Bailey vs. Latos

[Nasty_Boy]

After a bad first inning Homer kept the Reds in it. Yes it was disappointing but the Reds have to score runs for crying out loud. 7 hits and 2 runs in 2 games isn't going to win much no matter who is on the mound. Wainwright and Lohse. Woo, color me scared. It's not like the Cards conjured Gibson and Dean from the past and threw them at the Reds. Bailey settled down - I don't see his start as awful - just so-so. His teammates have to pick him up. Arroyo had a decent start Sunday with one bad inning but the Reds made it work because they actually scored runs and were in the game. These guys are not going to look like world beaters every time they take the mound - Bailey will have his moments this summer - but it isn't going to matter if this supposedly vaunted offense can't get more than 3 hits off decent but not great pitchers facing them.

[757690]

I would like to know what area Bailey has not shown improvement in over the last few seasons? Not trying to be controversial, I just want to know what areas you are talking about

He still makes the same mistakes he made in his rookie year. he throws too many crap pitches in key situations, and then blames everything else but himself.

Sure some of peripherals have improved, but they have produced the same results, year after year. If he produces better results this year, I will admit he has improved. So far this spring, he has not.

[RedsManRick]

He still makes the same mistakes he made in his rookie year. he throws too many crap pitches in key situations, and then blames everything else but himself.

Sure some of peripherals have improved, but they have produced the same results, year after year. If he produces better results this year, I will admit he has improved. So far this spring, he has not.

Question, how has Bailey managed to do that? How has he managed to improve his peripherals without getting better results? Is he getting worse at something that's not showing up in the standard stats?

I understand the basic nature of the critique. At the end of the day, the results are what matters. I just want to understand what people think is going on.

Because if he's always had problems with bad pitches and blaming others, then he still should be improving against that baseline -- unless something is offsetting the gains we're seeing elsewhere.

[wolfboy]

He still makes the same mistakes he made in his rookie year. he throws too many crap pitches in key situations, and then blames everything else but himself.

Sure some of peripherals have improved, but they have produced the same results, year after year. If he produces better results this year, I will admit he has improved. So far this spring, he has not.

So you don't like peripherals. Last season, he posted career highs in wins (bullpen blew quite a few), IP, starts, and strikeouts. He posted career lows in ERA and walks. I fail to see how that is improvement. Has he developed into an ace pitcher? Not by a long shot. Has he improved? Without a doubt.

[757690]

So you don't like peripherals. Last season, he posted career highs in wins (bullpen blew quite a few), IP, starts, and strikeouts. He posted career lows in ERA and walks. I fail to see how that is improvement. Has he developed into an ace pitcher? Not by a long shot. Has he improved? Without a doubt.

One more win in two more starts. .03 improvement in ERA. Lol. I give you that if you want.

[Nasty_Boy]

He still makes the same mistakes he made in his rookie year. he throws too many crap pitches in key situations, and then blames everything else but himself.

Sure some of peripherals have improved, but they have produced the same results, year after year. If he produces better results this year, I will admit he has improved. So far this spring, he has not.

Crap pitches in key situations? Honestly?

Blame placement? Besides this last article, I don't remember other times... Also, how many young players have ever said the "incorrect" thing to the media?

Have they produced the same results?

Judging by most of the numbers, even ERA and W/L record, Homer has improved on a yearly basis. He was the 3rd best starter on this team last season, and he was very solid down the stretch in 2010.

This spring.... I'll give you that. One start where 4/5 of the starting staff struggled, and a spring that was not very favorable to many on the Reds staff. 17 spring innings and 5 2/3 innings in one start.

He may be terrible the rest of the way... He may never become a constant in a big league rotation... But there are still reasons to not give up on a 25 year old who has shown improvement, just because he isn't a stud yet and because of a meaningless comment to the media.

[757690]

Question, how has Bailey managed to do that? How has he managed to improve his peripherals without getting better results? Is he getting worse at something that's not showing up in the standard stats?

I understand the basic nature of the critique. At the end of the day, the results are what matters. I just want to understand what people think is going on.

Because if he's always had problems with bad pitches and blaming others, then he still should be improving against that baseline -- unless something is offsetting the gains we're seeing elsewhere.

Or maybe walks aren't as predictive of actual results as we think. If he had improved the same way in Homers and K's, i can see your point.

[wolfboy]

One more win in two more starts. .03 improvement in ERA. Lol. I give you that if you want.

You can "lol" me all you want, but you're the one making statements with no factual basis, not me.

[757690]

You can "lol" me all you want, but you're the one making statements with no factual basis, not me.

I don't consider going from 8-5 in 20 starts to 9-7 in 22 starts, or going from an 4.46 ERA to a 4.43 ERA improving.

If my blood pressure went from 122/91 to 120/91 from one doctor's visit to the next, did it improve? Am I actually healthier?

[REDREAD]

The difference in Bailey and Leake's outing was 1 pitch... Bailey gave up a HR to Molina, while Scotty Rolen bailed Leake out with a great play to turn two.

There was not much difference between the two outings. I give Leake credit for pitching around a leadoff double and doing a good job of keeping the team in the game... On the same token, Homer did the exact same thing. He battled back after a rough frame and gave the team quality innings. IMO, the difference is the name on the back and the perception that comes with that name.

We can not draw conclusions on who is the better pitcher based on one game. Leake gave up one less run.
The object of the game is to give up as few runs as possible and score as many as possible.
I think that is sometimes forgotten.

Over the course of the season, the "luck" pretty much evens out.

I will disagree with you on one point though. Leake's sinker allows him a better chance of incuding double plays than Homer does.
When Homer gets in a jam, he's forced to go for the glorious K, which he can't always execute.

Leake has less raw stuff, but he has solid command of 4 pitches.
At this stage, Leake is the better pitcher (not talking about just this year, I am talking about since Leake arrived, he's been better than Homer).

Metrics that favor Ks are going to say Homer is better or comparable, but the results speak for themselves. Their job is to prevent runs from scoring. Leake is better at that at this moment. Maybe Homer eventually gets better, maybe not.

[RedsManRick]

Or maybe walks aren't as predictive of actual results as we think. If he had improved the same way in Homers and K's, i can see your point.

How predictive do you think they "we think" the are? Sure, they're only part of the equation. But that still doesn't explain why his ERA was so much higher than his FIP the last two years (which includes both Ks and HRs). Something else is happening outside of his BB, K and HR rates.

There are two things at play here:

1.) Why has his ERA been consistently higher than his FIP and do we have reason to believe that's sustainable (especially when we know the Reds have a very good defense)?

This is a question about what FIP is missing. We know the answer is some combination of three things:
- FIP doesn't account for his BABIP. Homer's BABIP has been more-or-less normal -- maybe a tad high when you consider the Reds defense.
- FIP doesn't account for sequence. If a guy gives up hits/walks in bunches, it's generally going to lead to more runs than if he spreads them out
- FIP doesn't account for reliever performance. If a guy is getting pulled mid-inning and the relievers are letting those runs score, Homer is getting full credit for runs that are only partially his fault.

Given his BABIP, we can basically say with a good amount of certainty that it's a combination of the 2nd and 3rd bullets. And I think it's fair to say those are related. A guy who gives up hits/walks in bunches is more likely to get pulled mid-inning with men on base, which leads to more runs being credited to him without him actually giving up any more hits/walks. So the question then becomes, to what degree is giving up hits/walks in bunches an intrinsic "skill" that Homer has vs. mere bad luck? Clearly there is a contingent here who thinks its a skill.

2.) Why has his ERA stayed the same despite his FIP improving? This suggests that whatever FIP is missing, Homer must be getting worse at because it's apparently offsetting his gains in his peripherals.

This is what I have yet to hear anybody speak to. I can buy that Homer is simply prone to big innings due to makeup or whatever. But even if he is, if that skill is constant, his ERA should still improve when his peripherals do -- even though the ERA will remain higher than his FIP. So what gives? Why didn't the above effect show up in 2009? Why was it so big in 2010? And why did it regress in 2011? To me, this is a pretty big signal that what were seeing is a combination of unclutchiness and bad luck, with emphasis on the latter.

[REDREAD]

If it had to do with performance then Latos, Leake, and Arroyo would all be called into question. .

The majority of the board wanted to trade Leake right after his rookie season was over because his "value peaked" and they thought he was the worst of the young pitchers we had. Only towards the end of last season did Leake start getting some respect around here.

No one is making excuses for Arroyo. He gets criticized as much (if not more) than Homer. Yes, someone commented that they wished Dusty pulled Arroyo earlier, but that's not exactly making excuses..

I guess I just disagree that Leake and Arroyo are somehow the golden children around here.

Latos is the new toy this year. Naturally he's going to get some leeway at the beginning. His first start was poor. I agree with you on that.

[Nasty_Boy]

The majority of the board wanted to trade Leake right after his rookie season was over because his "value peaked" and they thought he was the worst of the young pitchers we had. Only towards the end of last season did Leake start getting some respect around here.

No one is making excuses for Arroyo. He gets criticized as much (if not more) than Homer. Yes, someone commented that they wished Dusty pulled Arroyo earlier, but that's not exactly making excuses..

I guess I just disagree that Leake and Arroyo are somehow the golden children around here.

Latos is the new toy this year. Naturally he's going to get some leeway at the beginning. His first start was poor. I agree with you on that.

I can agree with this... I just feel that everyone is piling on Homer. Many people have based their opinion on the past and what they expect of Homer going forward. But much of what I've been reading is people pointing their finger at spring training and Monday's start as "I told you so" moments. I just can't on board with his spring performance or a bad 1st inning as a reason that Homer Bailey isn't one of the Reds 5 best starting pitchers.

[REDREAD]

I can agree with this... I just feel that everyone is piling on Homer. Many people have based their opinion on the past and what they expect of Homer going forward. But much of what I've been reading is people pointing their finger at spring training and Monday's start as "I told you so" moments. I just can't on board with his spring performance or a bad 1st inning as a reason that Homer Bailey isn't one of the Reds 5 best starting pitchers.

That's a fair point as well.. The board has been hard on Homer over the offseason and after his first start.
I admit to getting mad when I heard his first inning, but then I calmed down.
I think it was just a bit of negative emotion rush.
There's still hope for Homer.. I like Leake better, but have not given up on Homer.

[traderumor]

Question, how has Bailey managed to do that? How has he managed to improve his peripherals without getting better results? Is he getting worse at something that's not showing up in the standard stats?

I understand the basic nature of the critique. At the end of the day, the results are what matters. I just want to understand what people think is going on.

Because if he's always had problems with bad pitches and blaming others, then he still should be improving against that baseline -- unless something is offsetting the gains we're seeing elsewhere.

The problem with Homer is that he gives up 4.5 runs per game over the course of his career. Maybe where I am missing the boat in this whole discussion is that I want good starters, as compared with all MLB starters, in the rotation, not just debate who's less sucky in the Reds rotation than the other. We have three marginal starters out of a rotation of 5 right now. I'd like to see an upgrade from any of them. If it isn't their performance providing the upgrade, then make some moves.

Again, some of this can be resolved when Massett gets back and Chapman is phased into the rotation. If that doesn't resolve an iffy rotation, it might take a move outside the org.