Strong outing by Homer Bailey tonight

[M2]

Again -- what's ridiculously inaccurate about ANYTHING I've said about Bailey. You won't find it.

Why, I'll find it right here:

There are other stats that show strong consistent performance (the low BA against, the low HRs against, the high K rate).

He hasn't been consistent and there's plenty of weaknesses mixed in with his strengths. You're calling 2005 a good year for him. Since when did a 4.36 ERA and 1.44 WHIP become the hallmarks of a GOOD year?

No one ever said his secondary numbers weren't important, worth consideration or reason for encouragement, but they haven't added up to a good year. Period.

You said he'd be out of baseball in 5 years. Nothing figurative about that

If you're not being a type A whack job about it, it was entirely figurative. RL related a story about Bailey not signing an autograph and I took a gratuitous whack at the kid for being a pud (though in fairness to Bailey it turned out that he isn't the pud he seemed at that moment).

[M2]

Again, you're blatantly misrepresenting your opposition here, M2. No one is making claims about what Bailey will do for the Reds -- we're saying he's a real good prospect. That's it. If you disagree with that, OK -- but I haven't heard you say that, yet.

I think he's a B prospect (A velocity, C control). I like B prospects as a general rule. The Reds could use a good dozen more.

As for "misrepresenting," wasn't it fairly clear that I was speculating on the reaction people would have to a #1 draft posting huge numbers? I mean, wasn't that plain as the nose on your face? Is there some way I could have been MORE obvious about that?

We get people wondering if Ramon Ortiz should be kept around after a few decent starts. It really doesn't take much to get pitching-starved fans dreaming about a banquet.

Hell, if Homer was posting huge numbers, I might even be joining into the Cy Young speculation just for fun.

[wheels]

A few nice outings are great.

Good seasons by two guys in the system are great too.

Pauly and Gardner were consistantly good last season.

Where are they now?

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

Keep that kid's arm firmly attached at all of the appropriate joints, hope he puts up good numbers, and don't rush him.

Oh yeah, burn a few candles, say some kinda chant, and feed that little Homer doll lots of rum and cigars.

[M2]

Cain and Homer are both capable pitchers of making adjustments. My point was too not compare the two's abilities. I was simply trying to show that young power pitchers often struggle with command. Take a deep breathe M2.. Relax. I respect your opinion on baseball matters very much, but to me you come across as having an axe to grind with Homer. Why the hate?

I'd argue that what we've learned to date is that, despite their similarities, Cain's ability was well ahead of Bailey's when they got drafted, though I whole-heartedly agree both have plenty of time to make adjustments that help them overcome their current struggles.

What I'm not doing on Bailey is assuming anything with him. Will he adjust? When will he adjust? What will the effect of those adjustments be?

I have no earthly idea. When he was drafted I made the point, repeatedly, that you could make him out to be Superman since he was such an undefined quantity and no one could say you were wrong. The choice I've made with the kid, and pretty much every HS arm, is to let him define himself. I find empty speculation on HS arms extremely tiresome and almost always overblown. If I'm hating on anything, it's that and not Homer Bailey.

[HermW]

So, in this case, I don't see a difference between starting and relieving from an objective standpoint (again, Homer's subjective view might be different, but that's pure specuation based on nothing).

M2, there is a great basis for concluding that Homer's subjective view is different. His own subjective view, as stated by him.

In the article in the DDN (I believe) his quote is: "It's just something I'm used to," Bailey said of starting. "I'm more comfortable. I've never really been a reliever."

Homer's subjective view of the situations shows that he sees a clear difference between starting and relieving. Does that mean anything? I think with a 19-year old it certainly does, but I'm not sure how much it means. Actually, I might be inclined at Homer's age to think that his subjective view that there is a difference is more important that the objective view that there is no difference (which I actually don't think is quite true because I think there is an objective difference of some kind (again the significance is not really quantifiable), but that is a different discussion).

[M2]

Good points Herm.

That said, I'm unsympathetic if that is the case. The kid needs to treat every trip to the mound as an opportunity to shine (this gets back to my vague concerns about Homer's general attitude).

Also, there's no telling when or if that light goes on, or if there's other extraneous things that will affect his performance, or whether he's making an excuse there, or how much of it is his perception and how much of it is legitimate fatigue.

My main hope is that next season we're not in the position of having to divine Homer's Jeckylls and Hydes.

[cincyinco]

I'd argue that what we've learned to date is that, despite their similarities, Cain's ability was well ahead of Bailey's when they got drafted, though I whole-heartedly agree both have plenty of time to make adjustments that help them overcome their current struggles.

What I'm not doing on Bailey is assuming anything with him. Will he adjust? When will he adjust? What will the effect of those adjustments be?

I have no earthly idea. When he was drafted I made the point, repeatedly, that you could make him out to be Superman since he was such an undefined quantity and no one could say you were wrong. The choice I've made with the kid, and pretty much every HS arm, is to let him define himself. I find empty speculation on HS arms extremely tiresome and almost always overblown. If I'm hating on anything, it's that and not Homer Bailey.

Will he adjust? You can almost guarantee he will make adjustments. A majority of prospects DO. What will the effect of those adjustments be? That remains to be seen. When will he adjust? I think he's doing it right now!

I know there is a popular saying as there is no such thing as pitching prospects, but I dont buy into that. I follow the minor leagues with abandon, I am pretty familiar with the minors of every single ball club - at least their notable players. I take great interest in watching guys careers blossom from rookie ball on up.

Myself, I take the view of opptimism with highly touted prospects, until they give me reason to show otherwise. There is a grace period, a learning curve if you will. Do you ever read John Sickles site? He does a lot of good work on prospect retrospectives. I think it provides some great reads, and it tells how some players made their rise through the minors to stardom, or where studs in the minors and fell flat on their face in the majors.

My point is that, despite the numbers Homer has put up this year, I'm not going to write him off yet. Its far too early to give up on potential. And I believe a lot in potential. Just becuase Homer may not be putting up "cy young" numbers, doens't mean he wont next year. Doesn't mean he can't ever. And doesn't mean he wont figure things out.

Why not give him the chance to fail first? I'm excited to have a player with his calibur of arm in the organization. I can't think of the last pitcher we had, even prospect wise, that had the stuff that Homer is capable of throwing. He could turn out to be the best pitching prospect this organizaiton has seen in the last decade(although thats not saying much).. or he could just as easily be a bust. Lets wait and see! But lets also be happy that we got a kid who is missing bats, has the stuff to be a frontline pitcher... in our organization. And lets watch him develope and have fun.

[wheels]

I don't think anyone's "giving up" on David Bailey.

[HermW]

Good points Herm.

That said, I'm unsympathetic if that is the case. The kid needs to treat every trip to the mound as an opportunity to shine (this gets back to my vague concerns about Homer's general attitude).

Also, there's no telling when or if that light goes on, or if there's other extraneous things that will affect his performance, or whether he's making an excuse there, or how much of it is his perception and how much of it is legitimate fatigue.

My main hope is that next season we're not in the position of having to divine Homer's Jeckylls and Hydes.

You're probably right, looking at the "dark" (realistic? Probably) side but . . .

I am in deep denial about every Reds pitching prospect--they all excite me at Bailey's stage, especially when they show his talent. Of course, all rational thought and available evidence should lead me to the opposite of excitement in every case, but I blindly, stubbornly and irrationally cling to optimism with each one--until they blow out their elbow or shoulder. It is really a form of mental illness at this point after being disappointed by so many promising names in the last ???? years.

But it is the only way I can really cope as a Reds' fan. Knowing that pitching is what the team needs to have a playoff chance and that it needs to be farm-bred talent, blind optimism about the Reds' minor league pitching talent (and seeing how high Dunn's OPS is) is about all that keeps me going.

[cincyinco]

I don't think anyone's "giving up" on David Bailey.

Wheels, people gave up on him the moment he was drafted because he wasn't a "college arm". To them, a high school arm means automatic failure.

[Cedric]

A few nice outings are great.

Good seasons by two guys in the system are great too.

Pauly and Gardner were consistantly good last season.

Where are they now?

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

Keep that kid's arm firmly attached at all of the appropriate joints, hope he puts up good numbers, and don't rush him.

Oh yeah, burn a few candles, say some kinda chant, and feed that little Homer doll lots of rum and cigars.

So basically never talk about pitching prospects then? I agree most fail, that doesn't take rocket science. It was perfectly fine for people to talk about Gardner and Pauly last year. You have to hope, as long as you realize the pitfalls and don't get extremely optimistic. Jesus guys, nobody said Homer was Roger Clemens. It's absurd.

[Cedric]

I don't think anyone's "giving up" on David Bailey.

I don't like digging up old threads but I remember people clearly saying he had no shot at being a good pitcher or sticking in the league. ZERO shot.

[Betterread]

Wheels, people gave up on him the moment he was drafted because he wasn't a "college arm". To them, a high school arm means automatic failure.

Please note that the prevailing "opnions" on this board for the 2004 draft was that the obvious draft choice was Chris Nelson. Here are his numbers:

Name G AB R H 2B3BHR RBI TB BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Nelson72 289 49 69 11 3 3 37 95 23 84 7 3 .239 .302 .329

If people who wish to be pessimistic about prospects and question Homer's potential because of his inconsistency and because his statistics don't measure up to certain expectations, then let's examine Chris Nelson's first year.

If young Mr. Bailey's stats display inconsistency, then young Mr. Nelson's stats display no power, no plate discipline and an obvious inability to make consistent contact. Along with his 22 errors in 72 games, please tell me what you pessimists extrapolate from his first year? Please try to be at least as logical and anaytical as you have been with Mr. Bailey.

[jmcclain19]

From Today's BA Prospect Chat, someone asked a question about Bailey

David from Kennesaw, GA asks:
Matt, now that the season is coming to a close, is it safe to say that even despite his early struggles, Homer Bailey is by far the better prospect over Mark Rogers?

A: Matt Meyers: David, Neither of these guys have had spectacular full season debuts, but Bailey is certainly a step ahead at this point, I wouldn't say "by far" though. Rogers has never gotten it going and has also battled some blister problems which aren't helping. From what I hear, the Brewers are still high on him and believe that he is picking things up slowly and one day it is just going to "click." This is a guy from Maine though, and while I have a lot of Maine pride since I went to college there, the competition he faced in high school was not particularly tough and he should be given the benefit of the doubt. He does have 100 strike outs in 89 innings, but also 61 walks. Way too early to give up on him. Hopefully he can replace Bill Swift as the greatest big leaguer from Maine, Bailey has not put up great numbers either in the Midwest League, but I had a scout recently raving about him and his "hammer curve." His 3.52 ERA in August (with 33 Ks in 23 innings) is his second best ERA of any month so it is good to see he isn't tiring.He has a lot of moxie too. As a writer, I want to see him get to the big leagues for his outlandish quotes if nothing else.

[M2]

Please note that the prevailing "opnions" on this board for the 2004 draft was that the obvious draft choice was Chris Nelson. Here are his numbers:

Name G AB R H 2B3BHR RBI TB BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Nelson72 289 49 69 11 3 3 37 95 23 84 7 3 .239 .302 .329

If people who wish to be pessimistic about prospects and question Homer's potential because of his inconsistency and because his statistics don't measure up to certain expectations, then let's examine Chris Nelson's first year.

If young Mr. Bailey's stats display inconsistency, then young Mr. Nelson's stats display no power, no plate discipline and an obvious inability to make consistent contact. Along with his 22 errors in 72 games, please tell me what you pessimists extrapolate from his first year? Please try to be at least as logical and anaytical as you have been with Mr. Bailey.

I don't know about consensus opinion. IIRC, plenty of people were high on Wade Townshend or Thomas Diamond too. Diamond's the current belle from that ball.

However, I was pimping Nelson as far back as December 2003, so I'll take this one.

Chris Nelson's had a lousy year. No bones about it. He started out injured, struggled, had a little flourish and since then has struggled again. I figured he'd finish the season with an .800+ OPS. I believe got up to .700 after hitting for the cycle at one point, but I figured wrong.

Anyway, what does Nelson offer?

Important to remember this isn't his first year. He tore up rookie ball last season. His career averages (spanning 486 PAs) are .275 BA/.350 OB/.390 SLG. Not horrible, not good. Reminds me of a certain pitcher drafted two slots ahead of him.

And for the record, if the Reds had drafted Nelson, I'd have the good sense to be disappointed in his 2005 season even as I recognized he has the tools to do better.

Wheels, people gave up on him the moment he was drafted because he wasn't a "college arm". To them, a high school arm means automatic failure.

I suppose I could go into how woefully wrong that comment is, but I think I'll just let it stand at "You're woefully wrong." If that's what you've come away from the kajillion discussions this board has had on the subject of HS pitching then there's little point in rehashing it. Same for you Ced - big, swinging miss.

Herm, once again, excellent points.