Homer Bailey - what to do with him?

[M2]

It's basically "is there anything left in the tank" vs. "will he ever figure it out" when deciding between Bronson and Homer.Numbers only tell half the story.At this point I think there's a better chance Bailey figures it out.

I think you're right about the frame of the argument. As for chances of which pitcher does what: Arroyo's only one season removed from being a good pitcher and Bailey turns 26 in a few weeks. The conclusion that Arroyo's arm suddenly went poof never to return seems more than a bit hasty to me. I'd think everyone could agree that if Arroyo has something left in his arm, he knows how to make it work out on the mound. Meanwhile Bailey isn't a kid anymore. He should be well past his take-your-lumps phase. While some guys take longer to figure it out, it does not bode well that he's begun to have health issues creep into the mix. His stuff is even kind of meh right now. Add that his head/heart/health question marks and it's no small number of things he needs to overcome.

[Chip R]

Not that Homer didn't have a bad outing last night but the Reds only scored 1 run against the mighty Jake Westbrook and Co.

[MWM]

His stuff is even kind of meh right now.

That's what I keep coming back to. I hear about how good his stuff is and I just don't see it. Sure, he can throw 93-94, but does that really qualify as "stuff". Guys who can do that are a dime a dozen. I don't see anything in his arsenal that hitters go up there afraid of. Volquez had stuff, I don't see it from Homer.

[dougdirt]

That's what I keep coming back to. I hear about how good his stuff is and I just don't see it. Sure, he can throw 93-94, but does that really qualify as "stuff". Guys who can do that are a dime a dozen. I don't see anything in his arsenal that hitters go up there afraid of. Volquez had stuff, I don't see it from Homer.

Homer Bailey had the 5th most effective slider of all starting pitchers in baseball last year.

[pedro]

Homer Bailey had the 5th most effective slider of all starting pitchers in baseball last year.

I have a really hard time buying that. What is that based on?

[fearofpopvol1]

He has a very good slider and I like his splitter too. I heard last night he's been working on a curveball, which didn't look consistently good last night, but it looked like it did have potential.

[dougdirt]

I have a really hard time buying that. What is that based on?

Fangraphs Pitch F/X pitch values, which are based on everything that happened when each guy throws that specific pitch. Each result is work X runs.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=10,d

Here is the top 5, without Wandy Rodriguez listed who threw a misclassified pitch a handful of times.

Runs above average per 100 thrown
Cliff Lee - 4.50
Luke Hochevar - 3.42
Charlie Morton - 2.76
Clayton Kershaw - 2.60
Homer Bailey - 2.44

[M2]

I use fangraphs.com, i.e., I'm not pulling this out of my rear end. I said in my post that there's room for disagreement here. That's me being respectful of your argument, even if I don't agree. I think it's fair of me to ask the same in return. Wouldn't you agree?

I appreciate that you didn't make up those numbers (and I assumed you didn't). Without getting too deep into why I dislike WAR (which is the poorly assembled statistic in this case), this is an example of why it should be used sparingly. There is disagreement over what it is and the variances can be wide (as opposed to RC where the variances are generally small and adorable). And it should never be used to displace plain sight success.

I don't care what a pitcher's WAR is if he gives me 200+ IP with a quality ERA. Do. Not. Care. Nothing could interest me less. I especially don't care when said pitcher does it repeatedly. If you pitch a lot of innings and were stingy with the runs allowed, then I'm not looking for sugar substitute stats. That's all the sweetness I require. And no amount of trying to stand the numbers on their head is going to make a better season from a guy who didn't deliver the innings and who struggled on the run prevention side of things.

Homer Bailey has never had a good season in MLB. Bronson Arroyo inarguably had good seasons in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010 (and his 2005 and 2008 campaigns were better than Bailey's done too). That's their respective track records. And, sorry it if offended you, but it is absurd to pretend a guy with zero successful years under his belt has a better track record than a guy with multiple successful years under his belt. Arroyo gets a slaughter rule victory over Bailey when it comes to track record.

I get the argument that, based on last year's numbers and age, Bailey projects as the better pitcher in 2012. I don't agree, but I get where that argument is coming from. Yet you have to guard against projection turning into historical revision. I'll give you a for instance. When the Reds signed Cory Lidle in 2004, I was adamant that no way, no how was Lidle going to deliver anything like his 2001 and 2002 seasons with the A's. That projection turned out to be right, but I'd have gladly welcomed his 2001-2 seasons if I thought there was any significant chance of him replicating those numbers.

If Bailey delivers something like Arroyo's 2009 or 2010, we'll all be thrilled. If Arroyo delivers something like any Bailey season you want to pick, we'll all be unhappy and insistent that Arroyo was a horrible waste of money in 2012.

And this gets back to your question of why Arroyo isn't the guy on the chopping block: because he has put together quality seasons in the recent past for this franchise and this manager. Bailey hasn't. Homer's done nothing to warrant the trust of this franchise.

[pedro]

Fangraphs Pitch F/X pitch values, which are based on everything that happened when each guy throws that specific pitch. Each result is work X runs.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=10,d

Here is the top 5, without Wandy Rodriguez listed who threw a misclassified pitch a handful of times.

Runs above average per 100 thrown
Cliff Lee - 4.50
Luke Hochevar - 3.42
Charlie Morton - 2.76
Clayton Kershaw - 2.60
Homer Bailey - 2.44

Thanks, I guess I'll just say that pitching is about usage of your entire arsenal and if Bailey isn't able to be successful enough with his other pitches he's going to continue to struggle, regardless of the quality of his slider when he's lucky enough to get himself into a count where he can use it to his advantage .

[dougdirt]

Thanks, I guess I'll just say that pitching is about usage of your entire arsenal and if Bailey isn't able to be successful enough with his other pitches he's going to continue to struggle, regardless of the quality of his slider when he's lucky enough to get himself into a count where he can use it to his advantage .

It is interesting.... in 2010, his fastball was a very good pitch for him. In 2011, his other pitches were all roughly average or better, but his fastball got crushed. If he can get back to whatever he was dong successfully with his fastball in 2010 while keeping his other pitches the same, he is going to be very, very good.

[pedro]

It is interesting.... in 2010, his fastball was a very good pitch for him. In 2011, his other pitches were all roughly average or better, but his fastball got crushed. If he can get back to whatever he was dong successfully with his fastball in 2010 while keeping his other pitches the same, he is going to be very, very good.

I'd love to see it but I won't believe it until I do. He's going to have to produce sustained real world success for me to be a believer, he's well past the point of being able to be given the benefit of the doubt based on his pedigree or secondary statistical profile.

[wolfboy]

I don't care what a pitcher's WAR is if he gives me 200+ IP with a quality ERA. Do. Not. Care. Nothing could interest me less.

Conversely, I generally don't care what a pitcher's IP and ERA is. IP is almost entirely dependent on the manager (Dusty) and ERA is dependent on the rest of the team. This board is littered with discussions on the value of ERA as a measure of a pitcher's performance, so I won't rehash it. I'll just say that we fall on different sides of that argument.

The way I look at it, even if you look past WAR, I'm comfortable saying Bailey has a better track record than Arroyo over the last few years. For every year that Bailey has pitched at least 100 innings (09-11), he's had an equivalent or significantly better FIP and xFIP than Arroyo. I don't imagine that holds a lot of value for you, but that's compelling to me.

That's their respective track records. And, sorry it if offended you, but it is absurd to pretend a guy with zero successful years under his belt has a better track record than a guy with multiple successful years under his belt. Arroyo gets a slaughter rule victory over Bailey when it comes to track record.

It would be absurd if I told you that Bailey wins out when you look at ERA, IP, or wins. I'm not doing that; therefore, I think it's unwarranted and counterproductive to the discussion to label my arguments as "absurd" and say that I'm engaging in "historical revision." That's just not the case here. Instead, we have a bona fide disagreement because different measures tell us different things. I'm okay with that.

And this gets back to your question of why Arroyo isn't the guy on the chopping block: because he has put together quality seasons in the recent past for this franchise and this manager. Bailey hasn't. Homer's done nothing to warrant the trust of this franchise.

I agree. Dusty is much more ideologically aligned with your view on Arroyo and Bailey, and Arroyo is probably safe. Still, even if you look at it that way, it puzzles me: the guy with the 5.68 ERA from last year who gave up 5 runs the other night is somehow immune from criticism, but the guy with the 4.43 ERA last year who gave up 4 runs last night is surrounded by pitchforks and torches.

[bucksfan2]

Conversely, I generally don't care what a pitcher's IP and ERA is. IP is almost entirely dependent on the manager (Dusty) and ERA is dependent on the rest of the team. This board is littered with discussions on the value of ERA as a measure of a pitcher's performance, so I won't rehash it. I'll just say that we fall on different sides of that argument.

I think IP is one of the most underappreciated pitching stat. It depends little on the manager and how well the actual pitcher is. The manager decides when to pull the pitcher, but most of the time that is based upon a pitch count, tiring, or situational baseball later in the game. There are very few managers who are going to decided to pull a pitcher after 6 innings if they think he can go more.

[wolfboy]

I think IP is one of the most underappreciated pitching stat. It depends little on the manager and how well the actual pitcher is. The manager decides when to pull the pitcher, but most of the time that is based upon a pitch count, tiring, or situational baseball later in the game. There are very few managers who are going to decided to pull a pitcher after 6 innings if they think he can go more.

I'll concede that there are a lot of factors that go into the number of innings a pitcher logs in a given year, but I strongly disagree that it is indicative of a pitcher's quality or performance.

[Rojo]

ERA is dependent on the rest of the team.

Man, the Phillies have really been wasting their money.