Cueto Diagnosed w/ "Mild Oblique Strain"

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

You're right, they're not the same pitchers this season. Take Leake's bat out of the equation, and Bailey has been worth about a full win more than Leake. Bailey has also been pitching in a way Leake has never pitched before for September/October. Bailey > Leake

I like Leake. I think for a #5 guy, he's good. I think he can continue to improve in the future. But Leake at GAB during the 2012 playoffs scare the living daylights out of me and apparently most of RZ.

I don't know how you can look at those numbers and conclude they weren't about the same pitcher. Bailey had a better strikeout rate, Leake a better walk rate, Bailey fewer homers and Leake kept the ball on the ground more often overall. Their SIERA and xFIP was very similar.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I don't know how you can look at those numbers and conclude they weren't about the same pitcher. Bailey had a better strikeout rate, Leake a better walk rate, Bailey fewer homers and Leake kept the ball on the ground more often overall. Their SIERA and xFIP was very similar.

Bailey pitched 208 innings to Leake's 179. 30 innings is more is significant IMO. There's certainly more value in those extra innings.

Further, let's not pretend that the gap in their BB/9 is much different (2.25 to 2.06). Bailey's K rate was noticeably better than Leake's K numbers. Bailey's ERA+ is 115 to Leake's 93.

Bailey > Leake

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I don't know how you can look at those numbers and conclude they weren't about the same pitcher. Bailey had a better strikeout rate, Leake a better walk rate, Bailey fewer homers and Leake kept the ball on the ground more often overall. Their SIERA and xFIP was very similar.

Only because you championed this stat.

Mike Leake OPS against .805
Bailey .718

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Only because you championed this stat.

Mike Leake OPS against .805
Bailey .718

To be fair, no one is suggesting that Leake's actually results are as good as Bailey, only that if you are believer of things like xFIP, he compares favourably.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

Bailey pitched 208 innings to Leake's 179. 30 innings is more is significant IMO. There's certainly more value in those extra innings.

Further, let's not pretend that the gap in their BB/9 is much different (2.25 to 2.06). Bailey's K rate was noticeably better than Leake's K numbers. Bailey's ERA+ is 115 to Leake's 93.

Bailey > Leake

That's almost exclusively only because Bailey made three extra starts because of how the rotations were changed, not because he was pitching deeper into games.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by Brutus

That's almost exclusively only because Bailey made three extra starts because of how the rotations were changed, not because he was pitching deeper into games.

You think Leake would've gone 30 innings in 3 starts? We can't reasonably conclude that Leake would've performed the same in those 3 starts either. When he was called upon for those extra starts, he performed very well.

The K numbers are noticeably better as is the ERA+ for Bailey.

[Sea Ray]

The truth of the matter is the Reds have to score some runs today. They can't count on winning a 1-0, 2-1 game and I think that's (scoring runs) possible with Zito. The offense has to come to the park thinking that they'll have to pick up the pitching today. This is a game for the O to win

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

You think Leake would've gone 30 innings in 3 starts? We can't reasonably conclude that Leake would've performed the same in those 3 starts either. When he was called upon for those extra starts, he performed very well.

The K numbers are noticeably better as is the ERA+ for Bailey.

The point is that of the 29 innings more pitched by Bailey, based only on Bailey's average of 6.3 innings per start, 19 of those 29 innings were only because of pitching more starts based on how the rotation was re-shuffled at a few points in the year.

So you're only talking about a difference of 10 innings through the course of the season because of lasting longer in games. Not a big difference at all.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Brutus

The point is that of the 29 innings more pitched by Bailey, based only on Bailey's average of 6.3 innings per start, 19 of those 29 innings were only because of pitching more starts based on how the rotation was re-shuffled at a few points in the year.

So you're only talking about a difference of 10 innings through the course of the season because of lasting longer in games. Not a big difference at all.

I know this stems from the Leake v. Bailey debate we've had all year.

I've been on the Leake side of things until recently. But Bailey has become a dominant pitcher of late.

Yes, Homer has been inconsistent and may revert. But right now, I don't see a comparison between the two.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by Brutus

The point is that of the 29 innings more pitched by Bailey, based only on Bailey's average of 6.3 innings per start, 19 of those 29 innings were only because of pitching more starts based on how the rotation was re-shuffled at a few points in the year.

So you're only talking about a difference of 10 innings through the course of the season because of lasting longer in games. Not a big difference at all.

Let's compare their starts yesterday and today.

Bailey > Leake. By a lot.

[corkedbat]

I'm hoping they sign Homer to a "reasonable" extension this offseason, find someone who will give us a starting CFer for Leake and move to upgrade his spot in the rotation - either a signing, a deal or Aroldis (but I'm thinking that ship has sailed).

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Leake has been a mediocre pitcher with middling stuff his entire career. He's not a good post-season option at all.

He's no Barry Zito.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

Let's compare their starts yesterday and today.

Bailey > Leake. By a lot.

So the whole premise of my post was that looking too much at the last few starts of the year out of 30 starts over the course of the season was essentially cherry-picking, and your response is to over-simplify it further by focusing on one start each out of 31 and 34 respectively? Respectfully, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Of course it goes without saying these last starts weren't remotely comparable... but on the whole, their performances this season weren't indicative of looking only at the last few starts.

Look, the way Homer pitched the last few games of the year was nothing short of sensational. I absolutely hope he continues because if he does, not only will he be as good or possibly better than any Reds' pitcher, but he'd be as good as most pitchers in the entire league. Sans Justin Verlander, Homer pitched as well as anyone in the majors his last few times through.

But the point is doing it for 3-4 starts is not the same as doing for a season. He still hasn't done it for a whole season and his seasonal stats are pretty darn similar to Leake. I also don't think that's the bad thing that people are making it sound, as I think Leake doesn't get enough credit. But all I'm saying is that people need to stop acting like Bailey has suddenly turned the corner because he's turned in a phenomenal three starts in a row.

Let him do it for a full season and then we'll have something to talk about. I like Homer. He's a good pitcher. And if he continues to pitch like this, he'll be a GREAT pitcher. But again... let's stop carving out 3-4 starts and representing those starts as a whole evolution of something he wasn't for the previous 29-30. If this Homer is the one we'll see going forward, there's not a comparison (as if it really matters anyhow. Not sure why Leake has to be torn down to build up Homer). I hope this is the one we see going forward.

My whole thing has been trade Homer or Leake for a starting LF or CF so that Chapman can be put in the rotation. Homer is making it easier to trade, not because I think Leake is better but because Homer's trade value is skyrocketing if he keeps this up.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by Brutus

So the whole premise of my post was that looking too much at the last few starts of the year out of 30 starts over the course of the season was essentially cherry-picking, and your response is to over-simplify it further by focusing on one start each out of 31 and 34 respectively? Respectfully, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Of course it goes without saying these last starts weren't remotely comparable... but on the whole, their performances this season weren't indicative of looking only at the last few starts.

Look, the way Homer pitched the last few games of the year was nothing short of sensational. I absolutely hope he continues because if he does, not only will he be as good or possibly better than any Reds' pitcher, but he'd be as good as most pitchers in the entire league. Sans Justin Verlander, Homer pitched as well as anyone in the majors his last few times through.

But the point is doing it for 3-4 starts is not the same as doing for a season. He still hasn't done it for a whole season and his seasonal stats are pretty darn similar to Leake. I also don't think that's the bad thing that people are making it sound, as I think Leake doesn't get enough credit. But all I'm saying is that people need to stop acting like Bailey has suddenly turned the corner because he's turned in a phenomenal three starts in a row.

Let him do it for a full season and then we'll have something to talk about. I like Homer. He's a good pitcher. And if he continues to pitch like this, he'll be a GREAT pitcher. But again... let's stop carving out 3-4 starts and representing those starts as a whole evolution of something he wasn't for the previous 29-30. If this Homer is the one we'll see going forward, there's not a comparison (as if it really matters anyhow. Not sure why Leake has to be torn down to build up Homer). I hope this is the one we see going forward.

My whole thing has been trade Homer or Leake for a starting LF or CF so that Chapman can be put in the rotation. Homer is making it easier to trade, not because I think Leake is better but because Homer's trade value is skyrocketing if he keeps this up.

It's been more than 3-4 starts. I originally quoted since the beginning of September, which is actually 8 starts (half at home and half on the road). Dang near all (in fact, all but 1) have been great. Homer K's more batters and has a near equal walk rate. His ERA+ is better as well.

You can claim "cherrypicking" or "small sample size" all you want, but the reality of is that it's not unreasonable to assume that Homer is a better bet than Leake now and moving forward.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

It's been more than 3-4 starts. I originally quoted since the beginning of September, which is actually 8 starts (half at home and half on the road). Dang near all (in fact, all but 1) have been great. Homer K's more batters and has a near equal walk rate. His ERA+ is better as well.

You can claim "cherrypicking" or "small sample size" all you want, but the reality of is that it's not unreasonable to assume that Homer is a better bet than Leake now and moving forward.

In the start immediately preceding the no-hitter, he gave up 5 runs on a pair of homers. In the two starts prior to that, he only gave up one run apiece in a combined 14 innings, but he only struck out eight, and gave up almost as many fly balls as he did grounders. Those two starts were certainly not great.

The two starts before those three were great but they were also against the worst team in baseball.

Really now, the last three starts are clouding peoples' recollection of what he was doing prior to that point. Before the no-hitter, people were still talking about the inconsistency and all of a sudden now those September starts are being revised to indicate the start of a trend. That isn't consistent with how people were viewing those games after they happened.

I still don't know why you're so concerned with being "better than Leake moving forward." Does it really matter that much?