Also, I think the most casual of baseball fans would draw that conclusion just from watching each of them pitch a game. Leake does a better job of keeping hitters off balance, while Bailey is better at just blowing hitters away. It's pretty obvious, even after just a few innings.
"Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.
IMO, Homer Bailey is just now beginning to show flashes of his potential. And I keep coming back to this, but 25-26 years old is a little premature to give up on him. I am willing to give him the 2012 and 2013 seasons before I ship him off.
Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one, and they don't want someone else's shoved into their face.
In 2010, Leake had a solid ERA, but his WHIP was 1.50. In 2010, Bailey had a similar ERA to that of Leake and a 1.37 WHIP.
Last year, the main difference between the two was likely just the randomness of when each of their home runs fell. They had the same home run rate per 9 innings and each had a good WHIP as well as very strong K/BB rates.
Bailey's also never had the benefit of a full season to allow some of the randomness and ebbs and flows of the season to even things out on his stat sheet.
But even then, I think people undervalue what a 4.50 ERA pitcher who can strike guys out and doesn't walk a lot of batters can mean to a team. And I'd say that's Homer's floor. In my opinion he's already "arrived", he just needs to stay healthy. Here's to hoping...
He can't stay on the field. Mike Leake is no powerhouse but he was better last year in ERA, hits allowed per nine, walks allowed per nine, innings pitched, and virtually every category except strikeouts.
Somebody writes that Homer's "arrived?" I don't even think Homer believes that and he would probably say so.
IMO, Homer is a pitcher with great potential who has been impaired by injury. If he can be truly healthy for a full season, we may see a big improvement. My guess is he'll be in the rotation, my hope is that his shoulder, etc. is sound and he can improve going forward.
But his past performance hasn't been up to par.
When you start to say Player X's peripherals say they should be better your getting into a dangerous game. In Bailey's case people have been claiming that he has arrived or next year is his year for a number of years now. I have a feeling your going to hear the same thing after this season and maybe even after the next.
ERA is not a useless stat IMO...but it's not much better than W's or RBI's.
Last edited by _Sir_Charles_; 04-02-2012 at 11:28 AM.
94 and winning the division and the NLCS but falling in the WS to Toronto in 6
94 Reds / 86 Cards / 85 Pirates / 76 Cubs / 72 Brewers
On a teamwide, 2011 season basis, a 4.43 ERA (Bailey) would get you 26th place in MLB in ERA (Colorado).
The difference between Bailey and Leake was more than a half run per nine inning game. That is not chump change.
These guys didn't pitch 10 innings. Between them they pitched around 300 innings. The difference of over a half run per game is meaningful.
And Leake also had a better hits allowed rate and a better walks allowed rate. And he was more durable.
Over a long season, lots of innings, I'll usually take the pitcher with a better ERA (by more than half a run), better hit rate, better walk rate, and more innings.
Last edited by Kc61; 04-02-2012 at 11:44 AM.