Homer Bailey - what to do with him?

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

The number 1 problem with Bailey, point blank, is health. If he can stay healthy, he'll be a very good pitcher. But until he's able to stay healthy, he gets put below Cueto in my opinion.

I put Bailey behind Latos, Cueto, and Leake. I don't quite understand why people have always been so low on Leake. He doesn't have the live arm that Bailey does, but he knows how to pitch. I think for years we have been waiting for Bailey to put it all together. At this point I think the Reds are going to stick with Bailey, but Im not so sure he will ever put it all together.

[nate]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I put Bailey behind Latos, Cueto, and Leake. I don't quite understand why people have always been so low on Leake. He doesn't have the live arm that Bailey does, but he knows how to pitch. I think for years we have been waiting for Bailey to put it all together. At this point I think the Reds are going to stick with Bailey, but Im not so sure he will ever put it all together.

What indicates Bailey hasn't "put it all together?"

What indicates Leake "knows how to pitch?"

[757690]

Originally Posted by nate

What indicates Bailey hasn't "put it all together?"

What indicates Leake "knows how to pitch?"

From a statistical standpoint, I'd say the fact that Bailey has continually underperformed his peripherals while Leake has continually overperformed his peripherals. That likely is a sign that Bailey has better stuff than Leake, but Leake is better at utilizing his stuff.

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.

[MikeS21]

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.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by nate

What indicates Bailey hasn't "put it all together?"

What indicates Leake "knows how to pitch?"

My eyeballs and the overall results. Just looking at the basic ERA+ stat, Leake's was 101 and Bailey's highest was 91 two years ago. I don't think anyone who argue that Bailey has better raw stuff. Why is it that with lesser stuff Leake has been a better pitcher?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

My eyeballs and the overall results. Just looking at the basic ERA+ stat, Leake's was 101 and Bailey's highest was 91 two years ago. I don't think anyone who argue that Bailey has better raw stuff. Why is it that with lesser stuff Leake has been a better pitcher?

Well first, we need to address that you are using solely ERA to determine "better pitcher".

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.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

The number 1 problem with Bailey, point blank, is health. If he can stay healthy, he'll be a very good pitcher. But until he's able to stay healthy, he gets put below Cueto in my opinion.

Agree. I would like to see what happens when he is healthy for 3-4 seasons in a row.

[The Operator]

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...

[nate]

Originally Posted by 757690

From a statistical standpoint, I'd say the fact that Bailey has continually underperformed his peripherals while Leake has continually overperformed his peripherals.

Under/overperformed what? ERA?

I think Bailey and Leake, while being different pitchers, provide similar talent/skill/execution/whatever you want to call it.

Again, I think this is a good thing.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by nate

Under/overperformed what? ERA?

I think Bailey and Leake, while being different pitchers, provide similar talent/skill/execution/whatever you want to call it.

Again, I think this is a good thing.

I think all of this praise being given to Homer is a lot of wishful thinking.

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.

[nate]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

My eyeballs and the overall results. Just looking at the basic ERA+ stat, Leake's was 101 and Bailey's highest was 91 two years ago. I don't think anyone who argue that Bailey has better raw stuff. Why is it that with lesser stuff Leake has been a better pitcher?

To me, it boils down to not thinking ERA is a good measure of pitching.

Anyhow, I think Bailey should be in the rotation.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by nate

To me, it boils down to not thinking ERA is a good measure of pitching.

Anyhow, I think Bailey should be in the rotation.

Homer had a 4.43 ERA and threw 132 innings.

Leake had a 3.86 ERA and threw 167 innings.

I don't find the difference meaningless.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by nate

To me, it boils down to not thinking ERA is a good measure of pitching.

Anyhow, I think Bailey should be in the rotation.

I used ERA+ because its more of a baseline comparison tool. Its not the best but it sure isn't the worst.

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.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Homer had a 4.43 ERA and threw 132 innings.

Leake had a 3.86 ERA and threw 167 innings.

I don't find the difference meaningless.

How much is that from relievers being effective taking over or not for each guy? How much is that from instead of a 1 run homer it's a 3 run homer? How much of that is scorekeepers' decisions to rule earned vs unearned runs? To put is bluntly, how much of that difference is just flat out luck?

ERA is not a useless stat IMO...but it's not much better than W's or RBI's.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

How much is that from relievers being effective taking over or not for each guy? How much is that from instead of a 1 run homer it's a 3 run homer? How much of that is scorekeepers' decisions to rule earned vs unearned runs? To put is bluntly, how much of that difference is just flat out luck?

ERA is not a useless stat IMO...but it's not much better than W's or RBI's.

On a teamwide, 2011 season basis, a 3.86 ERA (Leake) would get you between 14th and 15th place in MLB in ERA (between Arizona and Seattle).

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.