Who is more ready?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Of the 18 MLB pitchers who posted at least 150 IP with a K/9 rate above 8.00, ten (56%) posted BB/9 rates less than 3.00. Only one of those pitchers posted a BB/9 rate higher than 4.00. Had Carlos Zambrano's K/9 rate qualifiied, that would make it two. It's not Caveat who's positioning the outliers here.

I guess using two players with walk rates under 2.20 isn't some kind of outlier.... Still, I don't care what other pitchers can and do, I am worried about what Homer Bailey will do. It is not going to be some shocking outlier if a pitcher goes 150 or more innings with an 8.00 K/9 and a 3.00 or higher BB/9. It happens to about 40% of the guys posting an 8.00 K/9. That is hardly some outlier.

While it's possible that Bailey could produce a combination of an 8.00+ K/9 rate and a < 4.00 BB rate, he didn't do it at any level last season. Projecting such at the MLB level in 2008 is pretty aggressive. If he doesn't produce those rates and ends up tossing 17 to 18 pitches per Inning, we need to remember that he doesn't have the kind of workload history that would project well.

Of course projecting Ryan Braun to do what he did this year was insane too, but it happened. Even last year, when he was struggling at times, he was not throwing 18 pitches an inning. The key to Bailey is getting more pitches to miss bats. As his curveball improved, the strikeout numbers got better. We think opposite things on him. I don't want this to turn into a 5 page long argument between the two of us. I think he goes 7.75 K/9 or higher next year with a sub 4.00 BB/9. You likely don't. Lets leave it at that.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by jojo

Next year every park should be f/x equipped.

I think they are actually all equipped now (with the exception of Washingtons new park since I am unsure of its construction time line).

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

So you think every players pitch f/x data from this year is basically useless?

Why would I have any interest in data that tracks less than half of a player's behavior?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Why would I have any interest in data that tracks less than half of a player's behavior?

I don't know.... probably because it gives at the least a glimpse at what they are doing? While I would love to have full data on everyone, the data that we do have is pretty good for the most part on a lot of guys (although in some cases the data value is low).

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I guess using two players with walk rates under 2.20 isn't some kind of outlier.... Still, I don't care what other pitchers can and do, I am worried about what Homer Bailey will do. It is not going to be some shocking outlier if a pitcher goes 150 or more innings with an 8.00 K/9 and a 3.00 or higher BB/9. It happens to about 40% of the guys posting an 8.00 K/9. That is hardly some outlier.

Here's what Caveat said:

Caveat: Until Homer Bailey gets his walks under control -- at the very least into the 3 to sub-3 range -- he's a poor option for any role on the major league club.

A "3 to sub-3 range" includes everything from 3.00 to 3.99. Might you have misinterpreted his post? I'd suggest that's a possibility as he's looking for something that you're expecting- a sub-4.00 BB/9 rate.

Of course projecting Ryan Braun to do what he did this year was insane too, but it happened. Even last year, when he was struggling at times, he was not throwing 18 pitches an inning.

What in the world does Ryan Braun have to do with Homer Bailey? Seems like a "Well, anything can happen" reach.

And if you check, Homer Bailey threw exactly 18 pitches per Inning in 2007 at the MLB level. In fact, Bailey produced only four Starts the resulted in fewer than 18.0 Pitches per Inning.

The key to Bailey is getting more pitches to miss bats. As his curveball improved, the strikeout numbers got better. We think opposite things on him. I don't want this to turn into a 5 page long argument between the two of us. I think he goes 7.75 K/9 or higher next year with a sub 4.00 BB/9. You likely don't. Lets leave it at that.

Yes, I realize that you're thinking best case scenario with Bailey, while I feel there are a goodly number of reasons to be a lot more cautious. What I don't understand is why "cautious" seems so offensive to you, doug.

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I don't know.... probably because it gives at the least a glimpse at what they are doing? While I would love to have full data on everyone, the data that we do have is pretty good for the most part on a lot of guys (although in some cases the data value is low).

"Glimpses" don't allow us to see a complete picture. The data you have is corrupt, doug.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

What in the world does Ryan Braun have to do with Homer Bailey? Seems like a "Well, anything can happen" reach.

Because Ryan Braun's numbers never suggested he would do what he did this year. You say Bailey's numbers this year would suggest he isn't likely to do this, that and the other. That is more what I was saying.

And if you check, Homer Bailey threw exactly 18 pitches per Inning in 2007 at the MLB level. In fact, Bailey produced only four Starts the resulted in fewer than 18.0 Pitches per Inning.

He threw 17.85 according to Reds.com.

Yes, I realize that you're thinking best case scenario with Bailey, while I feel there are a goodly number of reasons to be a lot more cautious. What I don't understand is why "cautious" seems so offensive to you, doug.

Best case scenario is a whole lot better than what I think he will do. Cautious isn't offensive to me at all. I don't know where I seemed offended at here?

[OUReds]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Why would I have any interest in data that tracks less than half of a player's behavior?

356/815 is over 40% of his pitches logged. That's more then enough to make it a representative sample I would think.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by OUReds

356/815 is over 40% of his pitches logged. That's more then enough to make it a representative sample I would think.

Especially with a player who was as volatile as Bailey, it's not even close. Just to put a sample size of 356 pitches in perspective, Aaron Harang threw 3,591 pitches in 2007.

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by OUReds

356/815 is over 40% of his pitches logged. That's more then enough to make it a representative sample I would think.

I am going to assume that the pitch f/x data represents the population without bias, so therefore I'm calling it random (even though it is not trully random)...

"How large a random sample do we need for the sample to be reasonably representative of the population? Obviously, if your sample is too small, it can't give much information. You might think that we need a large percentage, or fraction, of the population. That's what people think, but it turns out that all that matters is the number of individuals in the sample. The size of the population doesn't matter at all. A random sample of 100 students in a college represents the student body just about as well as a random sample of 100 voters represents the entire electorate of the United States. This is the third idea and probably the most surprising one in designing samples.
How can it be that only the number in the sample, and not how big the population is, matters?... The fraction of the population that you've sampled doesn't matter. It's the sample size itself that's important.
How big a sample do you need? That depends on what you're estimating.... For a sample that tries to find the proportion of the population that fall into a category, you'll usually need a large enough sample to see several responses in each category- usually severall hundred responses- to say anything precise enough to be usefull."
-My AP Statistics book

[OUReds]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Especially with a player who was as volatile as Bailey, it's not even close. Just to put a sample size of 356 pitches in perspective, Aaron Harang threw 3,591 pitches in 2007.

Your point is taken, but it's good enough to get a feel for what he would do next year if thrown into the rotation.

Edit: Why would the data obtained in the f/x parks be biased to the point of being unusable? I assume that we're getting data from road games and that GABP was not f/x equiped? that means were getting data from some road games?

Edit 2: Thinking about it more, that means we got data from 4 games. Ya'll are probably right that this simply isn't enough to draw any conclusions about the future.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Especially with a player who was as volatile as Bailey, it's not even close. Just to put a sample size of 356 pitches in perspective, Aaron Harang threw 3,591 pitches in 2007.

Really the appropriate sample size is determined by the question you want to ask (i.e. what you're trying to measure and the magnitude of the effect you're trying to detect) and the variation in the data.

While more is always better, 43% of Homer's pitches in '07 is probably large enough to determine his overall pitch tendencies for the season (i.e. those 356 pitches are representative of his 815), get an idea of his stuff looked (velocity/break), and probably get an idea how he attacked lefties vs righties.

That said, there are certainly questions that these data couldn't inform.

[RedlegJake]

I'm just happy we can even have a discussion as to who is the best 'ace' prospect. Sure beats the years when we debated which prospects were most likely to hang on without totally stinking.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by RedlegJake

I'm just happy we can even have a discussion as to who is the best 'ace' prospect. Sure beats the years when we debated which prospects were most likely to hang on without totally stinking.

It still doesn't change the fact that the Reds continue to pull the wool over our eyes when it comes to our prospects. Until Bailey or Cueto turn out to actually be TOR guys, then the propaganda machine rolls on.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

It still doesn't change the fact that the Reds continue to pull the wool over our eyes when it comes to our prospects. Until Bailey or Cueto turn out to actually be TOR guys, then the propaganda machine rolls on.

I guess so.... although they both are going to spend next year at the ripe old age of 22 (although Bailey starts the year at age 21 and theoretically could have 4 or 5 starts under his belt by the time he turns 22).

I don't really consider it 'pulling wool over our eyes' when we are talking about guys that are 22. Telling us Mike Stanton is a good move is one thing, this is entirely another.

[Highlifeman21]

Cueto and Bailey are two of the more legit prospects we've had in quite some time, but let's put away the stamp that says "Next Big Thing" before they are jinxed for their careers. It seems every last Reds prospect that got that stamp ended up getting another stamp... "Bust".

The Reds have been great throughout the years to create hype (most of the time false hype) about our prospects. It would be refreshing to have a prospect fly under the radar and actually turn out to be something.