little more in a few more days.

fearofpopvol1
06-28-2009, 03:57 PM
I'd say because he was behind in basically every count. It's pretty hard to get Ks without getting into some decent pitchers counts.

I think he was trying to be too fine yesterday, not really trusting his stuff, and in conjunction with the small strikezone, I think he got take to town a bit. I think he started really going bad around the 4th and 5th innings where he was clearly gassed.

It's 1 game, and his control had actually been pretty good for the last month in AAA. There's not that big a gap between AAA and the majors that one's walk rate should multiply by like 7. It was a bad game, in his first start back, I think there's actually decent reason to believe he'll turn things around this time.

I think this is spot on.

lollipopcurve
06-28-2009, 04:24 PM
He's likely going to be up here for a while for better or worse so we don't have to judge him on just 5 innings. Last night though, Homer wasn't a major league caliber pitcher.

Yeah, not going to judge him at all, the minor leaguer.

The stuff is major league, given the return to excellent fastball quality, OK slider and curve, and splitter with good upside. Hard to see where the "minor league" evaluation comes in, if we're not looking at the 5 innings in isolation.

Caveat Emperor
06-28-2009, 05:20 PM
The list of reasons why Homer struggles continues to grow.

Maybe one day the reason will be "his talent level isn't ready for MLB baseball right now".

I don't know how you can make that claim, considering that we've seen him for 2 spot-starts with a AAA demotion in the middle.

Maybe his talent is MLB-ready, but his comfort level at the majors isn't there yet. Certainly that would be impossible to tell based on an outing here, a demotion there, and another outing later. The Reds need to answer that question, because that answer will weigh heavily in the future formation of the 2010 Reds and beyond.

One thing is for certain -- an expectation of instant dominance is unfair to Homer and the team.

jojo
06-28-2009, 05:26 PM
Yeah, not going to judge him at all, the minor leaguer.

The stuff is major league, given the return to excellent fastball quality, OK slider and curve, and splitter with good upside. Hard to see where the "minor league" evaluation comes in, if we're not looking at the 5 innings in isolation.

It's pretty easy, if one makes a good faith effort to read and quote context faithfully....

Here's an important part that failed to make the above quote:


Last night Homer's command was atrocious and it certainly wasn't nearly good enough to be consistently successful in the majors.

Considering command is the first prerequisite for success as a starting pitcher in the majors, it's clear that the Homer from last night didn't rise above a very important threshold.

But seriously, the original post wasn't clear enough without an explanation?

RedEye
06-28-2009, 05:52 PM
Homer has had, what, 19 or 20 starts in the majors in his whole career?

I think there have been a lot of successful pitchers in the past who stunk it up for their first year or so. Sure, Homer's performance has been frustrating since he was anointed the "chosen one", but he also has yet to pitch a full season's worth of games in the show. Perhaps we should wait before jumping off the bandwagon just yet.

Ltlabner
06-28-2009, 06:01 PM
Maybe his talent is MLB-ready, but his comfort level at the majors isn't there yet.

One thing is for certain -- an expectation of instant dominance is unfair to Homer and the team.

I guess I consider confidence in your skills part of the overall rubric of talent. Maybe talent wasn't quite the right word to use in my post, but if Homer isn't comfortable in his skin out there then he's not ready to deal with MLB hitters. However you want to slice it, it's not good for the Reds.

I don't expect him to instantly dominate other teams, but what I saw last night wasn't any different that what we've seen from other versions of Homer. Lots of nibbling, lots of walks, lots of no confidence. Funny how all that swagger goes out the window when you aren't mowing down the hitters.

Like I said in my first post, we're stuck with Homer and we might as well see what we have. Running him up and down I71 isn't doing him or the Reds any favors.

TRF
06-28-2009, 06:15 PM
I agree with the notion that Bailey may not have anything to prove at AAA. That said, if EV weren't injured, I believe AAA is where he should be. It isn't about proving anything, it's about development. The Reds foolishly have cost Homer up to two years of development he probably needed. It forced him into a specific mindset when pitching at the big league level.

He needs AAA for comfort, repetition and development. That said, he's one of two options to replace EV, and Maloney pitched ok for a number 4-5. I'm a fan of Maloney, and I think he can be a solid #3, but Bailey earned the shot this time. In a perfect world, they are one of the best 1-2 punches at AAA for 2009 and both compete for spots in 2010. It ain't a perfect world.

TheNext44
06-28-2009, 06:23 PM
It is dramatically overstating Tippet's case to suggest that it's been proven that pitchers have control over the fate of a ball in play. Current data suggest that there is some reason to believe that some pitchers have a slight ability to affect BABIP but this effect, if it exists, must currently be considered very small.

It's possible that hit f/x data will begin to shed more light on this issue but as it stands, suggesting that pitchers have a significant effect on whether a ball in play becomes a hit or an out doesn't jive with available research.
BP's definition of BABIP is spot on.



First, not only did I not suggest that it's been proven that pitchers have control over the fate of a ball in play, I specifically said that it has not been proven. Here is the exact quote:


Not that is has been proven false, but there is a lot of controversy around it since Tippett published his findings

I just said that there is disagreement among intelligent people about this issue. That clearly is true. And I think that there is enough disagreement among enough well informed, intelligent people that it is wrong of BP to have that quote in their glossary.

A good amount of current data might suggest that "BABIP is mostly a function of a pitcher's defense and luck, rather than persistent skill," but there some data that suggest otherwise, and more importantly, there really is very little data on it, and definitely not enough to draw the firm conclusion that BP does.

As you stated:


It's possible that hit f/x data will begin to shed more light on this issue

This alone should mean that BP should not be printing that quote in a glossary. They are stating it as if it is fact, when it really is just opinion based on very limited data.

This is the biggest problem that I have with BP. They think they have solved baseball and all its mysteries, that they have all the answers. I believe that they once even wrote an article titled something like, "We already know everything we need to know about baseball stats."

I am a huge fan of Bill James and the most important quote he ever gave was that we are only at the very beginning of understand baseball stats and how they relate to the game. A little humility within the Saber community would go a long way to make their theories more acceptable to many baseball fans.

jojo
06-28-2009, 06:40 PM
First, not only did I not suggest that it's been proven that pitchers have control over the fate of a ball in play, I specifically said that it has not been proven. Here is the exact quote:



I just said that there is disagreement among intelligent people about this issue. That clearly is true. And I think that there is enough disagreement among enough well informed, intelligent people that it is wrong of BP to have that quote in their glossary.

A good amount of current data might suggest that "BABIP is mostly a function of a pitcher's defense and luck, rather than persistent skill," but there some data that suggest otherwise, and more importantly, there really is very little data on it, and definitely not enough to draw the firm conclusion that BP does.

As you stated:



This alone should mean that BP should not be printing that quote in a glossary. They are stating it as if it is fact, when it really is just opinion based on very limited data.

This is the biggest problem that I have with BP. They think they have solved baseball and all its mysteries, that they have all the answers. I believe that they once even wrote an article titled something like, "We already know everything we need to know about baseball stats."

I am a huge fan of Bill James and the most important quote he ever gave was that we are only at the very beginning of understand baseball stats and how they relate to the game. A little humility within the Saber community would go a long way to make their theories more acceptable to many baseball fans.

But there really isn't a disagreement absent new data necessitating the issue be revisited. It's not hubris on the part of the saber community to suggest that based upon what we know at this point, here is the conclusion.....

BABIP is one of the most volatile attributes for pitchers. To the extent a pitcher can control it, the selection likely occurs well before the majors.

Like I said earlier, perhaps hit f/x data can offer a new prism for looking at the issue but right not, there is little evidence to suggest major league pitchers are dramatically influencing the outcome of balls in play....

lollipopcurve
06-28-2009, 06:42 PM
But seriously, the original post wasn't clear enough without an explanation?

You can't have it both ways -- feigning objectivity by saying 5 innings is too little to judge him by, then suggesting that those 5 innings were "minor league."

His command was not atrocious, by the way. He was not missing badly -- he was generally missing low and around the target, not all over the place and away from the glove -- and he got squeezed on occasion.

To me, your evaluation is gratuitously harsh and stated in terms that reveal a complete lack of understanding of how close Bailey is to becoming a young major league starter with upside.

jojo
06-28-2009, 07:13 PM
You can't have it both ways -- feigning objectivity by saying 5 innings is too little to judge him by, then suggesting that those 5 innings were "minor league."

His command was not atrocious, by the way. He was not missing badly -- he was generally missing low and around the target, not all over the place and away from the glove -- and he got squeezed on occasion.

To me, your evaluation is gratuitously harsh and stated in terms that reveal a complete lack of understanding of how close Bailey is to becoming a young major league starter with upside.

He barely threw more strikes than balls ultimately walking 7 batters....

Suggesting his command wasn't acceptable last night not only doesn't seem harsh, it's intuitive regarding understanding what it takes to be a successful major league starting pitcher.

Then again, the comments clearly suggested 5 innings doesn't make Homer's fate so please quit couching them otherwise.

Brutus
06-28-2009, 07:27 PM
But there really isn't a disagreement absent new data necessitating the issue be revisited. It's not hubris on the part of the saber community to suggest that based upon what we know at this point, here is the conclusion.....

BABIP is one of the most volatile attributes for pitchers. To the extent a pitcher can control it, the selection likely occurs well before the majors.

Like I said earlier, perhaps hit f/x data can offer a new prism for looking at the issue but right not, there is little evidence to suggest major league pitchers are dramatically influencing the outcome of balls in play....

In replying to your post word for word, I can't say I disagree with anything. However, Next brought up an issue of semantics that your post (at least for me) illustrates perfectly - the attitude in which the saber community approaches the issue.

Do I think pitchers are largely responsible for what happens to balls in play? Naturally, I do not. However, I also feel like there have been many successful pitchers that have worked the strike zone, hit locations and gotten the kind of movement on their balls for an entire career to achieve the desired results when they were not missing bats. I think if you ask Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine if they had control over balls in the field of play, and they'd respond with a resounding 'yes.'

I guess my point is this: we know that line drives fall for hits more than fly balls and ground balls. Ground balls, ultimately, achieve the best results because A) you keep the ball in the park and B) you give your defense a better chance to field balls and get double-plays. If the stats show that the rate in which hits fall are different for line drives & ground balls, it goes without saying that pitchers that control what type of ball is hit would impact the outcome of their BABIP. To what degree is certainly an important and intriguing question.

Very rational and intelligent individuals feel there is still much evidence that pitchers do, to a degree, control these events. I think some individuals in the saber community outright dismiss these studies and sometimes stubbornly reject the possibility out of hand. However, I feel like there's a lot of "my stat is better than your stat" stuff going on. Heck, I can't say how many times I've seen respected individuals (many of who's work I admire) say something like "don't reinvent the wheel" to other folks trying to study something they've already studied - as if to say "I already know this so don't waste your time." I just think there's too much nose-thumbing within the community and not enough receptiveness to new ideas. Heck, just as the Earth was in fact found to be round, and just as OBP and slugging are more important than BA, it's not silly to think that we might find the breakthrough BIP studies may have exaggerated its position.

I pretty much agree with your stance. However, I think it's the tone of some out there in the community on the issue that rub people the wrong way. Baseball research has come a long way, clearly. I wonder sometimes, though, if some people have not been given a false sense of total understanding of the game of baseball.

TheNext44
06-28-2009, 07:58 PM
In replying to your post word for word, I can't say I disagree with anything. However, Next brought up an issue of semantics that your post (at least for me) illustrates perfectly - the attitude in which the saber community approaches the issue.

Do I think pitchers are largely responsible for what happens to balls in play? Naturally, I do not. However, I also feel like there have been many successful pitchers that have worked the strike zone, hit locations and gotten the kind of movement on their balls for an entire career to achieve the desired results when they were not missing bats. I think if you ask Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine if they had control over balls in the field of play, and they'd respond with a resounding 'yes.'

I guess my point is this: we know that line drives fall for hits more than fly balls and ground balls. Ground balls, ultimately, achieve the best results because A) you keep the ball in the park and B) you give your defense a better chance to field balls and get double-plays. If the stats show that the rate in which hits fall are different for line drives & ground balls, it goes without saying that pitchers that control what type of ball is hit would impact the outcome of their BABIP. To what degree is certainly an important and intriguing question.

Very rational and intelligent individuals feel there is still much evidence that pitchers do, to a degree, control these events. I think some individuals in the saber community outright dismiss these studies and sometimes stubbornly reject the possibility out of hand. However, I feel like there's a lot of "my stat is better than your stat" stuff going on. Heck, I can't say how many times I've seen respected individuals (many of who's work I admire) say something like "don't reinvent the wheel" to other folks trying to study something they've already studied - as if to say "I already know this so don't waste your time." I just think there's too much nose-thumbing within the community and not enough receptiveness to new ideas. Heck, just as the Earth was in fact found to be round, and just as OBP and slugging are more important than BA, it's not silly to think that we might find the breakthrough BIP studies may have exaggerated its position.

I pretty much agree with your stance. However, I think it's the tone of some out there in the community on the issue that rub people the wrong way. Baseball research has come a long way, clearly. I wonder sometimes, though, if some people have not been given a false sense of total understanding of the game of baseball.

Thanks for making my point much better than I ever could. Really insightful post.

:beerme:


I do agree that most pitchers do not have control over their BABIP, but enough do that BP should not be making that assertion, worded that way, in a glossary.


But back to the issue at hand. I think everyone can agree that if a pitcher has dominating stuff in an individual game, he can, and usually does suppress the numbers of hits in a game. I didn't see the game, but one can argue, based on the 3 hits and 7 walks, that Bailey had good stuff, which limited the number of hits, but could not control it, which lead to a pretty terrible game overall.

kpresidente
06-28-2009, 08:02 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=babip

That assumes an average strike zone.

jojo
06-28-2009, 09:51 PM
In replying to your post word for word, I can't say I disagree with anything. However, Next brought up an issue of semantics that your post (at least for me) illustrates perfectly - the attitude in which the saber community approaches the issue.

Do I think pitchers are largely responsible for what happens to balls in play? Naturally, I do not. However, I also feel like there have been many successful pitchers that have worked the strike zone, hit locations and gotten the kind of movement on their balls for an entire career to achieve the desired results when they were not missing bats. I think if you ask Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine if they had control over balls in the field of play, and they'd respond with a resounding 'yes.'

I guess my point is this: we know that line drives fall for hits more than fly balls and ground balls. Ground balls, ultimately, achieve the best results because A) you keep the ball in the park and B) you give your defense a better chance to field balls and get double-plays. If the stats show that the rate in which hits fall are different for line drives & ground balls, it goes without saying that pitchers that control what type of ball is hit would impact the outcome of their BABIP. To what degree is certainly an important and intriguing question.

Very rational and intelligent individuals feel there is still much evidence that pitchers do, to a degree, control these events. I think some individuals in the saber community outright dismiss these studies and sometimes stubbornly reject the possibility out of hand. However, I feel like there's a lot of "my stat is better than your stat" stuff going on. Heck, I can't say how many times I've seen respected individuals (many of who's work I admire) say something like "don't reinvent the wheel" to other folks trying to study something they've already studied - as if to say "I already know this so don't waste your time." I just think there's too much nose-thumbing within the community and not enough receptiveness to new ideas. Heck, just as the Earth was in fact found to be round, and just as OBP and slugging are more important than BA, it's not silly to think that we might find the breakthrough BIP studies may have exaggerated its position.

I pretty much agree with your stance. However, I think it's the tone of some out there in the community on the issue that rub people the wrong way. Baseball research has come a long way, clearly. I wonder sometimes, though, if some people have not been given a false sense of total understanding of the game of baseball.

This post taken from a Volquez thread back in April kind of sums my position on BABIP for pitchers...


Well just to keep it simple for pitchers, they don't have a great deal of control over the fate of a ball when it's put into play and generally pitchers BABIP will regress to .300. In other words, a pitcher's BABIP from a prior season is a poor predictor of his BABIP in a future season. This issue of having no control isn't exactly correct as pitchers have some level of control, it's just not measurable currently (maybe hit f/x will allow this to be refined) as it might take 4000 PAs for a deviation in BABIP from .300 to be considered significant. Thats roughly 6 years for a starting pitcher and possibly a career for a good reliever so you might appreciate how aging and injury among other things can greatly cloud this issue. Suffice it to say, that while there is reason to think a pitcher has some control over the fate of a batted ball, such control is very small.

For hitters, BABIP is more reproducible due to things such as BIP tendencies and foot speed (i.e. Ichiro will have a BABIP consistently greater than .300 because he gets so many infield hits). Generally concerning BABIP, LD>>GB>>FB meaning line drives more often drop for hits while flyballs will drop for hits less when they aren't leaving the yard.

Obviously a pitcher's BIP tendencies might be expected to effect his BABIP all things being equal for these same reasons. That said, while a flyball pitcher will tend to give up fewer hits than groundball pitcher on BIP, it's not been possible to identify groundball pitchers who can consistently have a lower BABIP on groundballs than other groundballs pitchers for instance.

Anyway, no need to apologize for those questions.....

Brutus
06-28-2009, 11:18 PM
For hitters, BABIP is more reproducible due to things such as BIP tendencies and foot speed (i.e. Ichiro will have a BABIP consistently greater than .300 because he gets so many infield hits). Generally concerning BABIP, LD>>GB>>FB meaning line drives more often drop for hits while flyballs will drop for hits less when they aren't leaving the yard.

Obviously a pitcher's BIP tendencies might be expected to effect his BABIP all things being equal for these same reasons. That said, while a flyball pitcher will tend to give up fewer hits than groundball pitcher on BIP, it's not been possible to identify groundball pitchers who can consistently have a lower BABIP on groundballs than other groundballs pitchers for instance.


Well, I'll say this:

Just to see if I could find any starting point, I ran correlation for all qualified pitchers from 2006-2008 of their BIPA to G/F ratio. I expected to find a decent correlation (.700-.750) between the two. It was definitely not the case.

I came up with a correlation between the two of just .200488.

I still think there's probably more to the story. But this was admittedly not what I expected to find. And I was not naive enough to think this hasn't been tested a thousand times over, but I had not really seen much in print on that kind of a study.

It might be that there is a small amount of control over it. How much does that amount affect? I'd like to see some of these studies that have been done. I see what the numbers suggest myself. I just am not sure I believe it's that easy (i.e., a product of simple chance with a little defense mixed in).

Sea Ray
06-29-2009, 09:53 AM
It seems to me that pitchers have a lot of control on BABIP. If a pitcher is giving up line drives then their BABIP will tend to be high. If they have a lot of movement on their pitches then batters will have a hard time centering the ball and they'll tend to pop out and ground out.

That's why batting tees like Jimmy Haynes have a career BABIP 30 pts higher than those guys who have late movement on their pitches like Jamie Moyer, Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux.

Take our own Bronson Arroyo. We've seen days when he's fooling hitters and they're not hitting the ball solidly and we've also seen days where he's a line drive machine. I think BABIP can reflect whether he's fooling the hitters or not. I don't think it shows whether he was lucky or not.

kaldaniels
06-29-2009, 10:00 AM
Why all the love for BABIP when for the most part those deeply involved in stats dismiss BA alone as not being high on the statistical food chain. What about OPSBIP....?

nate
06-29-2009, 10:29 AM
Why all the love for BABIP when for the most part those deeply involved in stats dismiss BA alone as not being high on the statistical food chain. What about OPSBIP....?

1. It's not "love," it's a statistic that measures how often a ball in play turns into a hit.

2. "Those deeply involved in stats" DO NOT dismiss BA. That is a strawman.

kaldaniels
06-29-2009, 10:50 AM
1. It's not "love," it's a statistic that measures how often a ball in play turns into a hit.

2. "Those deeply involved in stats" DO NOT dismiss BA. That is a strawman.

Is BA high on the statistical food chain in your mind? I never simply said they "dismiss it" I said they "dismiss it as not being high on the statistical food chain". Several times I have read where instead of showing BA when a batter comes to the plate, OPS would be much better. No need to go out of your way to deride my post, when the point of it is simply understood and no feelings were intended to be hurt with the original post. C'mon.

nate
06-29-2009, 11:43 AM
Is BA high on the statistical food chain in your mind? I never simply said they "dismiss it" I said they "dismiss it as not being high on the statistical food chain".

BA is the largest part of getting on base (and not making outs) so I'd have to say it's pretty high on the statistical food chain.


Several times I have read where instead of showing BA when a batter comes to the plate, OPS would be much better. No need to go out of your way to deride my post, when the point of it is simply understood and no feelings were intended to be hurt with the original post. C'mon.Fair enough. If you're asking why not use a stat like OPSBIP, I'm not sure it measures what it's name is. It would basically measure BABIP + SLG (no BB component of OBP because walks aren't balls in play) which I guess would tell one how hard balls in play get hit. So, if that's the stat you're looking for, I guess it's BABIP + SLG.

mth123
06-29-2009, 11:55 AM
Kal, I don't think Nate meant anything bad and neither do I, but let me take a crack at responding. BA is an incomplete picture since it ignores walks and treats all types of hits the same. Its not useless just not as good as other stats.

For its purpose, BA on Balls in Play is sufficent. By its very nature walks, K's and HR are excluded. Since walks are excluded the OBP portion of OPS would be roughly the same as BA. Since HR are excluded the Slugging % portion wouldn't be very meaningful in the context of what BABIP ls looking for. While it may be useful to differentiate doubles and triples from singles, the real purpose of BABIP is to evaluate a player against his own history to see if a career year is really an improved skill level or just more "hits falling in." It can also be used to see if a bad year was just "hits not falling." Adding the extra bases doesn't help much in that respect, but I do think hit type (fly balls, ground balls, line drives, etc.) need to be considered to utilize BABIP meaningfully.

traderumor
06-29-2009, 12:06 PM
I'm not sure that "lucky" or "unlucky" is descriptive of what BABIP is diagnosing in the first place. All it really seems to be diagnosing is the randomness of hit balls due to the nature of baseball.

nate
06-29-2009, 12:14 PM
I'm not sure that "lucky" or "unlucky" is descriptive of what BABIP is diagnosing in the first place. All it really seems to be diagnosing is the randomness of hit balls due to the nature of baseball.

Are "randomness" and "luck" two different things?

kaldaniels
06-29-2009, 12:48 PM
Kal, I don't think Nate meant anything bad and neither do I, but let me take a crack at responding. BA is an incomplete picture since it ignores walks and treats all types of hits the same. Its not useless just not as good as other stats.

For its purpose, BA on Balls in Play is sufficent. By its very nature walks, K's and HR are excluded. Since walks are excluded the OBP portion of OPS would be roughly the same as BA. Since HR are excluded the Slugging % portion wouldn't be very meaningful in the context of what BABIP ls looking for. While it may be useful to differentiate doubles and triples from singles, the real purpose of BABIP is to evaluate a player against his own history to see if a career year is really an improved skill level or just more "hits falling in." It can also be used to see if a bad year was just "hits not falling." Adding the extra bases doesn't help much in that respect, but I do think hit type (fly balls, ground balls, line drives, etc.) need to be considered to utilize BABIP meaningfully.

And thats exactly what I was looking for (what can I say, the strawman remark bothered me as I was asking a question, not at all wanting to take sides). What I was getting at though, as a measure of a pitcher getting hitters to hit the pitch the pitcher wants,...how about a stat that shows, when a ball is put in play, how many bases on average are acquired by the batter...maybe that is SLGBIP...I don't know. I don't know if it would even matter or if it would vary between pitchers. I would simply be interested to see the results between say, a Johnny Cueto 2009 and a Josh Fogg 2008. And even after that I would like to stack it up against a pitchers BABIP to see how it "correlates", if I am using the correct statistical term.

dougdirt
06-29-2009, 12:52 PM
And thats exactly what I was looking for (what can I say, the strawman remark bothered me as I was asking a question, not at all wanting to take sides). What I was getting at though, as a measure of a pitcher getting hitters to hit the pitch the pitcher wants,...how about a stat that shows, when a ball is put in play, how many bases on average are acquired by the batter...maybe that is SLGBIP...I don't know. I don't know if it would even matter or if it would vary between pitchers. I would simply be interested to see the results between say, a Johnny Cueto 2009 and a Josh Fogg 2008. And even after that I would like to stack it up against a pitchers BABIP to see how it "correlates", if I am using the correct statistical term.

There is a problem with that though because SLG is including HR's where BABIP isn't. So if you were to run the numbers to figure it out, be sure that you know that.

kaldaniels
06-29-2009, 01:05 PM
There is a problem with that though because SLG is including HR's where BABIP isn't. So if you were to run the numbers to figure it out, be sure that you know that.

For me and for the sake of my question, that is a good thing I think, as it allows/helps you to see how hard a pitcher is being hit when the batter does make contact.

mth123
06-29-2009, 01:15 PM
And thats exactly what I was looking for (what can I say, the strawman remark bothered me as I was asking a question, not at all wanting to take sides). What I was getting at though, as a measure of a pitcher getting hitters to hit the pitch the pitcher wants,...how about a stat that shows, when a ball is put in play, how many bases on average are acquired by the batter...maybe that is SLGBIP...I don't know. I don't know if it would even matter or if it would vary between pitchers. I would simply be interested to see the results between say, a Johnny Cueto 2009 and a Josh Fogg 2008. And even after that I would like to stack it up against a pitchers BABIP to see how it "correlates", if I am using the correct statistical term.

I think maybe you want ISO. It doesn't exclude HR or Ks, but it gives a pretty good indication of power for a hitter or extra bases allowed for a pitcher. Its (2B+3B*2+HR*3)/AB. A shorthand version would be slugging percentage minus BA. The lower the better. A guy whose ISO is 0 gave up all his hits as Singles. I guess you could exclude Homers from the BA and the ISO calculation as long as you exlcluded the HR AB as well. But I'm not sure the extra work would tell you much. ISO is available. What you want would require you to do the math.

mth123
06-29-2009, 01:18 PM
BTW, I'm not a stat guy nor do I play one on TV or message boards. Redsmanrick, Cyclone, Steel or JoJo (and many others) could probably guide you much better than I.

nate
06-29-2009, 01:20 PM
And thats exactly what I was looking for (what can I say, the strawman remark bothered me as I was asking a question, not at all wanting to take sides). What I was getting at though, as a measure of a pitcher getting hitters to hit the pitch the pitcher wants,...how about a stat that shows, when a ball is put in play, how many bases on average are acquired by the batter...maybe that is SLGBIP...I don't know. I don't know if it would even matter or if it would vary between pitchers. I would simply be interested to see the results between say, a Johnny Cueto 2009 and a Josh Fogg 2008. And even after that I would like to stack it up against a pitchers BABIP to see how it "correlates", if I am using the correct statistical term.

SLG against already exists. For example:

Fogg, 2008: .539
Cueto, 2009: .392

SLG on balls in play would, I think, be the same as SLG.

nate
06-29-2009, 01:24 PM
SLG against already exists. For example:

Fogg, 2008: .539
Cueto, 2009: .392

SLG on balls in play would, I think, be the same as SLG.

Actually, SLG on BIP would just be higher because it would strikeouts would take ABs out of the denominator.

nate
06-29-2009, 01:25 PM
Actually, SLG on BIP would just be higher because it would strikeouts would take ABs out of the denominator.

Don't you mean non ball in play outs?

nate
06-29-2009, 01:25 PM
Don't you mean non ball in play outs?

Yes, that's it, thanks!

kaldaniels
06-29-2009, 01:27 PM
SLG against already exists. For example:

Fogg, 2008: .539
Cueto, 2009: .392

SLG on balls in play would, I think, be the same as SLG.

But isn't SLG based somewhat on AB/PA...not solely balls put in play. If Cueto gives up 1 HR over the course of a game and strikes out the other 27 batters, his SLG against would be 1/28 while his SLB on balls in play would be 1.000. Now in that scenario we don't learn much of course, but again what I'm looking for is how hard a pitcher is hit when a batter makes contact. The end game of this stat might not be worthwhile, but it could shed some interesting light on some pitchers perhaps.

nate
06-29-2009, 01:58 PM
But isn't SLG based somewhat on AB/PA...not solely balls put in play. If Cueto gives up 1 HR over the course of a game and strikes out the other 27 batters, his SLG against would be 1/28 while his SLB on balls in play would be 1.000. Now in that scenario we don't learn much of course, but again what I'm looking for is how hard a pitcher is hit when a batter makes contact. The end game of this stat might not be worthwhile, but it could shed some interesting light on some pitchers perhaps.

Warning, public school math education on display!

Let's see:

SLG = Total bases / At bats.

In the above example, the SLG against is 4 / 28 or .143.

But the SLGBIP is 4 total bases (for the HR) / 1 (for the one ball in play) or 4.000. If it had been 4 singles, it would have been 4 total bases / 4 balls in play or 1.000.

If Cueto gives up the HR but "only" strikes out 10, then we get 4 total bases / 18 balls in play or .222 SLGBIP. SLG against remains the same at .143.

Yep, in my mismash of language above, this is what I was trying to say. That SLGBIP will likely be higher than SLG against because it eliminates non ball in play outs.

klw
06-29-2009, 02:03 PM
Thank you for the discussion. It is what I had hoped for here.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76320

Caveat Emperor
06-29-2009, 02:03 PM
While I do find the discussion fascinating, I would like to see this thread stay on the topic of Homer Bailey.

If you guys want to continue a discussion of BABIP, SLGBIP, OBPBIP, or even BIP Roberts, might not be a bad topic for a new thread.

Much thanks.

Ltlabner
06-29-2009, 03:05 PM
I'd like to nominate Nate for an RZ award for "Best Conversation With Oneself on An Internet Forum".

Simply brilliant work my friend.

Cedric
06-29-2009, 03:37 PM
I've never seen a pitcher work slower than Homer in every way. Works incredibly slow and his delivery is way too long. Confidence is the biggest thing in every sport and Homer doesn't show it with his work rate, IMO.