Homer Bailey vs. Phil Hughes

[JKam]

When they were coming up through the minors, Bailey and Hughes were regarded as the best two pitching prospects. Some had Hughes higher than Bailey and vice versa.

Now they are in the majors. Hughes was used out of the pen in 2009 and had a good breakout year as a starter last season. Homer is still trying to find consistency and stay injury free, but he has shown signs of dominance in short stints.

Who would you rather have? Would you take what looks like the more polished and further along pitcher in Hughes, or would you rather have the Bailey with his potential?

[Jefferson24]

I'm just about through with Homer. I think I'll give him this season to prove his worth. Hughes I would argue to this point has proved to be more valuable to his team. That doesn't mean he will continue to be the better of the two. I think the edge goes to Hughes and if I was picking that's who I would choose.

[brm7675]

I don't ever see either being dominate A type starters, both will probably have serviceable ML careers, but personally i see higher upside with Cueto/Woods and even Leake at this point.

[Jefferson24]

I don't ever see either being dominate A type starters, both will probably have serviceable ML careers, but personally i see higher upside with Cueto/Woods and even Leake at this point.

Hughes was 18-8 last year and an All Star, not a type A starter but not that far off.

He had more wins than any Reds pitcher but the ERA was 4.19.

Cueto had a lower ERA (3.64) but the WHIP numbers were the same (1.24 to 1.28).

I'm not convinced yet that I would rather have Cueto, Woods, Leake or Bailey over Hughes.

[Krawhitham]

Hughes was 18-8 last year and an All Star, not a type A starter but not that far off.

He had more wins than any Reds pitcher but the ERA was 4.19.



I could get 12 wins pitching for the Yankees and my fastball only hits high 80's low 90's

Hughes had more wins than quality starts (18 vs 15), using the same ratio Arroyo would have had 25 wins last year for the Yankees

[New York Red]

All the spoiled Yankee fans I know consider Hughes a bust, and the weak link in their pitching staff. His ERA was pretty high to have the record he had, and I'm sure that ERA would be even higher at GAB. I'd say there isn't enough of a sample size yet for me to choose between Hughes and Bailey. I think we learn a lot more about both this year.

[Jefferson24]

I think we learn a lot more about both this year.

I agree this year will show a lot more about Hughes and our young pitchers. Hopefully Homer gets his location dialed in and trusts his catcher's pitch calling. I think the potential is there but if he doesn't show something soon I think he will be gone.

[Quatitos]

Hughes was 18-8 last year and an All Star, not a type A starter but not that far off.

He had more wins than any Reds pitcher but the ERA was 4.19.

Cueto had a lower ERA (3.64) but the WHIP numbers were the same (1.24 to 1.28).

I'm not convinced yet that I would rather have Cueto, Woods, Leake or Bailey over Hughes.

Hughes had 17 games of 6+ run support, and went 15-0 in those games. Hughes had 14 games of 5 or less run support, and went 3-8 in those games (2 of those wins coming in games where he got 5 runs from his side).

Ignore his win totals, they are in no way indicative of how he performed last season.

[brm7675]

Hughes was 18-8 last year and an All Star, not a type A starter but not that far off.

He had more wins than any Reds pitcher but the ERA was 4.19.

Cueto had a lower ERA (3.64) but the WHIP numbers were the same (1.24 to 1.28).

I'm not convinced yet that I would rather have Cueto, Woods, Leake or Bailey over Hughes.

W/L record is not what I would consider a "key" factor in quality of pitcher

[webbbj]

IDK but its definitely a make or break year for Homer Bailey and I optimistically think he will pitch really well this year. If he doesnt I think they could try him in the bullpen next year. Though I really hope that doesnt happen since I think he could be a really good starter.

I have no opinion of Phil Hughes.

[757690]

Hughes has turned into a solid #3 starting pitcher. In 2009 and 2010 combined, he posted a 3.81 ERA, 8.3 K/9, 2.81 KK/BB and a 1.205 WHIP. Some of those innings were in relief, but still, he has seemed to have put it together and be reliable starting pitcher.

I'm not sure Bailey could ever put up similar numbers over two full seasons, or even one.

[Quatitos]

Hughes has turned into a solid #3 starting pitcher. In 2009 and 2010 combined, he posted a 3.81 ERA, 8.3 K/9, 2.81 KK/BB and a 1.205 WHIP. Some of those innings were in relief, but still, he has seemed to have put it together and be reliable starting pitcher.

I'm not sure Bailey could ever put up similar numbers over two full seasons, or even one.
I wouldn't reference his stats from 2009 since his starting stats that year were pretty bad. As a starter he posted a 5.45 ERA with a 1.5 WHIP and a 2.07 K/BB, he did most of his damage in 09 out of the bullpen with a 1.40 ERA with a .857 WHIP and a 5.00 K/BB. I would expect similar numbers from Bailey if we were to stick him into the BP. As for the argument of how good of a starting pitcher Hughes is, you definitely don't want to use 2009 to support that since Hughes was just not a good starter that year.

On Homers side, as a starter in 20 games in 2009 he put up a 4.53 ERA with a 1.474 WHIP and a 1.65 K/BB. Looking at a bit more advanced stats, Bailey put up a 4.41 FIP and 4.58 xFIP in 2009, versus Hughes' 5.29 FIP and 5.01 xFIP as a starter.

In 2010, where both these guys pitched better stats wise, Homer put up a 4.46 ERA with a 1.37 WHIP and 2.5 K/BB. Hughes on the other hand put up a 4.23 ERA with a 1.26 WHIP and 2.47 K/BB as a starter. Bailey posted a 3.74 FIP and a 3.91 xFIP versus Hughes' 4.30 FIP and 4.37 xFIP. Homer also posted a much better 1.12 (career 1.20) GB/FB ratio last season versus Hughes' 0.76 (career 0.79) GB/FB, and that is huge in a park like GABP.

Hughes had some more success last season than Bailey in terms of results, but I think the ability of the two last season was fairly similar and I would probably take Bailey since he has shown consistent improvement each season and his GB/FB tendencies fit into GABP better than Hughes.

[UPRedsFan]

Once again FIP? and xFIP?

I have no clue what those are and what an average or respectable number is

[MikeThierry]

I think that what needs to be kept in perspective is that Hughes pitches in the AL East. Yes he is on the Yankees but the Red Sox, Rays, and Jays were no push overs at the plate. Who knows what Hughes would do if he pitched in the NL Central on the Reds. Its a hypothetical. However at least keep this factor in mind when judging between the two.

While FB/GB ratio is important, I'm not so sure that Great American Ballpark is more susceptible to giving up HR's than new Yankee Stadium. That place is a launching pad. It might be the team the Yankees put together but it certainly isn't a pitcher friendly park.

I also agree with UPRedsFan. Please bring stats to the table that don't require us to use calculus when figuring it out. Sabermetrics has its place and some of the stats are valid but at least explain it to everyone what you are talking about and why it factors into this discussion.

And no, I will not look it up. The burden is on you to explain it since you are bringing it into the forum.

[Quatitos]

I think that what needs to be kept in perspective is that Hughes pitches in the AL East. Yes he is on the Yankees but the Red Sox, Rays, and Jays were no push overs at the plate. Who knows what Hughes would do if he pitched in the NL Central on the Reds. Its a hypothetical. However at least keep this factor in mind when judging between the two.

Since your bringing that into the argument why don't you explain how big of an impact you can expect that to be :p:.

I would expect that to be a factor, but the quantity of what impact that would have is debatable and probably too big of a topic to be determined here.




While FB/GB ratio is important, I'm not so sure that Great American Ballpark is more susceptible to giving up HR's than new Yankee Stadium. That place is a launching pad. It might be the team the Yankees put together but it certainly isn't a pitcher friendly park.

I was not implying that Yankee Stadium was any more or less prone to giving up HR's than GABP, just that with Hughes' much lower GB/FB would be less than ideal in a park like GABP when compared to someone with a higher GB/FB ratio like Bailey. I never said anything comparing the parks, just that having a lower GB/FB ratio in GABP is not a good thing, which I think is a reasonable argument.



I also agree with UPRedsFan. Please bring stats to the table that don't require us to use calculus when figuring it out. Sabermetrics has its place and some of the stats are valid but at least explain it to everyone what you are talking about and why it factors into this discussion.

And no, I will not look it up. The burden is on you to explain it since you are bringing it into the forum.

Since it was one of many stats I mentioned I am quite surprised at the apparent hostility I got from using them. FIP does not require calculus when figuring it out, it is just addition and multiplication of several stats that are completely under a pitchers control, such as HR, BB, IBB, HBP, and K's and it is scaled to about the same scale as ERA. If you would like an introduction to FIP then you can look here (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitcher-win-values-explained-part-two) and some answers regarding FIP and xFIP can be seen here (http://www.fangraphs.com/forums/topic.php?id=3663). If you don't want to read, just ignore it, I think the other stats speak well enough. I only brought it up as a sort of "if you understand this stat than you can take this into account, if not just look at the other stats."

My post had a lot more than the comparison of FIP and xFIP between the two, and the reaction to just reading those and suddenly its like "Hey hey, I don't know what that is all your words are now magic nonsense that I can't understand and its your fault."

[757690]

I wouldn't reference his stats from 2009 since his starting stats that year were pretty bad. As a starter he posted a 5.45 ERA with a 1.5 WHIP and a 2.07 K/BB, he did most of his damage in 09 out of the bullpen with a 1.40 ERA with a .857 WHIP and a 5.00 K/BB. I would expect similar numbers from Bailey if we were to stick him into the BP. As for the argument of how good of a starting pitcher Hughes is, you definitely don't want to use 2009 to support that since Hughes was just not a good starter that year.

On Homers side, as a starter in 20 games in 2009 he put up a 4.53 ERA with a 1.474 WHIP and a 1.65 K/BB. Looking at a bit more advanced stats, Bailey put up a 4.41 FIP and 4.58 xFIP in 2009, versus Hughes' 5.29 FIP and 5.01 xFIP as a starter.

In 2010, where both these guys pitched better stats wise, Homer put up a 4.46 ERA with a 1.37 WHIP and 2.5 K/BB. Hughes on the other hand put up a 4.23 ERA with a 1.26 WHIP and 2.47 K/BB as a starter. Bailey posted a 3.74 FIP and a 3.91 xFIP versus Hughes' 4.30 FIP and 4.37 xFIP. Homer also posted a much better 1.12 (career 1.20) GB/FB ratio last season versus Hughes' 0.76 (career 0.79) GB/FB, and that is huge in a park like GABP.

Hughes had some more success last season than Bailey in terms of results, but I think the ability of the two last season was fairly similar and I would probably take Bailey since he has shown consistent improvement each season and his GB/FB tendencies fit into GABP better than Hughes.

When I watch Hughes, I see a polished, intelligent pitcher who is learning how to pitch. When I watch Bailey, I see lost puppy, who can get by on pure stuff on occasion, but who doesn't understand how to pitch.

I just don't see Bailey ever improving, ever being a consistent, successful starting pitcher. He shows flashes of greatness, but it never lasts. He just doesn't get it, and I don't think he ever will.

[Quatitos]

When I watch Hughes, I see a polished, intelligent pitcher who is learning how to pitch. When I watch Bailey, I see lost puppy, who can get by on pure stuff on occasion, but who doesn't understand how to pitch. How many times have you actually watched Hughes pitch? Have you had sufficient exposure to him or is that just a reaction to seeing him pitch a couple good games? I'm sure you've seen Bailey a lot so you have definitely seen his bad games along with his good games. This could all just be a case of small sample size where you haven't had a chance to see one of Hughes' bad games.

The starting stats for the the two over the past 2 seasons are very similar. Over the past 2 season Bailey has put up a 4.49 ERA, 7.53 K/9, 3.72 BB/9, 9.07 H/9, 0.93 HR/9, and a 1.42 WHIP. Hughes put up a 4.44 ERA, 7.49 K/9, 3.14 BB/9, 8.57 H/9, 1.33 HR/9, and a 1.30 WHIP. I guess the difference between a polished, intelligent pitcher and a lost puppy is giving up an extra hit and walk every 18 innings or so.




I just don't see Bailey ever improving, ever being a consistent, successful starting pitcher. He shows flashes of greatness, but it never lasts. He just doesn't get it, and I don't think he ever will.

I mean if you throw out the fact that Bailey has improved with the more time he has had in the majors, I guess I could see how Bailey has no track record of improving. Ignore the fact that his HR%, BB%, K%, and WHIP are starting to approach the numbers he put up in the minors, there is no way he could be starting to put it all together at the major league level. I'm not saying Bailey is an all star caliber pitcher right now, but I don't believe he is as bad as you say he is, especially in comparison to Hughes.

[MikeThierry]

Since your bringing that into the argument why don't you explain how big of an impact you can expect that to be .

I would expect that to be a factor, but the quantity of what impact that would have is debatable and probably too big of a topic to be determined here.

There has to be some impact in pitching in the AL East with a DH spot. The NL Central lineups that Bailey has to face on a nightly basis are less potent than the ones that Phil Hughes has to face on a nightly basis. It will have some impact. As to how much impact it will have, it is difficult to say. My overall point is that you have to keep that in mind when comparing Homer Bailey to Phil Hughes. Phil Hughes is simply in tougher division than that of Homer Bailey. Furthermore, having to face a DH rather than a pitcher does have to be factored into this conversation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or any sabermetric stat to figure that out.

Going by your stats, they are similar. Right now though, I'll have to tip my cap to Hughes because of the AL East/DH factor.

[MikeThierry]

On a further note, in 2010 the New Yankee Stadium had a 1.420 Home Run factor compared to a 1.136 home run factor in GABP. In 2009, New Yankee Stadium had a 1.261 HR factor (led the majors) compared to a 1.176 HR factor for GABP.

Now this has many factors to it such as quality of pitching, lineup, etc. Again though, it cannot be ignored that Yankee Stadium is as much of a HR park as GABP, if not more. It has to factor into the Homber Bailey/Phil Hughes debate.

[Quatitos]

There has to be some impact in pitching in the AL East with a DH spot. The NL Central lineups that Bailey has to face on a nightly basis are less potent than the ones that Phil Hughes has to face on a nightly basis. It will have some impact. As to how much impact it will have, it is difficult to say. My overall point is that you have to keep that in mind when comparing Homer Bailey to Phil Hughes. Phil Hughes is simply in tougher division than that of Homer Bailey. Furthermore, having to face a DH rather than a pitcher does have to be factored into this conversation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or any sabermetric stat to figure that out.

Going by your stats, they are similar. Right now though, I'll have to tip my cap to Hughes because of the AL East/DH factor.

But at what point would coming from the AL East/DH be outweighed by worse stats? Last year the NL posted a 4.02 ERA, 3.32 BB/9, 7.39 K/9, and 0.93 HR/9. The AL posted a 4.14 ERA, 3.24 BB/9, 6.83 K/9, and 0.99 HR/9. So would you assume he would receive that kind of bump in those stats or do you think it would be more?

After looking at some of the other stats I would definitely have to say that Hughes was more lucky/better supported last year than Bailey. I'm not talking about the run support he got from being on the Yankees offense, but he received better support from his bullpen.

In 2010, Phil Hughes left a total of 14 runners on when he left the game, and the bullpen only allowed 3 runs to score. Bailey on the other hand left 11 runners on when he left the game, and the bullpen allowed 7 of those runs to score. If you were to give Phil Hughes the same kind of bad luck that Homer suffered from the bullpen he would have had 9 of those runs score instead of 3, and his ERA would have been around 4.54. This is partly why I was using FIP in my previous post because it doesn't involves factors like this that aren't up to the pitcher.



On a further note, in 2010 the New Yankee Stadium had a 1.420 Home Run factor compared to a 1.136 home run factor in GABP. In 2009, New Yankee Stadium had a 1.261 HR factor (led the majors) compared to a 1.176 HR factor for GABP.

Now this has many factors to it such as quality of pitching, lineup, etc. Again though, it cannot be ignored that Yankee Stadium is as much of a HR park as GABP, if not more. It has to factor into the Homber Bailey/Phil Hughes debate.

I am not sure what your point is, since I was just arguing that GABP is on the more likely side of giving away homeruns on fly balls. So I take it you agree and that that you acknowledge that Phil Hughes' flyball tendancy is a knock against him since the conversation is between Bailey and Hughes, and Bailey has a more groundball tendency.

[MikeThierry]

But at what point would coming from the AL East/DH be outweighed by worse stats? Last year the NL posted a 4.02 ERA, 3.32 BB/9, 7.39 K/9, and 0.93 HR/9. The AL posted a 4.14 ERA, 3.24 BB/9, 6.83 K/9, and 0.99 HR/9. So would you assume he would receive that kind of bump in those stats or do you think it would be more?


You are analyzing this too much. I'm not saying Hughes is a better pitcher than Bailey. The DH and the AL East have to be a factor though. It can't be ignored. Simply having a competent hitter in the 9 hole rather than an almost automatic out in that spot increases the chances of more runs being scored. By how much, I don't know. I haven't gone in depth and written a 20 page paper on the effects of not having a DH. My whole point in this is that it has to be a factor when debating Bailey vs Hughes. It has to be a factor when discussing any AL pitcher vs. any NL pitcher. Furthermore, pitching in the toughest division in not only baseball but possibly all 4 major North American sports should be at least mentioned in this debate. There are also two extra teams in the NL so when comparing NL and AL pitching stats, that might be a situation where the stats don't tell the whole story.

I know sabermatricians do not believe in intangibles (yes, they aren't robots *shock horror*) but the pressure of pitching in New York could also be a factor. Places like Boston, LA, New York just eat up some players especially younger players. Who knows what Phil Hughes might do in a smaller market like Cincinnati.



I am not sure what your point is, since I was just arguing that GABP is on the more likely side of giving away homeruns on fly balls. So I take it you agree and that that you acknowledge that Phil Hughes' flyball tendancy is a knock against him since the conversation is between Bailey and Hughes, and Bailey has a more groundball tendency.

My only point in bringing up the stadium issue is that it might have lead to a slightly higher HR ratio for Hughes.

I also believe that pitching coaching philosophy plays an important role when discussing two players that have almost identical stats. Is inducing ground balls a focus on the Yankees pitching staff? What is their overall philosophy? I know on the Cardinals, Dave Duncan will purposely change pitchers approach and their pitch selection so they can induce ground balls. The Cards induced the most ground balls in the majors last year. The Yankees this year fired their pitching coach Dave Eiland, so that tells me there wasn't a right fit there and the philosophy was exactly meshing to what management was expecting. Bailey and Hughes could be using the same pitching philosophy. Who knows. My point here is that there are a lot of intangibles to think about that a stat page can't tell you.

[757690]

How many times have you actually watched Hughes pitch? Have you had sufficient exposure to him or is that just a reaction to seeing him pitch a couple good games? I'm sure you've seen Bailey a lot so you have definitely seen his bad games along with his good games. This could all just be a case of small sample size where you haven't had a chance to see one of Hughes' bad games.

The starting stats for the the two over the past 2 seasons are very similar. Over the past 2 season Bailey has put up a 4.49 ERA, 7.53 K/9, 3.72 BB/9, 9.07 H/9, 0.93 HR/9, and a 1.42 WHIP. Hughes put up a 4.44 ERA, 7.49 K/9, 3.14 BB/9, 8.57 H/9, 1.33 HR/9, and a 1.30 WHIP. I guess the difference between a polished, intelligent pitcher and a lost puppy is giving up an extra hit and walk every 18 innings or so.

I mean if you throw out the fact that Bailey has improved with the more time he has had in the majors, I guess I could see how Bailey has no track record of improving. Ignore the fact that his HR%, BB%, K%, and WHIP are starting to approach the numbers he put up in the minors, there is no way he could be starting to put it all together at the major league level. I'm not saying Bailey is an all star caliber pitcher right now, but I don't believe he is as bad as you say he is, especially in comparison to Hughes.

All good points.

Young pitchers are the hardest thing to project in baseball. So much depends on how well they learn and adjust and develop mentally and emotionally, that stuff and stats just don't do an accurate job by themselves. Just look at all the projection services' record on young pitchers. It's really not any better than just flipping a coin.

Many great examples of this, but here is one just to make the point.

After 2007, Matt Belisle had this career line:

4.84 ERA
1.46 WHIP
6.2 K/9
2.39 K/BB
1.2 HR/9

After 2007, Wandy Rodriquez had this career line:

5.17 ERA
1.45 WHIP
6.8 K/9
1.89 K/BB
1.2 HR/9

Both were top prospects, with Matt ranked as high as 28th in the country by Baseball America once, and Wandy never ranked in the top 100. Wandy is one year older. The only difference is that Matt pitched more in relief in his early MLB years, but he did spend all of 2007 in the starting rotation.

Obviously, this proves nothing. But it does suggest that stats don't tell the whole story when it comes to projecting young pitchers who are still struggling to reach their potential.

[Kiss the Baby00]

hughes pitches in a lot tougher league and division than the reds currently find themselves in

[RedsLvr]

Is this a serious question. I'll take an injured Phil Hughes over Homer Bailey. Ok not really, but there really isn't a debate.

[signalhome]

I wouldn't reference his stats from 2009 since his starting stats that year were pretty bad. As a starter he posted a 5.45 ERA with a 1.5 WHIP and a 2.07 K/BB, he did most of his damage in 09 out of the bullpen with a 1.40 ERA with a .857 WHIP and a 5.00 K/BB. I would expect similar numbers from Bailey if we were to stick him into the BP. As for the argument of how good of a starting pitcher Hughes is, you definitely don't want to use 2009 to support that since Hughes was just not a good starter that year.

On Homers side, as a starter in 20 games in 2009 he put up a 4.53 ERA with a 1.474 WHIP and a 1.65 K/BB. Looking at a bit more advanced stats, Bailey put up a 4.41 FIP and 4.58 xFIP in 2009, versus Hughes' 5.29 FIP and 5.01 xFIP as a starter.

In 2010, where both these guys pitched better stats wise, Homer put up a 4.46 ERA with a 1.37 WHIP and 2.5 K/BB. Hughes on the other hand put up a 4.23 ERA with a 1.26 WHIP and 2.47 K/BB as a starter. Bailey posted a 3.74 FIP and a 3.91 xFIP versus Hughes' 4.30 FIP and 4.37 xFIP. Homer also posted a much better 1.12 (career 1.20) GB/FB ratio last season versus Hughes' 0.76 (career 0.79) GB/FB, and that is huge in a park like GABP.

Hughes had some more success last season than Bailey in terms of results, but I think the ability of the two last season was fairly similar and I would probably take Bailey since he has shown consistent improvement each season and his GB/FB tendencies fit into GABP better than Hughes.

If Bailey can keep his BB/9 as low as last year, and not fall back into the 4.00 range of his earlier years, I would also rather have Bailey. I really hope he's able to duplicate last year's 3.74 FIP.

[signalhome]

Is this a serious question. I'll take an injured Phil Hughes over Homer Bailey. Ok not really, but there really isn't a debate.

You say it as if Hughes is light years ahead of Bailey. They're the same age, and if you check their peripherals, they produced pretty similar results last year. Both guys are very talented and any organization would be lucky to have either of them.

[MikeThierry]

Well, if they have similar stats, I'll take Phil Hughes considering he came from a better division and has played under the pressure of New York.

[New York Red]

One thing is clear: Reds fans seem to have a higher opinion of Hughes than the Yankee fans I know have of him.

:beerme:

[RedsLvr]

You say it as if Hughes is light years ahead of Bailey. They're the same age, and if you check their peripherals, they produced pretty similar results last year. Both guys are very talented and any organization would be lucky to have either of them.

I am saying it as if Hughes is light years in front of Bailey, because he is.

[Quatitos]

I am saying it as if Hughes is light years in front of Bailey, because he is.What is your definition of light years? The only thing I see him as light years ahead of Bailey in is his number of W's (which are more because of Hughes' team support than what Hughes is doing). In most statistical measures they are very close, with the general opinion in this discussion that Hughes' gets the nod since he is producing slightly better numbers in a tougher league. This I find believable although my opinion differs slightly, but I can not imagine how you can see Hughes as light years ahead of Bailey.

[RedsLvr]

Hughes is mechanically better than Bailey, and that stats really aren't too close at all when you get down to it. Do you realize that Homer Bailey was on the verge of having more walks than strikeouts two years in a row? Hughes has nearly 3x as many strikeouts as walks. Bailey's career ERA is over 5, compared to Hughes's 4. That's huge, and so is Bailey's WHIP stat.

Hughes has been to an all-star game and has pitched in over a dozen playoff games. There's a reason Hughes is making news in NY while Bailey is here with the Reds.

[RedsLvr]

Hughes is mechanically better than Bailey and has much more command, and that stats really aren't too close at all when you get down to it. Do you realize that Homer Bailey was on the verge of having more walks than strikeouts two years in a row? Hughes has nearly 3x as many strikeouts as walks. Bailey's career ERA is over 5, compared to Hughes's 4. That's huge, and so is Bailey's WHIP stat.

Hughes has been to an all-star game and has pitched in over a dozen playoff games. There's a reason Hughes is making news in NY while Bailey is here with the Reds.

[RedsLvr]

Hughes is mechanically better than Bailey and has much more command, and the stats really aren't too close at all when you get down to it. Do you realize that Homer Bailey was on the verge of having more walks than strikeouts two years in a row? Hughes has nearly 3x as many strikeouts as walks. Bailey's career ERA is over 5, compared to Hughes's 4. That's huge, and so is Bailey's WHIP stat.

Hughes has been to an all-star game and has pitched in over a dozen playoff games. There's a reason Hughes is making news in NY while Bailey is here with the Reds.

[Quatitos]

Hughes is mechanically better than Bailey, and that stats really aren't too close at all when you get down to it. Do you realize that Homer Bailey was on the verge of having more walks than strikeouts two years in a row? Hughes has nearly 3x as many strikeouts as walks. Bailey's career ERA is over 5, compared to Hughes's 4. That's huge, and so is Bailey's WHIP stat.

Hughes has been to an all-star game and has pitched in over a dozen playoff games. There's a reason Hughes is making news in NY while Bailey is here with the Reds.

What evidence do you have that Hughes is mechanically better than Bailey? From what I can tell they both had some mechanical problems in the 07-08 time frame and have since fixed them with both regaining some lost velocity on their fast ball as well as allowing both to regain some control with better mechanics.

Oh yeah those 2 "years" in a row Bailey was hovering around the 1:1 K/BB ratio, in all of about 40 innings a piece. Nitpicking on a small sample size and Homer has clearly corrected that posting a 2.02 K/BB over the past 2 years and a 2.50 K/BB last year.

If by "Hughes has nearly 3x as many strikeouts as walks" you mean he has a career 2.48 K/BB then you are correct. Last year he had a 2.47 K/BB (the same as Bailey) and has a 2 year average of 2.39 K/BB as a starter.

And with "Bailey's career ERA is over 5, compared to Hughes's 4" well yes that is kind of true, Bailey has a career ERA of 5.09 and Hughes has a 4.20 career ERA (not quite 4 by the way). But lets look at their last 2 seasons of starting experience, Bailey has a 4.49 ERA as a starter the last 2 seasons, and Hughes has a 4.44 ERA over the last 2 seasons. Even if we just look at last year where Bailey had a 4.46 ERA to 4.23 ERA as a starter.

As for WHIP, Homer posted a 1.37 WHIP last season and a two year average of 1.42. Hughes had a 1.26 WHIP and a two year average of 1.30 as a starter. For reference the league average last season was 1.35. Hughes' is better of course, but that is too be expected since he is a fly ball pitcher versus Bailey who is a ground ball pitcher and fly ball pitchers will allow less hits, but give up more extra base hits, as seen by Hughes' 1.29 HR/9 versus Bailey's 0.91 (obviously Yankee stadium has been giving up more HR's than GABP, but with that factored in Hughes' rate would still be decently higher than Bailey's).

Also, who has never heard of a Yankees playing making the all star team while not deserving it :rolleyes:. And Hughes pitching in more playoff games does not mean that Hughes is a better pitcher, just that his team has played a lot more playoff games. In 27 2/3 innings pitched in the playoffs Hughes has a 5.82 ERA, so I don't know if that really reflects well on him anyways.

Obviously the argument is there for Hughes being a step above Bailey, but to say he is light years ahead of him is baseless and indefensible.

[Quatitos]

I also agree with UPRedsFan. Please bring stats to the table that don't require us to use calculus when figuring it out. Sabermetrics has its place and some of the stats are valid but at least explain it to everyone what you are talking about and why it factors into this discussion.


I thought you might enjoy this, my favorite part is the little part with Alexei Ramirez vs Yuniesky Betancourt. It also makes the fact that the Brewers had to pick him up with Greinke pretty funny.

YouTube - FIP: A New ERA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuWoLBhnJ1g)

[RedsLvr]

It doesn't really matter what it was as a sample size, it's still 2 years out of his 4 year career..

And that time period in which he has thrown a K/BB ratio over 2.0, is around the same timeframe as the period in which his was hovering near 1.0....just saying. In his total career, Bailey has posted a 1.69 K/BB ratio and Hughes has thrown a 2.49 K/BB ratio. Quite a difference.

How about opponent BA? Hitters have hit .277 against Bailey and .243 against Hughes. That's absolutely terrible.

If there is even one stat that Bailey outshines Hughes in, please let me know.

[Quatitos]

It doesn't really matter what it was as a sample size, it's still 2 years out of his 4 year career..

And that time period in which he has thrown a K/BB ratio over 2.0, is around the same timeframe as the period in which his was hovering near 1.0....just saying. In his total career, Bailey has posted a 1.69 K/BB ratio and Hughes has thrown a 2.49 K/BB ratio. Quite a difference.

The sample size does actually kind of matter, if you have ever taken any kind of class that deals with statistics you would know that. Also, what Bailey did in that small sample in 07 and 08 is not very relevant to how he will perform in 2011. The same goes for Hughes since I don't think his 08 season with a 6.62 ERA is relevant to what he will do next year. The more recent years are more relevant, with last year being the most indicative of what can be expected next year.



How about opponent BA? Hitters have hit .277 against Bailey and .243 against Hughes. That's absolutely terrible.

If there is even one stat that Bailey outshines Hughes in, please let me know.
Well like I said its more informative to look at the more recent seasons where Bailey got hit for .260 versus Hughes .244, which follows with what I said about Bailey giving up more hits because he is a ground ball pitcher and Hughes is a fly ball pitcher.

As for stats that Bailey outshines Hughes in, there are definitely a few. Last season Homer posted a 8.26 K/9 to Hughes 7.45. Bailey put up a 0.91 HR/9 to Hughes 1.29. Bailey also put up a 1.12 GB/FB ratio to Hughes' 0.76, and in a stadium like GABP (and Yankee stadium for that matter) it is favorable to be a ground ball pitcher. I also wrote earlier about how if the two had similar success with their bullpen, that Hughes would have had about the same ERA as Bailey.

I'm not trying to say that Bailey is obviously better than Hughes, just that the difference between them is minimal at this point in time. I don't know if you hate Bailey or love Hughes or something but obviously there is some bias in your evaluation.

[lonewolf371]

It doesn't really matter what it was as a sample size, it's still 2 years out of his 4 year career..

And that time period in which he has thrown a K/BB ratio over 2.0, is around the same timeframe as the period in which his was hovering near 1.0....just saying. In his total career, Bailey has posted a 1.69 K/BB ratio and Hughes has thrown a 2.49 K/BB ratio. Quite a difference.

How about opponent BA? Hitters have hit .277 against Bailey and .243 against Hughes. That's absolutely terrible.

If there is even one stat that Bailey outshines Hughes in, please let me know.
Dude, sample size is huge in importance. Anyone that's done a lot of statistics with baseball will tell you that, and if they don't then they don't know what they're talking about.

As for Bailey, I think the Reds pushed him through the Minors too quickly. Had they kept him down there longer, he would have had a much easier transition to the majors and may be at Cueto's level or better by now.

As I've said before, though, it's always great to be able to get ground balls over fly balls and the other poster talked about Bailey's ability to do that. If Bailey can combine his ability to keep the ball low with his stuff and control it, he can be a great pitcher.

[signalhome]

It doesn't really matter what it was as a sample size, it's still 2 years out of his 4 year career..

And that time period in which he has thrown a K/BB ratio over 2.0, is around the same timeframe as the period in which his was hovering near 1.0....just saying. In his total career, Bailey has posted a 1.69 K/BB ratio and Hughes has thrown a 2.49 K/BB ratio. Quite a difference.

How about opponent BA? Hitters have hit .277 against Bailey and .243 against Hughes. That's absolutely terrible.

If there is even one stat that Bailey outshines Hughes in, please let me know.

Last year, the stats where Bailey outdid Hughes are three stats that are very indicative of future success: xFIP, K/9, and GB%. If Bailey continues to strike out more batters while giving up fewer fly balls, he will undoubtedly be the better pitcher of the two. If his BB/9 goes back to what it was a couple of years ago, and he struggles to strike people out, Hughes will wind up the better pitcher. Both are good, and I'm not going to take issue with you believing Hughes is better, even if I think otherwise. I do, however, think it is quite the exaggeration to say Hughes is light years better than Bailey.

Also, the reason hitters had such a better batting average against Bailey is a much higher BABIP, something I don't foresee happening again. Bailey's IFH% was 8.3% compared to Hughes' 2.6%, which is a huge difference. Hughes' BABIP will always be lower than Bailey's as Hughes has a very high fly ball propensity, but Hughes' production is going to be limited unless he starts getting more ground balls, as he is going to give up a lot of home runs. I think he has the talent to overcome that fly ball rate and be a very good pitcher, but there's no arguing that it limits his potential. Bailey doesn't have this problem. As long as Bailey strikes people out while keeping his BB/9 somewhere in the 3.00 range, he's got the potential to be an absolute stud. As someone mentioned earlier, the Reds rushed him through the system much too early, and he just now seems to be realizing his potential.

[signalhome]

It doesn't really matter what it was as a sample size, it's still 2 years out of his 4 year career..

And that time period in which he has thrown a K/BB ratio over 2.0, is around the same timeframe as the period in which his was hovering near 1.0....just saying. In his total career, Bailey has posted a 1.69 K/BB ratio and Hughes has thrown a 2.49 K/BB ratio. Quite a difference.

How about opponent BA? Hitters have hit .277 against Bailey and .243 against Hughes. That's absolutely terrible.

If there is even one stat that Bailey outshines Hughes in, please let me know.

Sample size is very, very important. Ask any statistician (not just baseball, I mean a true statistician).

[MikeThierry]

Quatitos, I can start a whole thread on why FIP should not be used as a stat that tells the real worth of a pitcher. I think its probably a good guide but it shouldn't overrule other, more time honored stats.

People like Kieth Law using FIP is probably why Chris Carpenter lost the Cy Young to Lincecum in 09. He didn't even have him in the top three that year, which is crazy when you look at his stats. However, because Duncan's ground ball philosophy, Carpenter got punished for it.

FIP is just like the WAR stat. It should be used as a guide but shouldn't be used as a #1 stat to determine a players worth because ultimately, stats like WAR and FIP are flawed.

[MikeThierry]

I don't see how Hughes is light years above Bailey. I kind of alluded to this in a previous post, if a pitcher has similar stats you have to almost look at intangibles. The very fact that Hughes pitches in the AL East with a DH puts him a notch above Bailey, in my opinion. The other factor is he pitches in New York which can't be denied as being a more pressure situation than pitching in Cincinnati. The intangibles favor Hughes.

[Quatitos]

Quatitos, I can start a whole thread on why FIP should not be used as a stat that tells the real worth of a pitcher. I think its probably a good guide but it shouldn't overrule other, more time honored stats.

People like Kieth Law using FIP is probably why Chris Carpenter lost the Cy Young to Lincecum in 09. He didn't even have him in the top three that year, which is crazy when you look at his stats. However, because Duncan's ground ball philosophy, Carpenter got punished for it.

FIP is just like the WAR stat. It should be used as a guide but shouldn't be used as a #1 stat to determine a players worth because ultimately, stats like WAR and FIP are flawed.

I didn't post the video to sway you towards it, I just found it while looking for stuff and thought it was funny given the request for me to explain it. It was meant as a joke, nothing more. And if you noticed when I referenced fip earlier I used it as one of several stats and I was not using it as my main point, just as you suggest it should be used.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

[lonewolf371]

Quatitos, I can start a whole thread on why FIP should not be used as a stat that tells the real worth of a pitcher. I think its probably a good guide but it shouldn't overrule other, more time honored stats.

People like Kieth Law using FIP is probably why Chris Carpenter lost the Cy Young to Lincecum in 09. He didn't even have him in the top three that year, which is crazy when you look at his stats. However, because Duncan's ground ball philosophy, Carpenter got punished for it.

FIP is just like the WAR stat. It should be used as a guide but shouldn't be used as a #1 stat to determine a players worth because ultimately, stats like WAR and FIP are flawed.
No single stat tells everything, but FIP is light-years better than ERA and wins.

[signalhome]

No single stat tells everything, but FIP is light-years better than ERA and wins.

Amen brother. I'll take FIP/xFIP over most pitching stats. I don't use FIP by itself, but it's certainly one of the biggest stats I use when evaluating pitchers. Some pitchers are able to regularly out-pitch their FIP (Cubs fans sure hope Matt Garza is one of these guys), but for 95% of the pitching population, FIP seems to be pretty reliable. If someone's ERA is a lot lower than their FIP, you can almost usually chalk that up to a lucky season and expect their ERA to rise to something a bit more reasonable next year (taking for granted that their peripherals, like BB/9, K/9, and BABIP relatively stay the same).

[signalhome]

Quatitos, I can start a whole thread on why FIP should not be used as a stat that tells the real worth of a pitcher. I think its probably a good guide but it shouldn't overrule other, more time honored stats.

People like Kieth Law using FIP is probably why Chris Carpenter lost the Cy Young to Lincecum in 09. He didn't even have him in the top three that year, which is crazy when you look at his stats. However, because Duncan's ground ball philosophy, Carpenter got punished for it.

FIP is just like the WAR stat. It should be used as a guide but shouldn't be used as a #1 stat to determine a players worth because ultimately, stats like WAR and FIP are flawed.

I understand you not liking FIP or WAR because they're not the stats you grew up with, but I fail to see how they're "flawed" just because they've not been around as long as something trite, meaningless, and so dependent on the rest of the team like Wins or RBIs. Is there a statistical study you can point me to that shows how they're flawed?

I don't mean to go off-topic, but why should Carpenter have beaten Lincecum for the Cy Young Award? Lincecum pitched more innings, had the much better K/9, FIP of 0.45 under Carpenter, and an xFIP of 0.51 under Carpenter (I much prefer xFIP to FIP). Also, Carpenter's HR/FB for that year was under half of his average, so a lot of his success that year can be chalked up to a bit of luck. Carpenter barely had Lincecum in ERA and had two more Wins, but if you look at Quality Starts (another terrible stat, honestly, but no worse than Wins), Lincecum actually had four more quality starts than Carpenter that year. So, when you look at it that way, Lincecum put his team in a better chance to win more than Carpenter did -- Carpenter just happened to play on the better team.

[Quatitos]

People like Kieth Law using FIP is probably why Chris Carpenter lost the Cy Young to Lincecum in 09. He didn't even have him in the top three that year, which is crazy when you look at his stats. However, because Duncan's ground ball philosophy, Carpenter got punished for it.


The FIP leaders in '09 were:
Lincecum: 2.34
Vazquez: 2.77
Carpenter 2.78
Johnson: 3.06

I doubt FIP caused Kieth Law to leave Carpenter out of his top 3. Being a groundball pitcher also won't effect Carpenter negatively in terms of FIP. Being a very good groundball pitcher, he will always have below average HR numbers, and in 09 he had an exceptionally low HR/FB. Since HR numbers have a huge impact on FIP, it is a rather friendly stat for Carpenter so I don't see why you act like that stat is something that will mask Carpenter's true skill. Another sabermetric stat for pitchers, tERA had the following leaders:

Lincecum: 2.60
Carpenter: 2.78
Kershaw: 3.10

So I don't think that sabermetric stats that are based off of rate numbers really held Carpenter off of his top 3, except maybe for WAR, which he finished 6th in, 0.5 WAR behind third place. That would probably be blamed on his only starting 28 times and WAR is a counting stat, so missing out on those games hurt him in that stat (if you do a very rudimentary calculation to scale it to 32 starts, he would have had a 6.4 WAR, with Lincecum having an 8.2).

[MikeThierry]

Listening to a local interview with Keith Law at the time, Carpenter being a ground ball pitcher did hurt him. Law even explained that the one of the reasons why he didn't have Carpenter even in his top three was because he relied on his defense more than the other pitchers. When his logic was questioned, Law got very defensive and practically ended the interview. Law will still not come on that ESPN station because the host questioned his logic on the issue. It was really childish on his part. You also have to remember that this issue is the reason why they changed the Cy Young voting system.

Signal, why I believe that they are flawed stats is how they are set up, not because I'm "old school". If you look at WAR, for example, the whole premised is based on replacing player A with an average player or a player from AAA. The ultimate flaw in using that metric is what defines an average player and an average player from that position? I know there are some formulas that you can use to figure out what an average player is, but that in of itself is flawed because not every "average player" will follow that formula.

Furthermore, WAR punishes players for playing at certain positions. Automatically, Albert Pujols and Joey Votto are given a -1 on the WAR scale simply because they play first base. That means in some years, Chase Utley will be a better WAR player than Pujols and Votto. Therefore, you are saying that you would rather have Chase Utley on your team rather than an Albert Pujols or a Joey Votto? Does that mean that because Pujols had a better overall WAR and offensive WAR than Votto did in 2010 that Pujols had a better year than Votto did and should have won the MVP? It just doesn't make any sense. WAR seems like one of those stats used by agents to get their players more money in the off season. Out of all the stats that sabermatricians use, WAR irks me the most. There are simply too many flaws with the stat to be taken seriously as a real, genuine stat.

FIP, on the other hand, is a nice metric to use if you are playing fantasy baseball and trying to get some bargain pitchers for your team, but it should be only used as a MINOR guide into telling what a true pitchers worth is and it certainly shouldn't be a central stat when determining who should win a Cy Young award. It negatively punishes players for being ground ball pitchers. While, as stated before by Quaitos I believe, there will be a positive FIP on certain occasions because ground ball pitchers will not give up a lot of HR, it ultimately hurts those pitchers because they don't strike out a lot of people. The lack of HR's and lack of strikeouts somewhat balance each other out, using FIP. FIP does not tell you the ability of a pitcher to get a ground ball out with a runner on first base, leading to a double play. I just feel that again, you can use it as a guide, but it should be just an augment to an argument, not the argument itself.

Look, I like some of the sabermetric numbers. I, for one, think that the John Dewan's +/- system of defense is so much better than using fielding percentage and fielding errors to determine who is a better fielder. To totally discredit advanced statistics like many of the old school baseball fans do is a flaw onto itself. However, I tend to think people just go overboard in these stats and it seems that some of these stats were created for the sole purpose of being smarter than the next guy. Its flawed not to think Wins don't matter or RBI's don't matter or that Wins and RBI's are overrated like many of the sabermatricians do. There has never been a single baseball game played in the history of MLB that was determined by a stat sheet. Baseball is still a game of who ever scores the most runs wins and what team has the most wins in their division at the end of the season will make it to the playoffs. Stat sheets do not tell you the intangibles, which are still valid in today's game. There are such thing as clutch players or rather players that have the ability to deal with stressful situations more than other players. No stat can tell you if player A deals with human nature better than player B. The bottom line, for me anyway, is that both the old school approach and the sabermatrician approach is valid. To totally discount both is not the way to go and there needs to be a healthy balance on this topic.

By the way, what I find kind of funny about sabermatricians is the fact that they will say there are no such thing as clutch players yet they will call someone's season lucky. It just doesn't make any sense. Just as being clutch can't be measured, luck cannot be measured as well.