PDA

View Full Version : Monitoring Homer: The Verducci Effect



LoganBuck
08-24-2009, 11:28 PM
Homer Bailey has just crossed into uncharted waters in terms of innings pitched.
His previous high was 147 last year. He just hit 152. He has approx 8 starts left, if he makes them all. Will the Reds ease up on him, or will they continue with the machismo crap. I have no doubt that Dusty will continue to "teach" him how to go deep into games.

Brutus
08-24-2009, 11:40 PM
Homer Bailey has just crossed into uncharted waters in terms of innings pitched.
His previous high was 147 last year. He just hit 152. He has approx 8 starts left, if he makes them all. Will the Reds ease up on him, or will they continue with the machismo crap. I have no doubt that Dusty will continue to "teach" him how to go deep into games.

Problem is, Bailey is almost out of options. The Reds have to get this guy ready because heading into next season, I believe he has to make the team out of spring training or be traded or released. So at this juncture, you have to stretch him out and get as much as you can in hopes he's ready for next year.

Highlifeman21
08-24-2009, 11:55 PM
I'm sure The Dusty thinks this about The Homer


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQvB6OjHOU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3 Fq%3Drocky%2Bi%2Bwill%2Bbreak%2Byou%26hl%3Den%26em b%3D0%26aq%3Df&feature=player_embedded

mbgrayson
08-25-2009, 01:15 AM
In April this year Verducci red-flagged ten pitchers (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/04/07/yearafter.effect/index.html), none of them Reds:


This year I red-flagged 10 pitchers -- and the list includes some of the greatest young arms in the game. Here are those pitchers and the innings jumps that put them on the list (innings totals include major, minor and postseason innings; in some cases, the previous pro high occurred in a season other than 2007):

Player Team Age 2008 Previous High Difference
1. Jon Lester Red Sox 25 237 153.2 +83.1
2. Cole Hamels Phillies 25 262.1 183.1 +79
3. Chad Billingsley Dodgers 24 212.1 160.2 +51.2
4. Tim Lincecum Giants 24 227 177.1 +49.2
5. Clayton Kershaw Dodgers 21 171 122 +49
6. Dana Eveland A's 25 189 140.2 +48.1
7. Mike Pelfrey Mets 25 200.2 152.2 +48
8. John Danks White Sox 23 201.2 156 +45.2
9. Jair Jurrjens Braves 23 188.1 143.1 +45
10. Jon Niese Mets 22 178 137.1 +40.2

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/04/07/yearafter.effect/index.html#ixzz0PARmykME


This 'year after' effect really ought to have our attention. We have nothing to gain by over-extending Homer this season, why risk it?

In case you haven't seen this discussed before, what people call the Verducci Effect is defined as a "rule of thumb that pitchers 25 and under are at risk of injury or significant regression in the year after their clubs boost their workload by 30 or more innings." In past seasons, this has turned out to be a very accurate rule of thumb.

Of course with Homer's stats being what they are, I am not sure regression is much of a risk. If he regresses from where he is now, he won't be playing major league ball....

WMR
08-25-2009, 02:48 AM
When he hits 175 they should shut him down.

mth123
08-25-2009, 06:27 AM
Problem is, Bailey is almost out of options. The Reds have to get this guy ready because heading into next season, I believe he has to make the team out of spring training or be traded or released. So at this juncture, you have to stretch him out and get as much as you can in hopes he's ready for next year.

Baloney. As bad as he's been, he's got stuff and is the best option to be the number 4 starter next year. If he pitches 175 Innings this year he'll be sufficiently prepared. The leap in 2010 would allow him to pitch 200 innings and that should be fine. Push him too far this year and sideline him with an arm injury and his options won't matter. Keeping these guys healthy has to be priority number 1.

This whole "out of options" thing is the most overblown thing in baseball. It might matter for bordeline guys who project as bench players and middle relievers, but Bailey is still the most promising starter in the system with the possible exception of Cueto (and the injured Volquez). The Reds won't lose him over options when the alternatives to put ahead of him include Micah Owings, Justin Lehr, Matt Maloney and Ramon Ramirez. Even if the Reds can find a way to add a starter, he's still clearly ahead of those guys and the obvious number 5. If he pitches poorly and needs a break and some time to regroup, he'll hit the DL and go spend time rehabbing in AAA for a while. If 2010 turns out to be another year with no progress, then it may be time to worry about him being out of options. Heck with the injuries this year, Bailey is the number 2 starter right now.

Always Red
08-25-2009, 06:44 AM
Let's just shut everyone down.

Then no one would get hurt.

reds1869
08-25-2009, 07:28 AM
Let's just shut everyone down.

Then no one would get hurt.

Oh, they'd find a way. The Reds always find a way.

edabbs44
08-25-2009, 09:18 AM
Homer needs to gain some confidence. Let him throw and get the experience. It seems like his head is more of an issue than his arm, so if he can build up some momentum going into next year it can only help.

bucksfan2
08-25-2009, 09:32 AM
Homer Bailey has just crossed into uncharted waters in terms of innings pitched.
His previous high was 147 last year. He just hit 152. He has approx 8 starts left, if he makes them all. Will the Reds ease up on him, or will they continue with the machismo crap. I have no doubt that Dusty will continue to "teach" him how to go deep into games.

Over the next few years, he should enter uncharted waters every year. This isn't much of a big deal, unless Homer starts working late into every game he pitches from now on out. That would be a good thing as well, huh?

blumj
08-25-2009, 10:08 AM
The problem with the Verducci Effect is that IP is almost an absurdly crude way to measure a pitcher's workload, many of the injuries the increased workload is credited to are not even pitching related, and the act of pitching at all tends to cause injuries to pitchers on a reasonably consistent basis in general. That's not to say that I don't buy into the general idea, there seems to be some good reason to believe that younger pitchers aren't physically able to withstand large workload increases, just that using +30 IP or anything that relies on IP to measure a pitcher's workload, and possibly even relying on chronological age, strikes me as likely to be pretty useless.


Oh, and for the record, Jon Lester's +84 IP is inaccurate, and he appears to be pitching better this season than he ever has before.

kaldaniels
08-25-2009, 01:40 PM
Let him go 180-185 this year and then we are done babying him.

Bumstead
08-25-2009, 02:46 PM
The Reds have nothing to gain by allowing Bailey to start the rest of the year (or bringing Cueto back off the DL). Let Bailey make 2 more starts and then bring up Maloney to finish out the season (or Ramirez).

Bum

pedro
08-25-2009, 02:55 PM
As long as Homer is healthy he has more to gain by pitching than not at this point. This screams to me just another reason for folks on RZ to whine about how stupid the Reds are.

Brutus
08-25-2009, 03:05 PM
Baloney. As bad as he's been, he's got stuff and is the best option to be the number 4 starter next year. If he pitches 175 Innings this year he'll be sufficiently prepared. The leap in 2010 would allow him to pitch 200 innings and that should be fine. Push him too far this year and sideline him with an arm injury and his options won't matter. Keeping these guys healthy has to be priority number 1.

This whole "out of options" thing is the most overblown thing in baseball. It might matter for bordeline guys who project as bench players and middle relievers, but Bailey is still the most promising starter in the system with the possible exception of Cueto (and the injured Volquez). The Reds won't lose him over options when the alternatives to put ahead of him include Micah Owings, Justin Lehr, Matt Maloney and Ramon Ramirez. Even if the Reds can find a way to add a starter, he's still clearly ahead of those guys and the obvious number 5. If he pitches poorly and needs a break and some time to regroup, he'll hit the DL and go spend time rehabbing in AAA for a while. If 2010 turns out to be another year with no progress, then it may be time to worry about him being out of options. Heck with the injuries this year, Bailey is the number 2 starter right now.

It's not baloney, it's reality. Having options versus being out of options is a real obstacle teams face with everyone that is not yet established. The Reds will not be able to demote Bailey next year if he does not fare well. So this is the the last chance at the MLB level for him to iron out all of his kinks.

If 175 innings is acceptable to you, then we really don't have too much of a problem here. He's in line for 7 - maybe 8 more starts. If he averages 6 IP per start, that would put him right in the 185-190 range. So we're really not overshooting the mark very much.

mbgrayson
08-25-2009, 03:30 PM
The problem with the Verducci Effect is that IP is almost an absurdly crude way to measure a pitcher's workload, many of the injuries the increased workload is credited to are not even pitching related, and the act of pitching at all tends to cause injuries to pitchers on a reasonably consistent basis in general. That's not to say that I don't buy into the general idea, there seems to be some good reason to believe that younger pitchers aren't physically able to withstand large workload increases, just that using +30 IP or anything that relies on IP to measure a pitcher's workload, and possibly even relying on chronological age, strikes me as likely to be pretty useless.

The other problem with the Verducci effect is which innings to count. Generally, spring training games are not counted, simulated games are not counted, winter ball is not counted (and if it were, which season do you add the innings onto?), and World Baseball Classic innings are not counted.

However. Verducci himself refers to this as only a rule of thumb.

If I were in charge, I would use Homer carefully as he nears 30+ innings over last year. I see no reason to risk it, and I wouldn't be afraid to shut him down.

Sea Ray
08-25-2009, 03:40 PM
I don't see that this list of ten has had an inordinate amount of unjuries

SMcGavin
08-25-2009, 06:08 PM
Baloney. As bad as he's been, he's got stuff and is the best option to be the number 4 starter next year. If he pitches 175 Innings this year he'll be sufficiently prepared. The leap in 2010 would allow him to pitch 200 innings and that should be fine. Push him too far this year and sideline him with an arm injury and his options won't matter. Keeping these guys healthy has to be priority number 1.

This whole "out of options" thing is the most overblown thing in baseball. It might matter for bordeline guys who project as bench players and middle relievers, but Bailey is still the most promising starter in the system with the possible exception of Cueto (and the injured Volquez). The Reds won't lose him over options when the alternatives to put ahead of him include Micah Owings, Justin Lehr, Matt Maloney and Ramon Ramirez. Even if the Reds can find a way to add a starter, he's still clearly ahead of those guys and the obvious number 5. If he pitches poorly and needs a break and some time to regroup, he'll hit the DL and go spend time rehabbing in AAA for a while. If 2010 turns out to be another year with no progress, then it may be time to worry about him being out of options. Heck with the injuries this year, Bailey is the number 2 starter right now.

Bailey is clearly ahead of Maloney?

2009 AAA:
Maloney 7.9 K/9, 1.5 BB/9
Bailey 8.2 K/9, 2.7 BB/9

2009 MLB:
Maloney 5.09 xFIP, 7.1 K/9, 2.5 BB/9
Bailey 5.45 xFIP, 5.4 K/9, 4.6 BB/9

Maloney's better than Bailey, and he always has been. I wouldn't necessarily put Bailey ahead of Owings either, they are both pretty equally bad. If I had to choose between those two I suppose I'd take Bailey since he might get better one day. But Homer has done absolutely nothing to deserve a 2010 rotation spot. We are really worrying about making sure the guy with the 6.77 career ERA is ready to give us 200 innings next year?

mth123
08-25-2009, 06:19 PM
Bailey is clearly ahead of Maloney?

2009 AAA:
Maloney 7.9 K/9, 1.5 BB/9
Bailey 8.2 K/9, 2.7 BB/9

2009 MLB:
Maloney 5.09 xFIP, 7.1 K/9, 2.5 BB/9
Bailey 5.45 xFIP, 5.4 K/9, 4.6 BB/9

Maloney's better than Bailey, and he always has been. I wouldn't necessarily put Bailey ahead of Owings either, they are both pretty equally bad. If I had to choose between those two I suppose I'd take Bailey since he might get better one day. But Homer has done absolutely nothing to deserve a 2010 rotation spot. We are really worrying about making sure the guy with the 6.77 career ERA is ready to give us 200 innings next year?

Don't buy it. Maloney's a AAAA arm same as Lecure and Ramirez. Bailey has good stuff into the late innings. He's taking his lumps now and I agree with whoever said his problem is his head. He's 23 so I don't worry about that so much yet. Lots of 23 year olds have head issues. Bailey grew up a lot this year and next year he'll be even more mature while Maloney will still throw 87 MPH.

GAC
08-25-2009, 07:34 PM
Baloney. As bad as he's been, he's got stuff and is the best option to be the number 4 starter next year. If he pitches 175 Innings this year he'll be sufficiently prepared. The leap in 2010 would allow him to pitch 200 innings and that should be fine. Push him too far this year and sideline him with an arm injury and his options won't matter. Keeping these guys healthy has to be priority number 1.

This whole "out of options" thing is the most overblown thing in baseball. It might matter for bordeline guys who project as bench players and middle relievers, but Bailey is still the most promising starter in the system with the possible exception of Cueto (and the injured Volquez). The Reds won't lose him over options when the alternatives to put ahead of him include Micah Owings, Justin Lehr, Matt Maloney and Ramon Ramirez. Even if the Reds can find a way to add a starter, he's still clearly ahead of those guys and the obvious number 5. If he pitches poorly and needs a break and some time to regroup, he'll hit the DL and go spend time rehabbing in AAA for a while. If 2010 turns out to be another year with no progress, then it may be time to worry about him being out of options. Heck with the injuries this year, Bailey is the number 2 starter right now.

I agree. Pitch the kid! This "coddling" of pitchers today simply amazes me. And no, that shouldn't be interpreted as abusing them. But what is abuse?

VR
08-25-2009, 08:00 PM
Do his Spring Training pitches count?

cincrazy
08-25-2009, 08:59 PM
Bailey is clearly ahead of Maloney?

2009 AAA:
Maloney 7.9 K/9, 1.5 BB/9
Bailey 8.2 K/9, 2.7 BB/9

2009 MLB:
Maloney 5.09 xFIP, 7.1 K/9, 2.5 BB/9
Bailey 5.45 xFIP, 5.4 K/9, 4.6 BB/9

Maloney's better than Bailey, and he always has been. I wouldn't necessarily put Bailey ahead of Owings either, they are both pretty equally bad. If I had to choose between those two I suppose I'd take Bailey since he might get better one day. But Homer has done absolutely nothing to deserve a 2010 rotation spot. We are really worrying about making sure the guy with the 6.77 career ERA is ready to give us 200 innings next year?

I'm not going to deny that Maloney has had a better minor league career than Bailey. Well, more consistent anyways. But Homer Bailey>Matt Maloney. Bailey, particularly this year, has had legit stuff, top of the rotation stuff. Matt Maloney has bottom of the rotation stuff, if that.

REDREAD
08-26-2009, 02:00 PM
The problem with the Verducci Effect is that IP is almost an absurdly crude way to measure a pitcher's workload, many of the injuries the increased workload is credited to are not even pitching related, and the act of pitching at all tends to cause injuries to pitchers on a reasonably consistent basis in general.

Yep, another 8 starts (or whatever) this year is not going to kill Homer.
If he ends up getting hurt, it would've probably happened anyway.
Nice post.

LoganBuck
08-29-2009, 01:35 PM
8 innings more to total 160
115 more pitches

And looked darn good doing it.

Highlifeman21
08-29-2009, 01:50 PM
8 innings more to total 160
115 more pitches

And looked darn good doing it.

Probably the best start of his career.

Hopefully we'll see more of them.

mth123
08-29-2009, 02:06 PM
8 innings more to total 160
115 more pitches

And looked darn good doing it.

He's growing up. Gotta keep him healthy. I've read many of the criticisms of the Verducci effect and some make a lot of sense to me, but if there is evidence that the 30 or so inning progression might be related to keeping pitchers healthy (and violoating it increases incidence of injury), why take chances? The Reds have done such a poor job of developing and keeping young pitchers healthy, I'd follow any advice that seems to have a positive impact on keeping these guys on the mound.

Homer, Cueto and Bruce are the keys to this team's immediate future. There's no money to buy or trade for vets to move this team forward and the lower impact kids are only guys to fill spots for cheap. This team needs its high ceiling young players to come through to have any kind of chance. Why risk it?

SMcGavin
08-29-2009, 02:07 PM
Probably the best start of his career.

Hopefully we'll see more of them.

Yep, that was fantastic. Keep it up Homer.

DoogMinAmo
08-29-2009, 02:08 PM
Yep, another 8 starts (or whatever) this year is not going to kill Homer.
If he ends up getting hurt, it would've probably happened anyway.
Nice post.

He looked good until the 8th, where he was over compensating for his fatigue, throwing as hard as he could, and elevating in the strike zone. I was ticked at Dusty for leaving him in for the eighth, educational justification or not. Add in that he learned an arm-taxing pitch this year, and is putting that strain on his arm for the first time, and there is real concern for injury.

He has a load of talent, but a ton to learn still too. Just as important as going deep in individual games is to know when your body is telling you enough is enough. Marathon not sprint.

EDIT: sorry redread, not really meant towards you, quoted wrong poster.

OnBaseMachine
08-29-2009, 02:19 PM
Homer was fantastic last night. That's two very good starts in a row with hopefully more to come. In order for the Reds to have any chance at contending in 2010 they need Homer to step up and be at least an average starter next season. Let's hope Homer is starting to figure things out...

Matt700wlw
08-29-2009, 02:23 PM
Trade him! Value is high!!!


(kidding....:D)

Highlifeman21
08-29-2009, 02:35 PM
Trade him! Value is high!!!


(kidding....:D)

He wouldn't make it through waivers.

If he did, however....

PuffyPig
08-29-2009, 02:52 PM
Bailey is clearly ahead of Maloney?


Maloney's better than Bailey, and he always has been.

Maybe at AAA, but he won't be in the majors.

OnBaseMachine
08-29-2009, 04:30 PM
Homer Bailey: The 98 MPHer is back
By Hal McCoy | Saturday, August 29, 2009, 02:10 PM

When the Cincinnati Reds signed Homer Bailey, they said he threw 98 miles an hour. After he zoomed through the minors and finally showed up at Great American Ball Park, the clock showed him topping out at 94.

The natural indication was to wrinkle your face and say, “Ah, the Reds. Liar, liar pants on fire. Where’s the 98? The only 98 he has is probably that Oldsmobile 98 parked in his grandfather’s barn in Texas.

So now it is 2009 and Bailey is throwing 98. The clock shows it. It’s legit.

So I put the question to Bailey in the dugout Saturday afternoon after he dazzled the Dodgers with a steady supply of 98 miles an hour fastballs Friday night while shutting them out for eight innings.

“Where did that 98 come from? The last couple of years you couldn’t break 94 and they always told us you threw 98.”

Then Bailey told an amazing tale.

“Last off season, when I first started to get on the mound, my agent told me, ‘Go see Skip Johnson, he is the pitching coach at the University of Texas,’” said Bailey. “I thought, ‘I ain’t got nothing to lose, because things aren’t looking so good.’”

Bailey was 0-6 with a 7.93 ERA in eight starts with the Reds and things had to start looking up before they even reached the level of bad.

“So I went for one bullpen and he was telling me try this and try this,” said Bailey. “The whole time I’m kind of like, ‘All right, Homer, keep doing it. It feels funny and it feels different.’ So he told me to come back in a couple of days and throw another bullpen.

“And he gave me some drills to do at home before I went back and I kept doing them,” Bailey continued, completely and deeply into telling this amazing story. “I went back for the the next bullpen and the ball just jumped out of my hand and I just stared at it. I threw three pitches and said to myself, ‘It’s back.’”

Bailey still talks often with Johnson and told him, “I don’t know what the hell you’re doing, but it’s working. Everything is coming out hotter.”

And what happened before, when he threw 98 and it sunk to 94?

“I have no clue where it went,” he said. “I thought there was something wrong with my shoulder or elbow. My groin bugged me and I thought maybe that was it. But it really wasn’t. Just a little mechanical change. If you look at it on video it’s not that really different. You have to have somebody who is there right on you to see the difference.

“It’s the tempo, the way everything loads,” Bailey said. “I knew after that second bullpen and said to myself, ‘This is going to be fun again.’ After that, I had eight or nine sessions before spring training and every time it got just a little better and a little better.”

That, too, explains a lot. For the previous two seasons Bailey had been a sullen kid who snapped at the media and was short with his answers. If I had asked him two years about about throwing 94, he would have said something like, “So.”

The first day of spring training this year, I was walking toward the front door of the complex when somebody behind me yelled, “Hey, Hal. How’ya doing.” I turned around and the only person I saw was Homer Bailey. I looked for somebody else because Homer Bailey would never initiate a conversation with me.

It was Homer, obviously a pumped up Homer who has been given new life. And he has been a delight all season with humorous and pithy quotes, a guy with a permanent smile and a guy willing to exchange barbs and gags with the writers.

Anyway, welcome back Homer, and welcome back that 98 miles an hour fastball.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2009/08/29/homer_bailey_the_98_mpher_is_b.html?cxtype=feedbot

membengal
08-29-2009, 04:48 PM
Ahem.

A pitching coach who makes adjustments?

Ahem.

MikeS21
08-29-2009, 04:51 PM
I have been a loud critic of Homer pretty much since he signed. But I watched him last night and he pitched about as good a game as I have seen. Great location. Good movement. Challenging hitters. A LOT of first pitch strikes and getting ahead in the counts. And the kid was still throwing 96-98 in in the 8th inning.

Last night, he showed me something I haven't really seen before. Homer Bailey has all the necessary physical tools that it takes to be a major league pitcher. He did it against a very good offensive team.

As others have said, at this point, it's all in Homer's head. I would love to see next spring for the Reds bring in someone like Tom Seaver or some ex-major league pitcher who knows the "brain-game" part of pitching and spend some quality one-on-one time with Bailey. They talk about how to set up hitters, how to work out of jams, etc. That would go a long way towards the mental game aspect of it for Homer.

Bailey showed me last night he has the physical tools and ability to win at this level. Once he masters the mental element, he will be the complete package.

Caveat Emperor
08-29-2009, 05:01 PM
Ahem.

A pitching coach who makes adjustments?

Ahem.

My thoughts exactly.

Highlifeman21
08-29-2009, 05:02 PM
Gotta love how Homer's agent knows that Dick Pole is a waste of space since donning a Reds uniform.

VR
08-29-2009, 05:06 PM
Pitching coaches can't really help though.

Degenerate39
08-29-2009, 05:12 PM
Let me get this straight. The Reds call Mario Soto to work with Volquez and Cueto. Bailey's agent calls a college pitching coach to help Homer. That's got to tell you something about Dick Pole.

mth123
08-29-2009, 05:17 PM
Let me get this straight. The Reds call Mario Soto to work with Volquez and Cueto. Bailey's agent calls a college pitching coach to help Homer. That's got to tell you something about Dick Pole.

Greg Maddux still likes him.

Matt700wlw
08-29-2009, 05:35 PM
The Reds could use a pitching coach...Richard ain't getting it done.

SMcGavin
08-29-2009, 08:11 PM
Maybe at AAA, but he won't be in the majors.

You left out the numbers from my post showing that Maloney had been better than Bailey in the majors (admittedly it's a very small sample size). That's kind of the whole point.

Homer's gem last night makes the peripherals from those two a lot closer though. Bailey's got the higher ceiling, I've never disputed that. I hope he gets there one day.

mth123
08-29-2009, 09:10 PM
You left out the numbers from my post showing that Maloney had been better than Bailey in the majors (admittedly it's a very small sample size). That's kind of the whole point.

Homer's gem last night makes the peripherals from those two a lot closer though. Bailey's got the higher ceiling, I've never disputed that. I hope he gets there one day.

And the peripheral you left out that says maybe Homer was better all along is HR/9. Maloney now at 8 HR in 23.666 IP. That's roughly 65 HR over a 200 IP season and there is no way a pitcher can survive like that. Bailey at 10 HR in 70 IP (still not awesome but within range of what many pitchers who do very well do). Its not close and Maloney's 87 MPH 4 seamer just won't do. Throw in age and its just not really a comparison.

Brutus
08-29-2009, 09:30 PM
I've been non-committal about Pole to this point. I've taken the stance that I can't fairly judge a pitching coach from a distance. However, this speaks volumes that Homer had to go outside the organization to correct an issue he was having. Why it took a Texas pitching coach to diagnose a loss in velocity is beyond me.

Sea Ray
08-29-2009, 09:34 PM
I think it's clear both Pole and Jacoby have to go. If they don't I'll question whether they really want to make the moves necessary to improve this team

fearofpopvol1
08-30-2009, 03:04 AM
I think it's clear both Pole and Jacoby have to go. If they don't I'll question whether they really want to make the moves necessary to improve this team

it's the dusty's call and i don't see him making that call.

WebScorpion
08-30-2009, 03:25 AM
I think it's very difficult for any one coach to be able to help every player under his tutelage. Sometimes it takes another eye or a different way of looking at the problem ... you never can tell. On the whole, I haven't seen many cases that Pole seems to help and in this case it appears at best he neglected Bailey. If he couldn't solve the problems, he should have sought outside help...you can't just give up on a promising young arm like Bailey, especially considering he's got a major league drive and work ethic. It seems a change might be in the team's best interest. I wonder if the Reds would consider offering Skip Johnson the job? He probably wouldn't take it, (I think he likes being close to home,) but it would be worth a shot. The guy has a fantastic record coaching young pitchers, and we happen to have a few of those. :thumbup:

Chip R
08-30-2009, 08:44 AM
I wonder if the Reds would consider offering Skip Johnson the job? He probably wouldn't take it, (I think he likes being close to home,) but it would be worth a shot. The guy has a fantastic record coaching young pitchers, and we happen to have a few of those. :thumbup:


Why would he want to A: Leave a successful organization, B: Leave a manager/coach who knows what he's doing and C: Take a pay cut?

SMcGavin
08-30-2009, 11:48 AM
And the peripheral you left out that says maybe Homer was better all along is HR/9. Maloney now at 8 HR in 23.666 IP. That's roughly 65 HR over a 200 IP season and there is no way a pitcher can survive like that. Bailey at 10 HR in 70 IP (still not awesome but within range of what many pitchers who do very well do). Its not close and Maloney's 87 MPH 4 seamer just won't do. Throw in age and its just not really a comparison.

I left it out because HR/9 is a pretty crappy metric. Maloney's HR/F is 22.9%. That's not even close to being sustainable. Maloney will give up more HR than your average guy because he gives up more fly balls than most, but his HR/9 is not going to stay anywhere near where it is now.

xFIP isn't perfect but I think it's a pretty good quick and dirty way to get a defense free, luck free snapshot of how somebody is pitching. Right now Maloney is at 5.01, Bailey 5.14. If you don't think the comparison between the two is worth making - you're entitled to your opinion but I have to wonder what you are looking at.

Sea Ray
08-30-2009, 12:01 PM
it's the dusty's call and i don't see him making that call.

I agree with where you're coming from. I fear Dusty's loyalty to these guys will work to the detriment of our Reds. Cast has some big decisions to make.
If he doesn't make the right ones this whole ship may go down in mid 2010

WMR
08-30-2009, 12:07 PM
Dick Pole is a clown. At least we know he'll be heading into retirement well rested.

mth123
08-30-2009, 12:30 PM
I left it out because HR/9 is a pretty crappy metric. Maloney's HR/F is 22.9%. That's not even close to being sustainable. Maloney will give up more HR than your average guy because he gives up more fly balls than most, but his HR/9 is not going to stay anywhere near where it is now.

xFIP isn't perfect but I think it's a pretty good quick and dirty way to get a defense free, luck free snapshot of how somebody is pitching. Right now Maloney is at 5.01, Bailey 5.14. If you don't think the comparison between the two is worth making - you're entitled to your opinion but I have to wonder what you are looking at.

Where we differ is that I don't believe BABIP or HR/FB is all attributable to luck. I think an 87 MPH fastball leaves no room for error and when a minor mistake is made, its going to go a long way when the guy is a fly ball pitcher. I think Maloney will make Eric Milton look like Christy Mathewson and when he was doing well in AAA, the team shoud have cashed in. I think he's been exposed, while Bailey still has upside. Bailey may end up being awful as well, but the upside is still there. If everything goes right for Maloney, he's a marginal number 4 starter. Less than that, he's a 4A guy who gets AAA guys out.

jojo
08-30-2009, 12:40 PM
Here's an important aspect of "luck/unluck" factors such as BABIP, HR/FB% and LOB%....

Poor swings are very sustainable by bad pitchers.

SMcGavin
08-30-2009, 01:26 PM
Here's an important aspect of "luck/unluck" factors such as BABIP, HR/FB% and LOB%....

Poor swings are very sustainable by bad pitchers.

After twenty some innings what's the more likely explanation for a wacky HR/F - random variance or a pitcher with a K/9 north of 7 simultaneously being so bad that he gives up more meatballs than any MLB pitcher over the last five years?

jojo
08-30-2009, 01:39 PM
I think it's reasonable to assume Maloney's HR/FB% might dip below 20% at some point if he's allowed to pitch long enough. :cool:

We're not looking at a guy who's going to be a great Red though.

SMcGavin
08-30-2009, 04:06 PM
I think it's reasonable to assume Maloney's HR/FB% might dip below 20% at some point if he's allowed to pitch long enough. :cool:

We're not looking at a guy who's going to be a great Red though.

You may be right, but since the question at hand is "has he been better than Homer Bailey" he certainly would not need to be a great Red to qualify.

jojo
08-30-2009, 06:53 PM
You may be right, but since the question at hand is "has he been better than Homer Bailey" he certainly would not need to be a great Red to qualify.

It's kind of strange to have that argument based upon the number of innings being discussed but while Maloney might see fewer HRs on FBs (though that is clearly a problem he'll deal with at the major league level so bad luck can't dismiss a clear weakness as the guy pounds the zone with uninspiring stuff), he'll also have his BABIP raise and his LOB% lower.

If I had to pick between the two based upon the paltry innings, Homer has a better FIP and tRA while he doesn't have to worry about BABIP normalizing but he should benefit from significantly from his LOB% regressing higher. So while Maloney and Bailey look similar via xFIP, examining the other "luck metrics" suggests xFIP isn't the end all in this discussion. Maloney gives up Homers like credit card companies give up free tshirts to freshman on the first day of college.

Couple that with what we know from our eyes, and it's Homer.

mbgrayson
08-31-2009, 09:20 AM
Greg Maddux still likes him.

I know the remark was said tongue in cheek, but we do keep hearing this kind of thing about Dick Pole.

My response is that if Greg Maddux could still pitch, and he were to sign with the Reds, and if he needed a pitching coach, maybe we should have Dick Pole assigned to help him out.

In an interview with BP last year (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74222&highlight=Pole), this is what Pole said about maddux:

DL: Greg Maddux has cited you as an influence on his career. How did you help him?

DP: I think probably by being honest with him, and explaining to him the type of pitcher he needed to be. And Greg was easy to work with, because he asked a lot of questions. Real good questions, and he soaked information up. Whatever he could use he used, and whatever he didn't think he could use, he just kind of put aside. He was just growing up as a pitcher, so I was lucky enough to have him when he was just 18 years old. To watch him transform himself was a lot of fun.


In that same interview, this is what Pole had to say about Homer Bailey:

DL: What does Homer Bailey need to do to realize his potential?

DP: He just has to be consistent with his command of the strike zone. He has to be able to manage a game a little bit better. But he's maturing. He's better this spring than he was last. He's got that word "potential" on his back, and sometimes that's not a good thing. Sometimes it's more of a burden than it is an asset. And he'll get it; he'll get it. Some guys—he's 22 years old, and there are a lot of guys who are 22 years old that you'll say, 'This guy needs more seasoning; we think that he should be pitching in the big leagues.' Well, you know what? Potential doesn't just jump out all at one time. It has to be nurtured, and sooner or later it will come out.


So it seems to me that back in 2008, Pole got the idea that Bailey wasn't fully tuned into working hitters, setting them up, etc. This is all well and good, but what he fails to mention is making mechanical adjustments like Bailey mentioned to McCoy his Texas coach found.

We also see pitchers that the Reds had in the last few years like Ryan Franklin, Kyle Lohse, or Todd Coffey go elsewhere, and have those adjustments made, with much better success.

On Todd Coffey, there is this from the Milwaukee Sentinal Journal (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/43320577.html):


It has been a remarkable revival for a pitcher the Reds deemed no longer useful at the major-league level. To his credit, Coffey bites his tongue a bit when reflecting on his exodus from Cincinnati, but there are obvious scars.
Without going into great detail, Coffey noted that Reds pitching coach Dick Pole wasn't a fan of the big right-hander's favorite pitch, a sinking fastball.
"Their philosophy was to go with a four-seamer away," said Coffey. "So, it was a philosophical difference. We agreed to disagree."

BCubb2003
08-31-2009, 09:47 AM
I suppose it's possible that Dick Pole is the one bringing Mario Soto in, and letting Homer get in touch with the Texas coach, but it seems unlikely. There just has to be some accountability for Pole and Jacoby both.

Caveat Emperor
08-31-2009, 01:49 PM
On the other hands, out of fairness to Pole, the fact that one players seeks outside advice isn't an indictment of him as a coach. You're not going to reach / get through all the people all the time -- sometimes it's a chemsitry issue, sometimes it's a trust issue, sometimes it just needs to be a different voice saying something for it to sink in.

Tom Servo
08-31-2009, 01:56 PM
Wait Dick Pole's only 58? Wow.

traderumor
08-31-2009, 03:29 PM
On the other hands, out of fairness to Pole, the fact that one players seeks outside advice isn't an indictment of him as a coach. You're not going to reach / get through all the people all the time -- sometimes it's a chemsitry issue, sometimes it's a trust issue, sometimes it just needs to be a different voice saying something for it to sink in.Like Griffey Jr. calling Griffey Sr. when struggling.

Sea Ray
08-31-2009, 03:30 PM
On the other hands, out of fairness to Pole, the fact that one players seeks outside advice isn't an indictment of him as a coach. You're not going to reach / get through all the people all the time -- sometimes it's a chemsitry issue, sometimes it's a trust issue, sometimes it just needs to be a different voice saying something for it to sink in.

The problem is we're not seeing Dick Pole have the positive effect on any pitcher that Homer experienced by going to this guy in Texas. It's a pattern.

traderumor
08-31-2009, 03:33 PM
The problem is we're not seeing Dick Pole have the positive effect on any pitcher that Homer experienced by going to this guy in Texas. It's a pattern.We're not? All our pitchers are pitching the worst baseball of their career? Honestly, the Dick Pole fingerpointing has had a spike recently, sort of in conjunction with the nosediving record, which is the usual case with a struggling team/franchise. Call it the Bob Boone effect.

membengal
08-31-2009, 03:34 PM
Seriously? THAT's the standard? That our pitchers are not having their worst year ever? Way to set the bar to stupidly low levels. Gracious.

ETA: ("stupidly low levels" refers to a bar for what is acceptable performance for Pole, not aimed at you specifically/personally, TR)

Riddle me this. Who on the staff has gotten better due to Dick Pole's sage tutelage?

traderumor
08-31-2009, 03:44 PM
There was no intent of "standard setting." The point was that it isn't like the Reds pitchers have all regressed under Pole's watch.

Sea Ray
08-31-2009, 03:54 PM
There was no intent of "standard setting." The point was that it isn't like the Reds pitchers have all regressed under Pole's watch.

Why does it have to be all regressed or worst pitching of their careers?

My point was that no one has improved under Pole like Homer did under this other coach. Can you show me where someone increased their velocity 4 mph under Pole?

I also see a lot of pitchers like Coffey, Lohse and Ryan Franklin improving elsewhere.

I'll throw you a real softball:

What has Dick Pole done to make you want him back next year?

traderumor
08-31-2009, 04:06 PM
Why does it have to be all regressed or worst pitching of their careers?

My point was that no one has improved under Pole like Homer did under this other coach. Can you show me where someone increased their velocity 4 mph under Pole?

I also see a lot of pitchers like Coffey, Lohse and Ryan Franklin improving elsewhere.

I'll throw you a real softball:

What has Dick Pole done to make you want him back next year? I really was only commenting on what you consider to be the measuring stick for the job he is doing. But, to answer your question, Dick Pole is unlikely to be a huge part of the problems and I am indifferent to his coming back next year. He has recently become a problem because, well, its gotta be somebody's fault!

WMR
08-31-2009, 04:19 PM
I really was only commenting on what you consider to be the measuring stick for the job he is doing. But, to answer your question, Dick Pole is unlikely to be a huge part of the problems and I am indifferent to his coming back next year. He has recently become a problem because, well, its gotta be somebody's fault!

I just wish he didn't look so damn catatonic whenever they show him in the bullpen. ;)

I don't think Pole is a huge problem, necessarily, but I do think it's time to bring in some 'fresh eyes.' (And that applies to the hitting coach as well.)

traderumor
08-31-2009, 04:27 PM
I just wish he didn't look so damn catatonic whenever they show him in the bullpen. ;)

I don't think Pole is a huge problem, necessarily, but I do think it's time to bring in some 'fresh eyes.' (And that applies to the hitting coach as well.)Yea, he has a problem with his hip when he walks, also. The Reds are equal opportunity employers ;) I lean toward better to keep the devil that you know. Guys have come in here and excelled, but Todd Coffey found the holy grail in Milwaukee, so Dick Pole is a bad pitching coach.

Chip R
08-31-2009, 04:36 PM
On the other hands, out of fairness to Pole, the fact that one players seeks outside advice isn't an indictment of him as a coach. You're not going to reach / get through all the people all the time -- sometimes it's a chemsitry issue, sometimes it's a trust issue, sometimes it just needs to be a different voice saying something for it to sink in.


True. However, if several players continue to do that it should be alarming.

Sea Ray
08-31-2009, 04:55 PM
I don't think we can afford another year of Dick Pole. We have to have improvement in our young pitchers. If Cueto, Bailey, Herrera, and others regress like Cueto did this year then we're sunk in 2010. This team is not going to stock this pitching staff from FAs. We'll need significant contributions from within. Ditto for the hitters BTW

membengal
08-31-2009, 05:34 PM
There was no intent of "standard setting." The point was that it isn't like the Reds pitchers have all regressed under Pole's watch.

Has anyone said they have? If not, then, strawman away at it.

And, to be clear, when I said "stupidly low levels", that was specific to setting a bar for Pole's performance. If the level is "Reds pitchers are not pitching historically bad", then that is a level of defining acceptable pitching coach performance that I reject.

Again, what has he done to help individual pitchers get better? Who, excatly, has he helped?

These are salient inquiries, especially in a division where Dave Duncan is employed.

And, to be clear, Dick Pole was a problem from the moment he was hired.

traderumor
08-31-2009, 05:50 PM
I don't think we can afford another year of Dick Pole. We have to have improvement in our young pitchers. If Cueto, Bailey, Herrera, and others regress like Cueto did this year then we're sunk in 2010. This team is not going to stock this pitching staff from FAs. We'll need significant contributions from within. Ditto for the hitters BTWI don't understand your logic here. Cueto was dramatically improved in the first part of the year, then he hit the wall, which is still somewhat mysterious as to what happened. Right now, it appears to be physical, so perhaps the first part of the year we saw what a fresh Cueto is capable of. And his first year was not good, this year has been better overall. Herrera has pitched well at every level, now Pole is going to screw him up? Bailey is a young power pitcher still trying to harness his stuff, and it would be hard to identify anything as regressing because he has been all over the map this year--from horrible to brilliant. The bullpen has been consistently strong all year. I guess Dick Pole must not have any input here?

All I hope is that the Reds make a change in pitching coach with better justifications than I've been seeing argued on RZ.

traderumor
08-31-2009, 06:07 PM
Has anyone said they have? If not, then, strawman away at it.

And, to be clear, when I said "stupidly low levels", that was specific to setting a bar for Pole's performance. If the level is "Reds pitchers are not pitching historically bad", then that is a level of defining acceptable pitching coach performance that I reject.

Again, what has he done to help individual pitchers get better? Who, excatly, has he helped?

These are salient inquiries, especially in a division where Dave Duncan is employed.

And, to be clear, Dick Pole was a problem from the moment he was hired.Well, your last statement says it all. It really would not matter what happened when someone has their mind up, so any measure of performance is irrelevant.

Again, you are jumping all over a statement that was made in juxtaposition to the original comment, not to create criteria for evaluating Dick Pole's overall performance.

jojo
08-31-2009, 07:41 PM
I have no clue how to evaluate Dick Pole's job performance.

membengal
08-31-2009, 08:04 PM
Not everything the Reds do is automatically wonderful.

Or competent.

jojo
08-31-2009, 09:19 PM
Not everything the Reds do is automatically wonderful.

Or competent.

I think most fans have embraced that reality long ago?

Scrap Irony
08-31-2009, 09:29 PM
Not everything the Reds do is automatically wonderful.

Or competent.

Or idiotic.

Or wrong.

traderumor
08-31-2009, 10:36 PM
I think most fans have embraced that reality long ago?Yea, that strawman was directed at me.


I have no clue how to evaluate Dick Pole's job performance. The most honest post on the subject.

Sea Ray
08-31-2009, 11:14 PM
I have not seen Dick Pole have as positive an effect on any pitcher as we saw with Homer (Texas coach) and Todd Coffey (Milwaukee). I know judging pitching coaches is an inexact science but I don't see Dick Pole developing our young pitchers. I feel even more strongly about Brook Jacoby's lack of progress with the hitters

WebScorpion
09-01-2009, 01:19 AM
My only thought is this: If we're going to stake the future success of our team on young players, shouldn't we make sure our coaching staff has proven success with young players? A team of veterans is one thing, but a team of young players require a different kind of inspiration.

redsfandan
09-01-2009, 01:34 AM
Why would he want to A: Leave a successful organization, B: Leave a manager/coach who knows what he's doing and C: Take a pay cut?


Homer Bailey: The 98 MPHer is back
By Hal McCoy | Saturday, August 29, 2009, 02:10 PM

When the Cincinnati Reds signed Homer Bailey, they said he threw 98 miles an hour. After he zoomed through the minors and finally showed up at Great American Ball Park, the clock showed him topping out at 94.

The natural indication was to wrinkle your face and say, “Ah, the Reds. Liar, liar pants on fire. Where’s the 98? The only 98 he has is probably that Oldsmobile 98 parked in his grandfather’s barn in Texas.

So now it is 2009 and Bailey is throwing 98. The clock shows it. It’s legit.

So I put the question to Bailey in the dugout Saturday afternoon after he dazzled the Dodgers with a steady supply of 98 miles an hour fastballs Friday night while shutting them out for eight innings.

“Where did that 98 come from? The last couple of years you couldn’t break 94 and they always told us you threw 98.”

Then Bailey told an amazing tale.

“Last off season, when I first started to get on the mound, my agent told me, ‘Go see Skip Johnson, he is the pitching coach at the University of Texas,’” said Bailey. “I thought, ‘I ain’t got nothing to lose, because things aren’t looking so good.’” ...

OnBaseMachine
09-02-2009, 03:26 PM
Another solid start by Homer Bailey today: 6.1 IP, 7 H, 3 R, 3 BB (1 IBB), 8 K. This is the second straight start Bailey has established a career high in strikeouts. He's now allowed just four runs over his last three starts (21.1 IP) with a 8 BB/19 K ratio during that span. That's great to see. Hopefully he can finish the season strong and carry some confidence into next season.

OnBaseMachine
09-02-2009, 03:51 PM
I wasn't home to see the 7th inning, but did Dusty Baker really send Bailey back out for the 7th inning after having thrown 109 pitches through six innings? If so, then shame on Dusty. I'd like to see them be more cautious with Homer this late in the season.

jojo
09-02-2009, 04:22 PM
I wasn't home to see the 7th inning, but did Dusty Baker really send Bailey back out for the 7th inning after having thrown 109 pitches through six innings? If so, then shame on Dusty. I'd like to see them be more cautious with Homer this late in the season.

Bailey threw 7 pitches that inning (116 total). He got Vazquez on 1 pitch and walked McCutchen on 6.

bucksfan2
09-02-2009, 04:28 PM
I wasn't home to see the 7th inning, but did Dusty Baker really send Bailey back out for the 7th inning after having thrown 109 pitches through six innings? If so, then shame on Dusty. I'd like to see them be more cautious with Homer this late in the season.

I don't really mind Bailey going back out for another inning. IMO Dusty gave him a chance to get 3 quick outs, since he didn't, he got yanked. If Bailey wants to become a good pitcher he needs to work later into the game. You don't do that by pulling him any time his pitch count gets over 100.

WebScorpion
09-03-2009, 12:03 AM
I wasn't home to see the 7th inning, but did Dusty Baker really send Bailey back out for the 7th inning after having thrown 109 pitches through six innings? If so, then shame on Dusty. I'd like to see them be more cautious with Homer this late in the season.

I'd rather see them do it now than early in the season. Homer has seemed pretty fresh late in the game for his last three starts...easily throwing 95+ (98 by some guns!) as late as the 8th inning. I like Dusty's handling of our pitchers much better than his lineups. :D

camisadelgolf
09-09-2009, 11:36 AM
He has has thrown at least 114 pitchs per game over his last four starts. He still looks plenty strong, but there may soon be some cause for concern. Anyway, here are his numbers from his past four starts:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=baileho02&t=p&year=2009&share=0.52#29-32-sum:pitching_gamelogs
Over his last four starts:

Date Tm G GS GF CG Rslt Dec DR IP H R ER BB SO HR HBP ERA BF BA OBP SLG OPS Pit Str StL StS GB LD Unk GSc SB CS PO AB 2B 3B GDP WPA aLI
Aug 23, 2009 to Sep 7, 2009 CIN 4 4 0 0 3-1 W-L:3-0 4.0 27.0 23 5 5 13 25 2 0 1.67 114 .228 .316 .337 .652 462 62% 15% 9% 1.38 21% 0 62 2 0 0 101 5 0 1 0.80 1.16

lollipopcurve
09-09-2009, 11:46 AM
He has has thrown at least 114 pitchs per game over his last four starts. He still looks plenty strong, but there may soon be some cause for concern.

2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 171 IP so far

Yep, they need to proceed with caution. Go to a 6-man rotation, don't push him past 100 pitches, shut him down, something. No point at this point -- though Baker probably thinks if he doesn't go pedal to the metal Homer will never learn to pitch well late in the season.

fearofpopvol1
09-09-2009, 11:59 AM
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 171 IP so far

Yep, they need to proceed with caution. Go to a 6-man rotation, don't push him past 100 pitches, shut him down, something. No point at this point -- though Baker probably thinks if he doesn't go pedal to the metal Homer will never learn to pitch well late in the season.

No way in Hades they'll do that. I'll put money on it that Homer's next start, he will pitch over 105 pitches unless he gets rocked. Dusty is more concerned about racking up as many wins as possible this year. And I'm not being hard on him, that's who/how he is.

lollipopcurve
09-09-2009, 12:01 PM
No way in Hades they'll do that. I'll put money on it that Homer's next start, he will pitch over 105 pitches unless he gets rocked. Dusty is more concerned about racking up as many wins as possible this year. And I'm not being hard on him, that's who/how he is.

Unfortunately, I suspect that you are correct. Though the FO should step in if Baker is clearly overworking the kid.

fearofpopvol1
09-09-2009, 12:03 PM
Unfortunately, I suspect that you are correct. Though the FO should step in if Baker is clearly overworking the kid.

I don't think they see it as Homer being overworked. I just don't think this organization values these sorts of models an theories, like the Red Sox and other intelligent organizations do. It's more of the "old guard" if you will in terms of the way they approach baseball.

mbgrayson
09-09-2009, 03:03 PM
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 171 IP so far

Yep, they need to proceed with caution. Go to a 6-man rotation, don't push him past 100 pitches, shut him down, something. No point at this point -- though Baker probably thinks if he doesn't go pedal to the metal Homer will never learn to pitch well late in the season.

Let's go ahead and add 2006 in there for a full comparison:

2006: 139 IP
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 171 IP so far

Not quite the same linear increase in IP when you add in 2006.

I would also limit Homer....why not? If we lose a couple more games at this point, the only difference is a better draft pick. I can't really believe that Dusty's job is stake, although we can hope. What's left of this year ought to be dedicated to screening players and getting set up to "try again in 2010".

fearofpopvol1
09-13-2009, 06:10 PM
Not an amazing outing by Bailey, but far from a horrible one either. He kept the walks down to a minimal today and the Ks up. He did give up a few too many hits, but outside of that 3rd inning, he was quite good today.

Bailey has been very solid as of late. I don't know how he can't be at least the #5 guy next year. The Reds still need another great arm for next year, or at least a good one.

OnBaseMachine
09-13-2009, 07:14 PM
Baker impressed with Bailey
Posted by jfay September 13th, 2009, 6:07 pm

Dusty Baker was impressed with Homer Bailey Sunday.

“He’s learning quick,” Baker said. “He’s going to be everything everyone projected him to be.”

Bailey took the loss and gave up three runs over 5 1/3 innings. But his stuff was what had Baker gushing.
“He was throwing the ball as well as I’ve seen him,” Baker said. “He had more velocity. It seems like he’s gaining velocity. I even saw a 99 up there.”

That’s the good. This is the bad:

“It was kind of disheartening in the fourth inning when he gave three 0-2 hits,” Baker said. “Again, that’s part of the learning process. You’ve got to put them away.”

Bailey (5-5) went 5 1/3 innings, allowing the three runs on nine hits. He walked two and struck out six.

“I felt great,” Bailey said. “A couple of pitches cost me the game. You win some, you lose some.”

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/

HokieRed
09-13-2009, 11:27 PM
He was one call away from that 4th inning being entirely different--the 2-2 curve ball on Ramirez, which, to my eyes, looked perfect. If Adam Rosales or Paul Janish had been at the plate, it would have been a strike.

mbgrayson
09-14-2009, 09:01 AM
So number of innings is now as follows:

2006: 139 IP
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 177 IP so far

LoganBuck
09-19-2009, 02:30 PM
So number of innings is now as follows:

2006: 139 IP
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 177 IP so far

After Last night

2009: 184 IP 117 more pitches

RANDY IN INDY
09-19-2009, 05:57 PM
There weren't a lot of those pitches under pressure last night. I believe there is a difference in pitches under pressure and total pitches.

Chip R
09-19-2009, 06:22 PM
I see where MIL is pitching Gallardo tonight and then shutting him down for the season.

bucksfan2
09-22-2009, 03:08 PM
Interesting take on cnati.com

http://cnati.com/cincinnati-reds/bailey-100-pitch-limit-is-crap-00339/


Bailey: '100 pitch limit is (crap)'

By C. Trent Rosecrans, CNATI.com Posted September 18, 2009 11:23 PM ET

Texans tend to do things just a little differently, and most often they stick together. So when Texas' patron saint of pitching says something, Texas pitchers listen.

Homer Bailey believes in the gospel according to Nolan Ryan. Ryan, the Hall of Fame pitcher, is now the Texas Rangers' club president and abolished the pitch count as the determining factor in determining when to pull a pitcher. Ryan argues that stamina is more important than numbers.
"We have to change this mindset," Ryan told USA Today earlier this year. "Some of the guys have been on a pitch count since Little League. It should be tailored to the individual. "These pitchers have to realize what their capabilities are, and build up their stamina. I remember it used to be that 300 innings was the benchmark for an ace. If you were a starter, you were expected to pitch at least 250 innings. Now, you may have one guy go 200 innings on your whole staff."

Bailey believes him.

"I feel better at 85, 90 pitches than when I start," Bailey said. "Once you get to 100, 110, that's when things are running on all cylinders. I think the 100-pitch limit is a bunch of... well, just put in a not-bad word. We're starters, you can ask Bronson (Arroyo) or (Aaron) Harang and they want pitches."

Bailey's final pitch was his fastest of the night, 96.8 mph, according to Pitch FX.

"I feel fine," Bailey said afterwards. "I'll be tired tomorrow, but I won't be sore. I'm don't get sore."

Bailey, 23, believes his training and all-around physical fitness is the most important part of his pitching routine. If he doesn't get tired, his mechanics won't get sloppy and his arm won't be taxed. The most important thing to him, he's discovered, is his fitness level. Bailey believes coming into camp in the best shape of his life has helped his pitching.

"That's why when it's December I'm on the track," Bailey said. "That's why we work out, that's why we throw."

Bailey works out alongside tennis star Andy Roddick among others, making sure he's in top physical form. So far this season, between the minors and the majors, he's thrown 184 innings combined between Cincinnati and Louisville. And he's not worried about the number.

Last season Bailey threw 147.2 innings, 120.2 in 2007 and 138.2 in 2006. In baseball studies, Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus founded the Verducci Effect (based on the Verducci Rule, named after Sports Illustrated writer Tom Verducci) that showed pitchers under the age of 25 who have a jump of more than 30 innings are more likely to be injured. The Verducci rule is that they underperform the year after a jump of 30 innings.

But Bailey doesn't believe in that, nor does he believe in the Dusty Baker horror stories of Kerry Wood and Mark Prior, whose arm troubles are always blamed on Baker and anytime a Red pitcher throws his 101st pitch, the message boards go crazy. On the internet, at least, Baker has already been found guilty of causing Edinson Volquez's injury, although looking back at his numbers, the Rangers could be found liable for his over use while there - but it's easier to blame and vilify Baker.

"I really and truly believe, if you're going to blow a shoulder out or an elbow out, it's going to happen," Bailey said. "I have a lot of trust in Dusty, he's been around this game for a long time. He knows what he's doing. I want the innings, I want 120 pitches every outing, that's what we bust our butts in the offseason for, that's what we throw every day for, that's what we lift during the season for. This is what we want to do. I don't think there's any avoiding it. The best thing we can do is be mechanically sound and as strong as possible. I have trust in that guy."

Baker said he's watching Bailey's pitch count, and doesn't want him exceeding 120 pitches in an outing.

"He's throwing the ball well, but we've got to preserve him, too," Baker said. "Down in AAA (120) was his limit, he's reached it a couple of times. He's been throwing the ball great."

Bailey points to the old timers, who threw 200 pitches in a four-man rotation without the benefit of modern medicine. In Japan, pitchers routinely throw 200 pitches in spring training.

"I think pitchers are coddled," Bailey said, noting that if your not used to throwing more than 100 pitches, of course you'll be tired after throwing 100.

So, even though his last six starts have consisted of pitch counts of 114, 115, 116, 117, 115 and 117 pitches, Bailey isn't worried.

"That's what we get paid to do," he said.

Love the attitude, as long as he doesn't get hurt. I think Nolan Ryan is on to something, the key is how to change 20+ years of thinking.

VR
09-22-2009, 04:19 PM
There weren't a lot of those pitches under pressure last night. I believe there is a difference in pitches under pressure and total pitches.

And Spring Training pitches, and warm up pitches, and simulated games, and long tosses, etc etc.

RED VAN HOT
09-22-2009, 04:30 PM
Interesting take on cnati.com

http://cnati.com/cincinnati-reds/bailey-100-pitch-limit-is-crap-00339/



Love the attitude, as long as he doesn't get hurt. I think Nolan Ryan is on to something, the key is how to change 20+ years of thinking.

Nice post. High expectations and impatience have led many of us to criticize Homer's ability to accept coaching. This short piece paints an entirely different picture. As it turns out, the Reds seemed to have known what they were doing. An organization that has not been able to develop pitchers is now beginning to show results.

I can't comment on the validity of the pitch count mythology. I do like that it is being challenged. My pet peeve is the closer mythology...specifically, that a team has one closer, that he is not brought in until the last inning, that he should start an inning with the bases empty, and that it should always be a save situation. The object is to win, not give the designated closer as many saves as possible. Sometimes the game is on the line in the 6th, 7th, or 8th inning. If you don't bring in your best then, the 9th inning save becomes moot.

mbgrayson
09-22-2009, 04:49 PM
Interesting take on cnati.com

http://cnati.com/cincinnati-reds/bailey-100-pitch-limit-is-crap-00339/



Love the attitude, as long as he doesn't get hurt. I think Nolan Ryan is on to something, the key is how to change 20+ years of thinking.

I also appreciate Homer's 'go get 'em' attitude, but Nolan Ryan is not 'onto something'.

Nolan Ryan was a true aberation as a pitcher. He had the physique, and the stamina, and the ability, to get away with throwing well over 200 innings per season many times. He also risked his career by ignoring doctors advice to get a UCL repaired, and it never completely tore through until his final year.

In his current role with the Rangers, this is what Will Carroll of BP had to say this May:

The Rangers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=TEX) don't expect Frank Francisco (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/francfr01.php)'s stint on the DL to go much past the minimum, but one interesting thing I heard is that Nolan Ryan (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/ryanno01.shtml)'s pitching edicts might be making players frightened to admit to any soreness. ...

The Verducci Effect is a documented pattern for pitchers under 25. When there is more than a 30 inning increase year to year, most of the pitchers suffer either injury or degradation of performance. It still doesn't strike me as likely that Homer has the type of body or the strength to pitch like Nolan Ryan. It is true that pitchers are pampered more than they used to, but we must rememeber that for every Nolan Ryan, there were ten or twenty Gary Nolans.

Brutus
09-22-2009, 06:19 PM
I also appreciate Homer's 'go get 'em' attitude, but Nolan Ryan is not 'onto something'.

Nolan Ryan was a true aberation as a pitcher. He had the physique, and the stamina, and the ability, to get away with throwing well over 200 innings per season many times. He also risked his career by ignoring doctors advice to get a UCL repaired, and it never completely tore through until his final year.

In his current role with the Rangers, this is what Will Carroll of BP had to say this May:


The Verducci Effect is a documented pattern for pitchers under 25. When there is more than a 30 inning increase year to year, most of the pitchers suffer either injury or degradation of performance. It still doesn't strike me as likely that Homer has the type of body or the strength to pitch like Nolan Ryan. It is true that pitchers are pampered more than they used to, but we must rememeber that for every Nolan Ryan, there were ten or twenty Gary Nolans.

Two very different things. Having the ability to go more innings, or rather, going more innings causing soreness and being able to admit when you are sore (which is not at all uncommon for any pitcher) are separate things, and not necessarily a mark on Ryan's edict.

redsfandan
09-22-2009, 09:29 PM
In his current role with the Rangers, this is what Will Carroll of BP had to say this May:

The Rangers don't expect Frank Francisco's stint on the DL to go much past the minimum, but one interesting thing I heard is that Nolan Ryan's pitching edicts might be making players frightened to admit to any soreness. ...

I tend to take speculation based on unknown sources with a grain of salt. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not true.

REDblooded
09-23-2009, 09:22 PM
Leading by 6, and Homer already the pitcher on record, no reason Dusty should have pitched Homer in the 6th. Give the guy an easy win, and a short night...

If he brings him back out in the 7th, I'm gonna lose it.

Caveat Emperor
09-23-2009, 10:35 PM
Leading by 6, and Homer already the pitcher on record, no reason Dusty should have pitched Homer in the 6th. Give the guy an easy win, and a short night...

If he brings him back out in the 7th, I'm gonna lose it.

Bailey threw 95 pitches tonight -- didn't have his best stuff just looking at some of the pitch speeds on GameDay.

That's a pretty reasonable outing for him, speaking purely on pitch counts. I think pulling him after 5 with a pitch count under 90 would've been bad.

HeatherC1212
09-23-2009, 10:39 PM
Dusty just said on Reds Live that they wanted to pull Homer before the 6th but Homer said he thought he had one more inning in him. He ended up doing fine but I think if he'd gotten into any trouble they would have gotten him out of there. He said they were keeping an eye on his pitch counts and innings through the rest of the season.

LoganBuck
09-23-2009, 11:12 PM
Dusty just said on Reds Live that they wanted to pull Homer before the 6th but Homer said he thought he had one more inning in him. He ended up doing fine but I think if he'd gotten into any trouble they would have gotten him out of there. He said they were keeping an eye on his pitch counts and innings through the rest of the season.

Why start now?

OnBaseMachine
09-23-2009, 11:13 PM
Bailey threw 95 pitches tonight -- didn't have his best stuff just looking at some of the pitch speeds on GameDay.

That's a pretty reasonable outing for him, speaking purely on pitch counts. I think pulling him after 5 with a pitch count under 90 would've been bad.

I agree. I thought Dusty handled Homer well tonight. Same with Cueto last night when he pulled him after five innings. Cueto admitted after the game he was gassed in the 5th inning due to remaining effects from the flu.

WebScorpion
09-23-2009, 11:41 PM
Homer didn't seem to have his best stuff tonight, but he was locating pretty well. His splitter was working but he only threw a couple. He came out for the 6th and threw 8 fastballs to retire the side and they were his fastest pitches (94-95) of the evening. I liked seeing him succeed without his best stuff...it's always been one of his weaknesses, when his pitches lose movement he historically has gotten tentative, nibbled and walked a lot of hitters. This time he went with the fastball he had (90-92 mostly) and hit his spots, mixing in just enough curves, changes, and splitters to keep them off balance...I think the defense helps a lot, he knows he can trust them. All in all, another milestone in the development of Homer Bailey. He got the job done. :thumbup:

I'm getting kind of excited to see him put together a full season next year...of course, all this is tempered by the fact that we're playing the Pirates in late September. :rolleyes:

mbgrayson
09-24-2009, 12:12 AM
2006: 139 IP
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 190 IP

Well, we are now at +42 innings for the year. We will now see if the Verducci Effect has any impact on Homer next year.

Even now, I wonder if Homer is starting to wear down. Tonight, six innings and no strikeouts. However, he only gave up two runs, and got another 'W'. Personally, I am convinced that he has turned a corner this year. His ERA has improved each month. I am hopeful for next year, but I would love to see him shut down.

His last two turns will come on 9/29 against the Cards, and on 10/4 against the Pirates again. Why have him pitch more innings? To what end?

OnBaseMachine
09-24-2009, 02:09 AM
HOMER BAILEY tried very hard Wednesday and it was refreshing. He didn’t have his fastball, left it in the hotel closet or something. So he had to rely on other pitches. He didn’t strike out a single batter, but he won - held the Pirates to two runs and four hits over six innings.

That meant something to both Bailey and Baker.

“It was good for me that I didn’t have my best stuff,” said Bailey. “It showed that I can still go out and compete. I didn’t have my fastball early so I had to make other pitches.

“They hit the ball early but Stubby (center fielder Drew Stubbs) just ran ‘em down and it’s great to have Stubby out there,” said Bailey.

Baker loved what he saw of Bailey’s adjustments.

“He didn’t have good velocity on his fastball, didn’t have his best stuff, so he went to changeups and breaking balls,” said Baker. “That’s part of the maturity process when you can win without your best stuff.”

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2009/09/23/now_my_career_is_complete.html?cxtype=feedbot

Matt700wlw
09-24-2009, 02:33 AM
HOMER BAILEY tried very hard Wednesday and it was refreshing. He didn’t have his fastball, left it in the hotel closet or something. So he had to rely on other pitches. He didn’t strike out a single batter, but he won - held the Pirates to two runs and four hits over six innings.

That meant something to both Bailey and Baker.

“It was good for me that I didn’t have my best stuff,” said Bailey. “It showed that I can still go out and compete. I didn’t have my fastball early so I had to make other pitches.

“They hit the ball early but Stubby (center fielder Drew Stubbs) just ran ‘em down and it’s great to have Stubby out there,” said Bailey.

Baker loved what he saw of Bailey’s adjustments.

“He didn’t have good velocity on his fastball, didn’t have his best stuff, so he went to changeups and breaking balls,” said Baker. “That’s part of the maturity process when you can win without your best stuff.”

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2009/09/23/now_my_career_is_complete.html?cxtype=feedbot

Drew needs a different nickname...

LoganBuck
09-24-2009, 07:00 AM
Drew needs a different nickname...

Stubtabcular
Stubpendous
Stubinator

blumj
09-24-2009, 08:10 AM
Drew needs a different nickname...

Unfortunately, it would be completely out of character for ballplayers to resist calling him that.

RedsManRick
09-24-2009, 09:27 AM
Bailey didn't have his good fastball? I wonder why that could be?

Sea Ray
09-24-2009, 09:33 AM
“They hit the ball early but Stubby (center fielder Drew Stubbs) just ran ‘em down and it’s great to have Stubby out there,” said Bailey.


I am hearing more and more comments like this. Dusty mentioned something about Willy being Wally Pipped and Walt said that Stubbs has done more than enough to be considered for the fulltime CF job next year. I am thinking Stubbs' teammates want him out there in CF and they don't care if he OPS' .750 or .800, where he was drafted, or who was skipped over...

lollipopcurve
09-24-2009, 09:44 AM
Bailey didn't have his good fastball? I wonder why that could be?

Mystery of mysteries...


"We didn't want to take him quite as deep, because he went 115 pitches his last two starts," Baker said.

Let's see. Some expert fact-finding reveals... this is true! And then some!!!

In fact, Bailey had gone 115+ in his last 6 starts -- count 'em, 6! Dusty is really onto something now. Wait till he finds out it hadn't been just 2 starts!

I mean, how does he NOT know this?

traderumor
09-24-2009, 10:34 AM
Bailey didn't have his good fastball? I wonder why that could be?Because sometimes, no matter what time of year it is, a pitcher doesn't have good stuff. Other than self-fulfilling prophecy, considering he had it in his other recent starts, it is pretty hard to make a case that it arm fatigue suddenly showed up in this start, which I'm pretty sure that is what your remark is getting at.

traderumor
09-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Mystery of mysteries...



Let's see. Some expert fact-finding reveals... this is true! And then some!!!

In fact, Bailey had gone 115+ in his last 6 starts -- count 'em, 6! Dusty is really onto something now. Wait till he finds out it hadn't been just 2 starts!

I mean, how does he NOT know this?This is starting to sound a like a small yappy dog toward Dusty.

Raisor
09-24-2009, 10:48 AM
This is starting to sound a like a small yappy dog toward Dusty.

What exactly has Dusty done to not have people going after him?

nate
09-24-2009, 10:50 AM
I am hearing more and more comments like this. Dusty mentioned something about Willy being Wally Pipped and Walt said that Stubbs has done more than enough to be considered for the fulltime CF job next year. I am thinking Stubbs' teammates want him out there in CF and they don't care if he OPS' .750 or .800, where he was drafted, or who was skipped over...

Yes.

Although I'd take the .750 or .800 OPS too.

jojo
09-24-2009, 10:56 AM
I am hearing more and more comments like this. Dusty mentioned something about Willy being Wally Pipped and Walt said that Stubbs has done more than enough to be considered for the fulltime CF job next year. I am thinking Stubbs' teammates want him out there in CF and they don't care if he OPS' .750 or .800, where he was drafted, or who was skipped over...

Here's how I look at it. Essentially Taveras' primary value is his ability to play defense in centerfield. Just assuming that there is no difference between the offensive abilities of Stubbs and Taveras in order to ignore the big argument (because I don't think anyone would say Taveras is significantly better than Stubbs offensively-at least I don't think many would argue that Stubbs couldn't at least produce at a level similar to WT), Stubbs is a significantly better defender based upon the eyes.

It seems like a fairly straightforward decision.

lollipopcurve
09-24-2009, 10:58 AM
This is starting to sound a like a small yappy dog toward Dusty.

Ruff!

Do you not find it odd that Baker cited pitch count history as the key consideration in how he handled Homer, yet didn't know the pitch count history? How can he say having thrown 115 in his last two starts is grounds for removing Homer early, when he had used him for 115+ in his last 6 starts? That's shocking, at least to me.

traderumor
09-24-2009, 10:59 AM
What exactly has Dusty done to not have people going after him?Not all complaints about one's performance are created equal. Demanding that the manager must stretch his pitch count context back to a certain point is "yap, yap, yap, yap, yap" in the same vein of "why is this relief pitcher being used for X consecutive days" and "Janish needed to tell Dusty he needed a rest because he was hitting poorly." Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap.

lollipopcurve
09-24-2009, 11:05 AM
Demanding that the manager must stretch his pitch count context back to a certain point is "yap, yap, yap, yap, yap" in the same vein of "why is this relief pitcher being used for X consecutive days." Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap.

Last night, Dusty HIMSELF stretched the pitch count back 2 starts and basically said, "we're not going there 3 straight times." Using his own logic -- not mine -- a contradiction is revealed when we see that not only had Baker stretched Homer to that pitch count limit in 3 consecutive starts leading up to last night, he'd allowed it to happen in 6 consecutive starts. Does that sound to you like Dusty has a good handle on what he's doing with Homer?

Hoosier Red
09-24-2009, 11:14 AM
Because sometimes, no matter what time of year it is, a pitcher doesn't have good stuff. Other than self-fulfilling prophecy, considering he had it in his other recent starts, it is pretty hard to make a case that it arm fatigue suddenly showed up in this start, which I'm pretty sure that is what your remark is getting at.

I agree with Traderumor, his fastball was picking up velocity at the end of the start, that to me shows he just didn't have it for whatever reason. He's had excellent life on his pitches late into his last few starts. Pitch counts are undoubtedly important to track. 100 pitches MAY be the optimal spot to keep the average pitcher from going past,(or it may be 110, or 115 or 120.)
But you can't get that conclusion from the last three starts.

fearofpopvol1
09-24-2009, 11:40 AM
Here's how I look at it. Essentially Taveras' primary value is his ability to play defense in centerfield. Just assuming that there is no difference between the offensive abilities of Stubbs and Taveras in order to ignore the big argument (because I don't think anyone would say Taveras is significantly better than Stubbs offensively-at least I don't think many would argue that Stubbs couldn't at least produce at a level similar to WT), Stubbs is a significantly better defender based upon the eyes.

It seems like a fairly straightforward decision.

Tell that to The Dusty. He traditionally has liked those scrappy blue-collared vets.

traderumor
09-24-2009, 04:27 PM
Last night, Dusty HIMSELF stretched the pitch count back 2 starts and basically said, "we're not going there 3 straight times." Using his own logic -- not mine -- a contradiction is revealed when we see that not only had Baker stretched Homer to that pitch count limit in 3 consecutive starts leading up to last night, he'd allowed it to happen in 6 consecutive starts. Does that sound to you like Dusty has a good handle on what he's doing with Homer?It sounds to me like he is concerned about his pitch count racking up. I'm positing that he was talking off the top of his head and did not have his laptop available to check out the last 6 starts as you did, just in case someone was going to fact check on him (not that anyone would do that). Sounds perfectly plausible to me.

Raisor
09-24-2009, 04:49 PM
It sounds to me like he is concerned about his pitch count racking up. I'm positing that he was talking off the top of his head and did not have his laptop available to check out the last 6 starts as you did, just in case someone was going to fact check on him (not that anyone would do that). Sounds perfectly plausible to me.

...and we're back to trying to figure out what Dusty REALLY meant.

BRM
09-24-2009, 05:32 PM
...and we're back to trying to figure out what Dusty REALLY meant.

Seriously, we need a Dusty Interpreter.

traderumor
09-24-2009, 08:02 PM
...and we're back to trying to figure out what Dusty REALLY meant.Yea, you'll have that with sound bytes and a few sentences on a blog. Folks want to perform exposition on the text, but then don't like it when others question their interpretation? That doesn't seem quite fair.

mbgrayson
09-30-2009, 12:45 AM
Homer Bailey:
2006: 139 IP
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 197 IP

Well, we are now at +49 innings for the year. I really hope that the Verducci Effect is wrong as to Homer next year.

Caveat Emperor
09-30-2009, 01:06 AM
Homer Bailey:
2006: 139 IP
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 197 IP

Well, we are now at +49 innings for the year. I really hope that the Verducci Effect is wrong as to Homer next year.

If you go back to the first page of the thread, you can see the "10 Pitchers to Watch" includes Jon Lester and Tim Lincecum -- both of whom are having outstanding seasons despite a jump in innings from '07 to '08.

It's not like we're talking about something scientific -- it's a rule of thumb which, like any other, isn't right all the time and doesn't apply the same way to all people.

fearofpopvol1
09-30-2009, 02:12 AM
Rack up an outstanding victory for Homer against quite possibly the best team in the NL. And while the Cards do have the division locked up, it's not like through suck out there. All their best players played. His line looked VERY good. Maybe a few too many hits, but everything else was stellar.

Home has had a REALLY good 2nd half. It seems like he has now arrived. Does it not?

RANDY IN INDY
09-30-2009, 09:44 AM
Very impressive.

_Sir_Charles_
09-30-2009, 02:54 PM
I just find it rather silly that we get so worked up about this stuff. Players these days are in MUCH better shape physically than they were 40-50 years ago. And yet, pitchers back then had no problem what-so-ever topping the 300 ip plateau. Same goes for the whole pitch count argument. I know I'm in the minority here, but I agree with Nolan Ryan on this debate. Build up their stamina, teach their bodies to go deep into games and deep into seasons. I'm not talking about sending a guy back out to the bump when he's clearly worn out and starts changing his mechanics to compensate. We all know that's when an injury is going to happen. But putting a set number down in stone (100 pitches or 200 innings) is mind-boggling for me.

Can someone please explain to me how guys like Steve Carlton for example can throw over 340 innings in a season ('72) early in his career (27 years old) and still be successful? Shouldn't he have gotten injured? Well, surely he'd never be so foolish again, right? He followed that season up with just under 300 ip. Then again, at the age of 35...304 innings pitched. Age 37...295.

There are tons of guys throughout the history of the game that have performed just like this (not to his level of course...I'm just saying sustained longevity and high IP numbers. I probably should've picked some Joe-schmo for the example). And it's not just knuckleballers and such, but flamethrowers too. Nowadays it's kind of rare to see a starter reach the 200 ip level. Is it because teams/coaches/owners/fans have become TOO cautious of a pitchers' workload? Is it because some nerdy number cruncher in some cubicle has produced a spreadsheet showing how IP correlates to injuries and career longevity?

Were men in the early 1900's just more manly than today's ballplayer? Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. As long as the pitcher is throwing the ball well and having success...send him out there. When he starts to tire, give him some relief. Not everybody will tire at 100 pitches and 200 innings. Not everybody's arm will fall off if they surpass those numbers consistently.

Chip R
09-30-2009, 03:20 PM
Can someone please explain to me how guys like Steve Carlton for example can throw over 340 innings in a season ('72) early in his career (27 years old) and still be successful? Shouldn't he have gotten injured? Well, surely he'd never be so foolish again, right? He followed that season up with just under 300 ip. Then again, at the age of 35...304 innings pitched. Age 37...295.

There are tons of guys throughout the history of the game that have performed just like this (not to his level of course...I'm just saying sustained longevity and high IP numbers. I probably should've picked some Joe-schmo for the example). And it's not just knuckleballers and such, but flamethrowers too. Nowadays it's kind of rare to see a starter reach the 200 ip level. Is it because teams/coaches/owners/fans have become TOO cautious of a pitchers' workload? Is it because some nerdy number cruncher in some cubicle has produced a spreadsheet showing how IP correlates to injuries and career longevity?

Carlton also had a kickass workout program with martial arts and working his arm through a barrel of rice. Nolan Ryan also worked out like a maniac.

If the pitchers today can replicate what guys like Carlton and Ryan did on their off days and during the off season, then maybe they can pitch as long as those two did.

One thing you have to take into account is the 5 man rotation. When Ryan and Carlton were in their primes, they pitched every 4th day. That's what, 10-15 extra starts a year? They didn't use the bullpen like they do now back then. 5th, 6th, 7th inning came around and a pitcher got in touble, he was expected to work out of his jam(s). Now, a manager goes the the bullpen at the first sign of trouble.

I just picked up "The Machine" a book about the BRM in 1975. There was a part in there - and I believe there was an excerpt posted on the board - about Gary Nolan and how he pitched through excruciating pain for over 2 years before he finally went and saw Dr. Jobe in L.A. The Reds felt the pain was in his head and even had him go see a dentist to pull a tooth to get rid of the pain. Nowdays, he'd been shelved at the first instance of pain in his arm. So much for the good old days.

dougdirt
09-30-2009, 03:53 PM
Carlton also had a kickass workout program with martial arts and working his arm through a barrel of rice. Nolan Ryan also worked out like a maniac.

If the pitchers today can replicate what guys like Carlton and Ryan did on their off days and during the off season, then maybe they can pitch as long as those two did.


I don't even know if its something like that. One of the biggest things that I think it comes down to is just arm conditioning that the guys now days just simply don't get because from age 7-18 they have strenuous pitch counts that older players simply didn't have. The old crew would pitch a lot more, thus weeding out the guys who couldn't do it quicker and building up better arm strength for those who could. Thats just my theory though.

Chip R
09-30-2009, 04:15 PM
I don't even know if its something like that. One of the biggest things that I think it comes down to is just arm conditioning that the guys now days just simply don't get because from age 7-18 they have strenuous pitch counts that older players simply didn't have. The old crew would pitch a lot more, thus weeding out the guys who couldn't do it quicker and building up better arm strength for those who could. Thats just my theory though.


That may have something to do with it.

Also, for every Ryan and Carlton, there was a David Clyde or a Steve Busby.

Another thing: People are different. Some pitchers, even today, could go 300 innings. Some, only 150.

Pitching is at a premium these days in an offensive era. Pitchers, much like some cars or fine wines, are investments. Is it smart to store your wine in the attic because it might not go bad? Is it smart to leave your classic Mustang out in the rain and not change the oil in it because it might lose value? If you are going to invest $X millions in a young pitcher, isn't it wiser to treat him delicately and not just like any old journeyman pitcher? This isn't about proving someone's manhood. It's about winning and developing young talent.

Caveat Emperor
09-30-2009, 04:16 PM
I don't even know if its something like that. One of the biggest things that I think it comes down to is just arm conditioning that the guys now days just simply don't get because from age 7-18 they have strenuous pitch counts that older players simply didn't have. The old crew would pitch a lot more, thus weeding out the guys who couldn't do it quicker and building up better arm strength for those who could. Thats just my theory though.

Gone, also, are the days where a pitcher could take a physical and mental vacation through the bottom half of a lineup.

On most teams, virtually everyone in the lineup can hit a meatball out of the ballpark. That wasn't always the case, it seems.

IslandRed
09-30-2009, 04:30 PM
I don't even know if its something like that. One of the biggest things that I think it comes down to is just arm conditioning that the guys now days just simply don't get because from age 7-18 they have strenuous pitch counts that older players simply didn't have. The old crew would pitch a lot more, thus weeding out the guys who couldn't do it quicker and building up better arm strength for those who could. Thats just my theory though.


Also, for every Ryan and Carlton, there was a David Clyde or a Steve Busby. ... If you are going to invest $X millions in a young pitcher, isn't it wiser to treat him delicately and not just like any old journeyman pitcher? This isn't about proving someone's manhood. It's about winning and developing young talent.

I think both of these perspectives are correct. Back then, if you were a starter, you were expected to be a workhorse. Those that couldn't handle it either got hurt or shuffled off to the pen. In a way, that was good for teams because the better pitchers carried more of the load.

Nowadays, with the draft and limited numbers of farm teams, a club only has a certain number of developing high-ceiling arms at any given time and they can't easily get more. They just can't afford to be so Darwinistic about it now.

_Sir_Charles_
09-30-2009, 05:22 PM
I don't even know if its something like that. One of the biggest things that I think it comes down to is just arm conditioning that the guys now days just simply don't get because from age 7-18 they have strenuous pitch counts that older players simply didn't have. The old crew would pitch a lot more, thus weeding out the guys who couldn't do it quicker and building up better arm strength for those who could. Thats just my theory though.

This I agree with.

As I said, I probably shouldn't have used Carlton or Ryan as examples. Go back and look at the innings pitched for the average pitcher back in the 60's, early 70's and earlier. There's no way that those guys all had routines like Ryan and Carlton. They simply got their bodies and arms used to the consistent work. Some guys (smaller build & frame) probably should be monitored more closely, but to paint all pitchers with the same broad brush is lunacy IMO.

_Sir_Charles_
09-30-2009, 05:25 PM
Pitching is at a premium these days in an offensive era. Pitchers, much like some cars or fine wines, are investments. Is it smart to store your wine in the attic because it might not go bad? Is it smart to leave your classic Mustang out in the rain and not change the oil in it because it might lose value? If you are going to invest $X millions in a young pitcher, isn't it wiser to treat him delicately and not just like any old journeyman pitcher? This isn't about proving someone's manhood. It's about winning and developing young talent.

I agree that pitching is at a premium. But has anybody considered the fact that it's AT a premium BECAUSE we baby them? Because they're so valuable, shouldn't you want to get the most out of your investment ie more innings. Any player can get injured, treating them delicately only makes it more likely that they WILL get injured during those times in a season when you need to push your pitchers just that little bit more for the postseason push. Build them up properly and you don't get that risk. Just sayin'.

_Sir_Charles_
09-30-2009, 05:28 PM
Gone, also, are the days where a pitcher could take a physical and mental vacation through the bottom half of a lineup.

On most teams, virtually everyone in the lineup can hit a meatball out of the ballpark. That wasn't always the case, it seems.

If we're talking about a few innings more a season, I could buy that. But we're talking about nearly DOUBLE the innings. No, it's more than just cupcake lineups. And with all the expansion over the past several decades...the hitting talent pool is thinner too. There are still SEVERAL teams where you have some major holes in lineups. Our very own Reds are a pretty decent example.

Always Red
09-30-2009, 05:33 PM
I agree that pitching is at a premium. But has anybody considered the fact that it's AT a premium BECAUSE we baby them? Because they're so valuable, shouldn't you want to get the most out of your investment ie more innings. Any player can get injured, treating them delicately only makes it more likely that they WILL get injured during those times in a season when you need to push your pitchers just that little bit more for the postseason push. Build them up properly and you don't get that risk. Just sayin'.

I agree with much of what you say, but there is also this:

2009- 30 teams with 5 SP slots each = need for 150 SP's in MLB.
1960- 16 teams with 4 SP slots each = need for 64 SP's in MLB.

That's over a 100% increase.

There are guys who are starting pitchers right now in MLB who would have never even sniffed the Show back in the good old days. They would have weeded themselves out, one way or another- hurt themselves or not been up to snuff. This is the main reason there is such a premium on pitching these days, IMO.

dougdirt
09-30-2009, 05:37 PM
I agree with much of what you say, but there is also this:

2009- 30 teams with 5 SP slots each = need for 150 SP's in MLB.
1960- 16 teams with 4 SP slots each = need for 64 SP's in MLB.

That's over a 100% increase.

There are guys who are starting pitchers right now in MLB who would have never even sniffed the Show back in the good old days. They would have weeded themselves out, one way or another- hurt themselves or not been up to snuff. This is the main reason there is such a premium on pitching these days, IMO.

The population of the US has gone way up since then, as well as the talent pool from Latin America and Japan/Korea. There is a much larger pool in which to draw talent from compared to 1960.

_Sir_Charles_
09-30-2009, 05:52 PM
I agree with much of what you say, but there is also this:

2009- 30 teams with 5 SP slots each = need for 150 SP's in MLB.
1960- 16 teams with 4 SP slots each = need for 64 SP's in MLB.

That's over a 100% increase.

There are guys who are starting pitchers right now in MLB who would have never even sniffed the Show back in the good old days. They would have weeded themselves out, one way or another- hurt themselves or not been up to snuff. This is the main reason there is such a premium on pitching these days, IMO.

Good point. I'm also in favor of the 4 man rotation too though. :O)

With so many teams stressing the need for a top-notch closer, some of the best pitchers have been pushed away from the starters role and are now relievers. I think you leave your young arms as starters (the ones with the best stuff) and the ones who can't hack the innings...then from the best of THOSE guys, you pick out your top relievers. But sometimes it seems to be done in the opposite direction.

I mean, if it's so tough to get 5 quality starters...then why put yourself in that position. Go for 4. Those fringe guys should be in the pen, not in the rotation. But it'll be hard to make the switch if only a few teams do it...because of free agency and trades, guys going to teams running the 4-man rotation will be behind the curve quite a bit. I applaud what Nolan is trying to do in Texas, but it might make it harder to convince pitchers from the outside to join the Rangers.

Chip R
09-30-2009, 05:54 PM
I agree that pitching is at a premium. But has anybody considered the fact that it's AT a premium BECAUSE we baby them? Because they're so valuable, shouldn't you want to get the most out of your investment ie more innings. Any player can get injured, treating them delicately only makes it more likely that they WILL get injured during those times in a season when you need to push your pitchers just that little bit more for the postseason push. Build them up properly and you don't get that risk. Just sayin'.


But that's what someone like Verducci is talking about. Homer may be an anomoly. He may never have any problems with his arm. But why take the chance just to be macho? The Reds aren't going anywhere. Verducci is talking about a moderate increase in IP every year for young pitchers. Someone like C.C. Sabathia you can ride into the ground because he's a veteran and he's a pretty big guy.

_Sir_Charles_
09-30-2009, 06:07 PM
It's not trying to be macho. It's what does Verducci consider to be a "moderate increase"? There's my problem with it. He's putting a number to it regardless of who the pitcher is. If the kid is throwing well, hasn't altered his mechanics, maintaining his speed, not gassed...then why pull him? Because he reached some phantom percentage point increase in innings compared to last year? Maybe Homer's innings last year were low because he wasn't throwing well and thus being yanked from games early...not because he was tiring. It's all a matter of what you consider to be "riding him into the ground". Everyone's interpretation of that is going to be different. That is until somebody puts a specific number on it and everybody jumps on board with it. 100 pitches. There was a time that pitching coaches and managers simply used their eyes and their best judgment (and their catchers') to determine if a pitcher was spent. In my mind, that's the better way to do it. It's based on the individual and how that individual is handling things on that specific day. I'd love to see the "pitch count" tossed out the window.

mth123
09-30-2009, 08:44 PM
It's not trying to be macho. It's what does Verducci consider to be a "moderate increase"? There's my problem with it. He's putting a number to it regardless of who the pitcher is. If the kid is throwing well, hasn't altered his mechanics, maintaining his speed, not gassed...then why pull him? Because he reached some phantom percentage point increase in innings compared to last year? Maybe Homer's innings last year were low because he wasn't throwing well and thus being yanked from games early...not because he was tiring. It's all a matter of what you consider to be "riding him into the ground". Everyone's interpretation of that is going to be different. That is until somebody puts a specific number on it and everybody jumps on board with it. 100 pitches. There was a time that pitching coaches and managers simply used their eyes and their best judgment (and their catchers') to determine if a pitcher was spent. In my mind, that's the better way to do it. It's based on the individual and how that individual is handling things on that specific day. I'd love to see the "pitch count" tossed out the window.

A big factor in this is the age element. At age 23, many people are still undergoing physical changes and development as a part of the growing up process. That is a lot different than age 27 when the vast majority of people are done with this. Verducci is just saying too much too soon for a maturing body increases the risk for some one at that age level. Its not destiny by any means, but its the cautious route. I know that if I'm the Cincinnati Reds and so much of my future depends upon Bailey and Cueto becoming a championship caliber 1-2 punch, I'd take it easy on them just to be safe. Those extra 20 innings in 2009 won't mean a thing in the big scheme of things. But an altered motion from fatigue or overstressing a body that still isn't fully developed that leads to shoulder or elbow issues changes the big picture drastically.

Why risk the big picture for 20 meaningless innings in a lost season? How does it make any sense?

Always Red
09-30-2009, 10:56 PM
Why risk the big picture for 20 meaningless innings in a lost season? How does it make any sense?

Do 20 innings really mean that much difference? There is no science here, only conjecture. I need to be convinced that 20 innings is really that meaningful.

Also- "innings" is a poor measurement, IMO. Number of pitches would be more accurate. Pitch counts were not kept for much of baseball history. Today, more and more emphasis is placed on the strikeout, for pitchers (missing bats), and the walk, for hitters (on base percentage). The game has changed. Pitchers throw more pitches per inning than in the past, IMO, though the numbers are not there for comparison.

A guy like Arroyo is a true throwback, in many ways. He really relies on location (of his pitches) and defense in order to succeed. And it worked this year, even though he did not miss many bats. I could easily see Arroyo having a career like Jamie Moyer's.

Brutus
09-30-2009, 10:59 PM
Do 20 innings really mean that much difference? There is no science here, only conjecture. I need to be convinced that 20 innings is really that meaningful.

Also- "innings" is a poor measurement, IMO. Number of pitches would be more accurate. Pitch counts were not kept for much of baseball history. Today, more and more emphasis is placed on the strikeout, for pitchers (missing bats), and the walk, for hitters (on base percentage). The game has changed. Pitchers throw more pitches per inning than in the past, IMO, though the numbers are not there for comparison.

A guy like Arroyo is a true throwback, in many ways. He really relies on location (of his pitches) and defense in order to succeed. And it worked this year, even though he did not miss many bats. I could easily see Arroyo having a career like Jamie Moyer's.

I think the the issue of pitch counts has gone beyond obsession. However, most definitely I think they're better to measure a pitcher by in terms of workload. Even the number of pitches don't necessarily tell you the amount of stress in those situations (as I do think more injuries happen when you're laboring from behind with runners on base than if you're pitching free-and-easy from the windup most of the game). But they're probably better to use than sheer number of innings.

camisadelgolf
10-01-2009, 07:57 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that over the past few years, one inning for Bailey was the equivalent of three for someone else.[/hyperbole]

Now that Bailey is pitching much more effectively, I think he gets a little leeway in the Verducci effect.

mbgrayson
10-01-2009, 07:28 PM
As we near the end of season, lets look at Verducci's 2009 list and see how his 'year after' effect rule of thumb played out. How many of the following pitchers had either an injury or significant regression in their performance.

1. Jon Lester, age 25. No significant injury. Only a slight drop in performance from 3.21 to 3.52 ERA. Has pitched 13 innings fewer than last year.

2. Cole Hamels, age 25. No significant injury. There is a significant drop in performance, from a 3.09 ERA last year, to a 4.25 ERA this year. WHIP and BAA also up. Pitched 37 fewer innings so far this year.

3. Chad Billingsley, age 24. No significant injury. There is a modest drop in performance, from a 3.14 ERA to a 4.03 ERA. WHIP and BAA a little better this year. Has pitched 4 fewer innings so far.

4. Tim Lincecum, age 24. No significant injury. Performance better than last year. ERA, WHIP, and BAA are all lower. Nine fewer innings than last year so far.

5. Clayton Kershaw, 21. Minor shoulder issues. Performance better than last year. ERA, WHIP, and BAA are all lower. Has thrown 58 more MLB innings than last year, but overall total is down.

6. Dana Eveland, age 25. Significant drop in performance, from 4.34 to 7.09 ERA.

7. Mike Pelfrey, age 25. Significant drop in performance, from 3.72 to 5.03 ERA.

8. John Danks, age 23. No significant injury. Performance about the same, from 3.32 to 3.69 ERA. IP is about the same as last year.

9. Jair Jurrjens, age 23. Significant improvement this year. ERA improved from 3.68 to 2.61 this year. Has thrown 19 more MLB innings than last year.

10. Jon Niese, age 22. Went out for the season with right hamstring injury on August 5th.

So it seems clear that the Verducci class of 2009 did not have much impact from their extra innings last year.

RedsManRick
10-01-2009, 07:33 PM
So it seems clear that the Verducci class of 2009 did not have much impact from their extra innings last year.

Just looking at the next year is too short of a time frame. Think of pitcher abuse like smoking. You probably won't get lung cancer tomorrow or even next year. In fact, you may never get lung cancer. But your chances of something harmful happening that otherwise wouldn't down the road shoot up significantly.

Emin3mShady07
10-01-2009, 07:36 PM
Jon Lester is actually way better this year than last year, but that is neither here nor there, in this debate.

dougdirt
10-01-2009, 07:37 PM
1. Jon Lester, age 25. No significant injury. FIP improved from 3.72 to 3.30.

2. Cole Hamels, age 25. No significant injury. FIP went from 3.70 to 3.71.

3. Chad Billingsley, age 24. No significant injury. FIP went from 3.33 to 3.77.

4. Tim Lincecum, age 24. No significant injury. FIP went from 2.67 to 2.37.

5. Clayton Kershaw, 21. Minor shoulder issues. FIP went from 4.06 to 3.15

6. Dana Eveland, age 25. FIP went from 4.15 to 5.30.

7. Mike Pelfrey, age 25. FIP went from 4.02 to 4.32. xFIP actually improved.

8. John Danks, age 23. No significant injury. FIP went from 3.52 to 4.54.

9. Jair Jurrjens, age 23. FIP went from 3.52 to 3.72.

I went ahead and added the FIP from 2008 and 2009 to each guy because it measures what the pitcher controls better than ERA/WHIP/BAA.

mbgrayson
10-01-2009, 07:47 PM
Just looking at the next year is too short of a time frame. Think of pitcher abuse like smoking. You probably won't get lung cancer tomorrow or even next year. In fact, you may never get lung cancer. But your chances of something harmful happening that otherwise wouldn't down the road shoot up significantly.

I view the Verducci effect as different from 'pitcher abuse'. It is a narrower subset of that, one that deals specifically with increased innings on young pitchers. An Verducci himself calls it the 'year after effect', so this is exactly what his articles have measured. Damage further in the future is a different issue, although also important.

mbgrayson
10-01-2009, 07:56 PM
I went ahead and added the FIP from 2008 and 2009 to each guy because it measures what the pitcher controls better than ERA/WHIP/BAA.

FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, is a great stat, but it is not what Mr. Verducci uses to evaluate his own rule of thumb.

In the April 2009 article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/04/07/yearafter.effect/index.html#ixzz0PARmykME)on this topic, Verducci is specifically using ERA:

How much should those guys be worried? Over the previous three years I red-flagged a total of 24 young pitchers at the start of those seasons. Of those 24 at-risk pitchers, 16 were hurt in that same season. Only one of the 24 pitchers managed to stay healthy and lower his ERA: Ubaldo Jimenez (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/7900) of Colorado, a guy I said would be less at risk because of his powerful body type.

So I also used ERA, to show that this year, even using Verducci's chosen stat, there doesn't apear to be much impact.

dougdirt
10-01-2009, 08:00 PM
FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, is a great stat, but it is not what Mr. Verducci uses to evaluate his own rule of thumb.

In the April 2009 article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/04/07/yearafter.effect/index.html#ixzz0PARmykME)on this topic, Verducci is specifically using ERA:


So I also used ERA, to show that this year, even using Verducci's chosen stat, there doesn't apear to be much impact.

Well by nature ERA is fairly volatile, so even though he chose to use it to illustrate ineffectiveness, it was a poor way to start about it. The main point is the innings boost makes a pitcher less effective.

Brutus
10-01-2009, 09:39 PM
FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, is a great stat, but it is not what Mr. Verducci uses to evaluate his own rule of thumb.

In the April 2009 article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/04/07/yearafter.effect/index.html#ixzz0PARmykME)on this topic, Verducci is specifically using ERA:


So I also used ERA, to show that this year, even using Verducci's chosen stat, there doesn't apear to be much impact.

Doug is right. ERA is a terrible way to measure the impact of the "year after" affect if he wants to argue pitching abuse. You could have 7 of 10 guys, that were heavily counted on the year before for throwing a lot of innings, all go down in ERA fairly significantly and he'll argue for his point. But those seven could well have been in line for significant drops by simple regression of pitching an ERA more to their FIP the following season - as often real good ERA seasons the year before might exceed what the FIP suggests they should have.

mbgrayson
10-05-2009, 09:56 AM
Homer Bailey:
2006: 139 IP
2007: 120 IP
2008: 148 IP
2009: 197 IP

Well, we are now at +49 innings for the year. I really hope that the Verducci Effect is wrong as to Homer next year.

Final 2009 numbers:

2009: 203 innings pitched

This is +55 innings for 2009 between MLB and AAA.

We shall see what happens next year, but I really hope that Homer does a lot of conditioning, and no more pitching till spring training. He has really matured this season, and we need him to be healthy and effective in 2010, especially with Volquez out for at least the first part of the season.

LoganBuck
05-07-2010, 08:42 PM
So, umm, yeah.......

Falls City Beer
05-07-2010, 08:46 PM
When all else fails blame Dusty.

LoganBuck
05-07-2010, 08:50 PM
When all else fails blame Dusty.

When I started this thread I was concerned. Fastforward to today.

membengal
05-08-2010, 08:17 AM
Nice try at raising a point for discussion Logan, but sarcastic dismissal has become a sad staple of the board.

Always Red
05-08-2010, 08:34 AM
Nice try at raising a point for discussion Logan, but sarcastic dismissal has become a sad staple of the board.

I'll try.

From Jeremy Greenhouse, writing for the Baseball Analysts:


I found 340 pitchers who pitched three consecutive years in MLB at ages 25 and under since 2002. 140 of them fit the Verducci Effect, while 200 did not. Here's the data.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/02/verducci_effect.php

Homer is certainly terrible right now, and late last summer may prove to have been the pinnacle of his career. That doesn't mean that the "Verducci Effect" is a sound theory, though.

Homer may indeed wind up on the DL for a while, not for arm troubles, but to get his head together, and spend some time with Justin Lehr.

Falls City Beer
05-08-2010, 12:30 PM
I'll try.

From Jeremy Greenhouse, writing for the Baseball Analysts:



http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/02/verducci_effect.php

Homer is certainly terrible right now, and late last summer may prove to have been the pinnacle of his career. That doesn't mean that the "Verducci Effect" is a sound theory, though.

Homer may indeed wind up on the DL for a while, not for arm troubles, but to get his head together, and spend some time with Justin Lehr.

You mean the Verducci effect is simply some underfunded guess, like most theories surrounding injury and susceptibility to injury? Like manager impact on W/L?

LoganBuck
05-08-2010, 01:14 PM
Here is the article from Verducci from this year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/02/16/verducci.effect/index.html

Sorry if it offends the popular ideas about mental toughness, and such, but I don't see the same pitcher on the mound I saw last year. Yes, Homer has had issues in the past, but I am seeing wild swings on his fastball mph, and he hasn't been handled well this year either. His last outing in St. Louis, Baker pushed him to 121 pitches. People were quick to point out how it wasn't a big deal. He pitched like a guy who threw 121 pitches in his last outing. Which is like crap.

HokieRed
05-08-2010, 01:17 PM
Here is the article from Verducci from this year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/02/16/verducci.effect/index.html

Sorry if it offends the popular ideas about mental toughness, and such, but I don't see the same pitcher on the mound I saw last year. Yes, Homer has had issues in the past, but I am seeing wild swings on his fastball mph, and he hasn't been handled well this year either. His last outing in St. Louis, Baker pushed him to 121 pitches. People were quick to point out how it wasn't a big deal. He pitched like a guy who threw 121 pitches in his last outing. Which is like crap.

One qualification. Some of us did think it was a typically poor decision to let Homer throw 121.

Always Red
05-08-2010, 02:17 PM
Here is the article from Verducci from this year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/02/16/verducci.effect/index.html

Sorry if it offends the popular ideas about mental toughness, and such, but I don't see the same pitcher on the mound I saw last year. Yes, Homer has had issues in the past, but I am seeing wild swings on his fastball mph, and he hasn't been handled well this year either. His last outing in St. Louis, Baker pushed him to 121 pitches. People were quick to point out how it wasn't a big deal. He pitched like a guy who threw 121 pitches in his last outing. Which is like crap.

So, if he's bad then he must be injured? :confused:

Didn't we just hash through this with Harang, and then he started pitching better, so, as it turns out, he wasn't injured?

The Verducci effect is about injury, and not just pitching poorly, right?

Yes, Homer is pitching like crap. But I don't think it's because he's injured. I watched the game last night and he was hitting 94 on occasion.

His fastball has no movement, never did, and he can't hit his spots. He needs to talk with Justin Lehr again, who apparently taught him how to throw the splitter that he has lost, somehow, over the winter.

He did throw some amazing curves last night- a couple of really tight 12-6 beauties that just dropped right in the bottom of the zone.

Homer needs a tuneup under the noggin. He's just rearing back and throwing again, like we have seen most of the time from him except the end of last summer, when he showed signs of an intelligent approach to pitching.

TheNext44
05-08-2010, 02:20 PM
Here is the article from Verducci from this year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/02/16/verducci.effect/index.html

Sorry if it offends the popular ideas about mental toughness, and such, but I don't see the same pitcher on the mound I saw last year. Yes, Homer has had issues in the past, but I am seeing wild swings on his fastball mph, and he hasn't been handled well this year either. His last outing in St. Louis, Baker pushed him to 121 pitches. People were quick to point out how it wasn't a big deal. He pitched like a guy who threw 121 pitches in his last outing. Which is like crap.

Actually, he pitched like he's been pitching most of the season, inconsistently. I think it has more to do with the wear and tear on Homer's brain than his arm.

REDblooded
05-08-2010, 02:24 PM
I still think there's a lot more to this than some of you want to think...

Captain Hook
05-08-2010, 02:34 PM
Here is the article from Verducci from this year.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/02/16/verducci.effect/index.html

Sorry if it offends the popular ideas about mental toughness, and such, but I don't see the same pitcher on the mound I saw last year. Yes, Homer has had issues in the past, but I am seeing wild swings on his fastball mph, and he hasn't been handled well this year either. His last outing in St. Louis, Baker pushed him to 121 pitches. People were quick to point out how it wasn't a big deal. He pitched like a guy who threw 121 pitches in his last outing. Which is like crap.

Captain Hook
05-08-2010, 02:43 PM
Homer has had his fair share of games where he has pitched like crap.I don't think he went into all of those games coming off 121 pitch outings.The fact that he did in this game is a just coincidence.It's much more likely that he stunk yesterday simply because he's Homer Bailey and that's what he does from time to time.I look for him to be much better next time out.

_Sir_Charles_
05-08-2010, 02:44 PM
Actually, he pitched like he's been pitching most of the season, inconsistently. I think it has more to do with the wear and tear on Homer's brain than his arm.

I think it has more to do with him being young and inconsistent.

Mario-Rijo
05-08-2010, 03:22 PM
I think it has more to do with him being young and inconsistent.

I'm not poo-pooing the ideas here he may very well end up hurt eventually. But right now I agree with this until I hear something is up. He is just not hitting his locations and I feel like he is the type who might always have trouble with it to some extent due to his length, not to mention I am not overly fond of his stuff he's always been a bit too hittable in my estimation. Guys are just sitting up there waiting on a good pitch to hit knowing he's struggling even keeping it in the zone, once he does throw it in the zone it's often again quite hittable. Once he misses the zone often enough (due to mechanics) he starts making it worse by trying to overthrow everything. That's my theory.

OnBaseMachine
05-09-2010, 12:20 AM
Speaking of pitch counts, I found this interesting (From Jeff Passan's twitter):

Meche threw 132 in a shutout June 16 last year. In his 15 starts since: 2-9, 8.37 ERA, 104 hits and 52 walks in 76 1/3 innings, with 45 Ks.

http://twitter.com/JeffPassan

pedro
05-09-2010, 12:26 AM
If Homer can't handle the work load he's had so far then he just isn't destined to be a starter in the majors. If it takes him that many pitches to get through 6 innings he either works through it or he fails. There comes a time when it's sink or swim.