Strong outing by Homer Bailey tonight

[OnBaseMachine]

Five innings of 3-hit shutout ball, walking none and striking out six. The key is zero walks.

I was working on a post the other day in which I was comparing how Bailey does as a starter vs working out of relief. Before I could add up his ERA from each role, I accidently hit the escape button and it wiped out my whole post. Maybe later tonight I will attempt it again.

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&did=milb&t=g_box&gid=2005_08_25_belafx_dayafx_1

[CTA513]

For some reason they only let him go 5 innings. They did say Obrien was in attendence.

[KronoRed]

I listened to the game when I was in Blue Ash (only place I seem to be able to get the Dayton AM station) they were quite impressed with Bailey.

[rdiersin]

Five innings of 3-hit shutout ball, walking none and striking out six. The key is zero walks.

I was working on a post the other day in which I was comparing how Bailey does as a starter vs working out of relief. Before I could add up his ERA from each role, I accidently hit the escape button and it wiped out my whole post. Maybe later tonight I will attempt it again.

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&did=milb&t=g_box&gid=2005_08_25_belafx_dayafx_1

OBM, here is Homers stats/game including tonight. I've kind of been following a couple guys all year and he's one.

Homer Bailey

App IP TBF H R ER HR SO BB HBP
GS 2.0 13 4 5 3 0 4 2 0
R 3.3 12 2 1 1 0 6 1 0
GS 4.0 17 4 3 2 1 6 0 0
R 2.0 12 3 4 0 0 3 2 0
GS 5.0 17 1 0 0 0 6 1 0
R 3.0 11 2 0 0 0 5 2 0
GS 5.0 21 3 0 0 0 5 4 0
GS 4.0 14 1 0 0 0 5 2 0
GS 2.0 14 4 5 4 1 3 2 0
GS 4.0 20 6 4 4 0 4 3 0
GS 4.7 20 3 4 3 0 6 3 0
GS 3.0 18 3 3 2 1 3 5 0
GS 6.0 22 2 0 0 0 4 2 0
GS 3.0 15 4 2 2 0 5 2 0
GS 4.0 19 4 4 4 1 1 3 0
GS 3.7 19 4 3 2 1 3 3 0
GS 5.7 21 2 3 3 0 5 3 1
GS 2.0 13 6 6 6 0 1 2 0
GS 5.0 19 3 1 1 0 4 2 1
R 2.7 11 3 1 1 0 4 0 1
GS 4.0 18 3 1 0 0 6 2 0
R 2.0 12 3 3 3 0 3 3 0
GS 5.0 18 2 0 0 0 11 1 0
R 2.0 13 3 4 4 0 3 4 0
GS 5.0 21 6 2 2 0 4 2 0
GS 5.0 17 3 0 0 0 6 0 1

Tot. 97.0 427 84 59 47 5 116 56 4


L5 19.0 81.0 17.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 27.0 10.0 1.0
R 15.0 71 16 13 9 0 24 12 1
GS 82.0 356 68 46 38 5 92 44 3

Here are his ERA, K/9, K/BB for his last 5 appearances, relief apperearances and starts.


L5 R GS
ERA 4.26 5.40 4.17
K/9 12.8 14.4 10.1
K/BB 2.70 2.00 2.09

Hope that helps.

[Aronchis]

His starts over the past month have gotten stronger while his bullpen sessions have sucked.

[ghettochild]

For some reason they only let him go 5 innings. They did say Obrien was in attendence.

i know its a rule or something down in a ball that they can only throw like a max of 70 pitches and/or 5 max ip.

i could be wrong though

[Heath]

I listened to the game when I was in Blue Ash (only place I seem to be able to get the Dayton AM station) they were quite impressed with Bailey.

You can WING-AM that far south?

I barely get it where I am near Dayton....I hate it for OSU football games that are late.....:bang:

[Reds Fanatic]

I was at the game tonight. Bailey was very impressive. He threw fastballs consistantly around 94 to 95 MPH all night.

[acredsfan]

I'm glad he has shown that he is a better starter than reliever. We really need him as a starter, especially if he can be as dominating as he was tonight. How exciting would it be to have a power starting pitcher in Cincinnati, especially a good one? It would be awsome to finally have a guy with the ability to strike out 10+ batters each time he takes the mound. I just don't like the pitch count limit in the minors, are we trying to bring up wusses or what? Let them loose, I'm not saying to let them go 140 pitches, but let them work on their stamina!

[OnBaseMachine]

Good work rdiersin! I was shocked to see that he has only thrown 15 innings out of relief. His ERA is over a full run lower as a starter then out of relief... time to drop this tandem system.

[KronoRed]

You can WING-AM that far south?

I barely get it where I am near Dayton....I hate it for OSU football games that are late.....:bang:

Well some other station was also being heard on the same frequency but I was able to hear the baseball guys at least :)

[OnBaseMachine]

Powell recommended Bailey for a promotion to Class AA next season. To that I say, heck no! Bailey should be in high A next season. Do not rush him, especially considering he hasn't exactly dominated the Midwest League.


Dragons' starter Bailey fires off another gem
Dayton righty's stats not quite as shiny in his relief efforts
By Marc Katz

mkatz@daytondailynews.com

DAYTON | Because of the two days off between games, the Dayton Dragons were able to start Homer Bailey on Thursday night against the Beloit Snappers.

Good idea.

The next time Bailey pitches, probably Monday, he'll be relegated to relief duty. Uh, oh.

Thursday night, Bailey was Oh, Wow — as he has been in recent starts — as the Dragons beat Beloit 6-3 in a Class A Midwest League game at Fifth Third Field.

In the parent Reds' system, Bailey gets only 75 pitches a start and every four days he gets 50 pitches in relief, although in the middle part of the season, the 19-year-old first-round pick from last summer's first-year player draft was mostly a starter.

Over his last five starts, he hardly could be better, including Thursday's five-shutout-innings, three-hit, no-walk, six-strikeout performance. His ERA dropped to 1.13 over those five games, with 31 strikeouts and only seven walks in 24 innings.

In the three games he pitched in relief, his ERA was a bloated 10.79 with 10 strikeouts and seven walks in 6 2/3 innings.

"It's just something I'm used to," Bailey said of starting. "I'm more comfortable. I've never really been a reliever."

Pitching coach Larry Pierson isn't surprised. Bailey was good in his other 15 starts this season, but not as consistent as he is now.

"He's developing," Pierson said. "Early on, he basically was overmatching hitters with his fastball. He's still doing that, and now he's throwing his curveball for strikes and his changeup. I feel comfortable recommending him for Class AA next year."

Dragons manager Alonzo Powell not only was happy with Bailey, but also with second baseman Trevor Lawhorn and designated hitter Bobby Mosby, too.

"I just told (visiting Reds General Manager Dan O'Brien) Lawhorn is probably one of the hottest hitters on the planet," Powell said. "And he's been doing it to all fields. Mosby has looked good since he came back from (hand) surgery."

Dayton scored four times in the second after Lawhorn doubled home two runs and Mosby bounced a long homer to left off the concession stand. During his last 10 games, Lawhorn is hitting .415 and has knocked in 14 runs.

The four-run lead was all Bailey needed, but the Dragons added two more in the fourth. Yes, Lawhorn and Mosby each singled in the inning, and the right-hander exited with his seventh victory.

Dragons tales

• Even though the season has more than a week to run, the league has announced its post-season All-Star team. The only Dragons' player to make it is first baseman Tonys Gutierrez. With a hit Thursday, Gutierrez raised his batting average to .324.

Gutierrez has also started to display a little more power. Seven of his 42 RBIs have come in the last 11 games. The team was chosen by the league managers.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/daily/0826dragons.html

[Aronchis]

Actually, Bailey should return to Dayton to match his age level though Sarasota is a pitchers league.

The only reason he should go to AA next year is because of Dan O'brien.

[M2]

AA?

Oh to be Larry Pierson's bookie.

[OSURedLeg]

O'Brien is pretty conservative with promotions, so I'd have to believe there's a 90% chance Baily is pitching in Sarasota to start 2006. But on the other hand, doesn't it seem odd that Pierson is making that comment on the same night O'Brien is in town? Of all the times to say something bold, I think having the general manager in town is probably the worst - unless there is some level of truth to back it up. I really hope this is just Pierson blowing smoke, because this organization can't afford to be wreckless with Bailey - there's simply too much at risk.

[M2]

Bailey in AA once again raises the value question.

One of the purposes of a farm system is to create player value for use in trades. Like having a healthy nest egg to fall back on, it's good to have even if you don't use it.

The Reds consistently undermine their player value with overpromotions. Bailey's been a fairly poor pitcher in the Midwest League this season. Sure, he has the potential to get better in a flash, but right now he's a kid with spotty control and a lot to learn.

Homer Bailey may or may not pitch in the majors. He may or may not pitch well in the majors. He may or may not pitch well in the majors for the Reds. No one knows.

So while you're figuring it out, how about putting him in a position to put up some eye-popping numbers?

Case in point, Tyler Pelland. He's 5-6, 4.15, 93.1 IP (which is awfully low), 1.63 WHIP and too easy to hit in High A. He does have a nifty K rate, but if this is going to what you get from him then he's really not much of a prospect.

Had he been placed in Dayton he probably would have double-digit wins, a tiny ERA, solid-to-gaudy peripherals. Had the Reds allowed Tyler Pelland to post a big season the market perception of him would be a lot more positive and the franchise would have more options as a result of it.

[lollipopcurve]

Bailey's been a fairly poor pitcher in the Midwest League this season.

Opponent batting average of .235. 113 Ks in 97 innings. 5 HRs in 97 innings. 19 years old.

Do you really think other teams look at Homer as "fairly poor"?

They'd have to be blind.

[markymark69]

I think that is an encouraging aspect about the future. Baliey, Germano and Ramirez all throw strikes consistently. All three are likely to be in the Reds plans for the furture.

It looks like only Bailey may have the kind of fastball that can put batters away.

[lollipopcurve]

Baliey, Germano and Ramirez all throw strikes consistently. All three are likely to be in the Reds plans for the furture

Homer's problem has been control. 50+ walks in 90+ innings. I'm sure it's an area where he needs to improve, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's had problems getting called strikes on his hammer curve.

[Reds Fanatic]

One impressive thing about Bailey is he has gained velocity on his fastball as the year has gone on. I have seem him start 3 times. A few months ago he threw upper 80s to low 90s and last night he was up to the mid 90s. He also has a good changeup he throws in the upper 70s that is a good strikeout pitch for him.

[OnBaseMachine]

O'Brien is pretty conservative with promotions.

I don't think O'Brien is as conservative as you think. After all, he did start three eighteen year old pitchers in Dayton this season: Homer Bailey, Philippe Valiquette, and Rafael Gonzalez, two of which totally bombed and were sent to Billings.

Tyler Pelland took a same path to what Valiquette and Gonzalez. He too was overagressively promoted last season and ended up being shell-shocked at Dayton before being demoted to Billings. Instead of giving him a second go around in the MWL, they again agressively promoted him to the Florida State League.

O'Brien is a bit agressive with young pitchers. Be patient with them. Let them dominate a level and gain confidence.

[M2]

Opponent batting average of .235. 113 Ks in 97 innings. 5 HRs in 97 innings. 19 years old.

Do you really think other teams look at Homer as "fairly poor"?

They'd have to be blind.

4.36 ERA, 1.44 WHIP while being babied. BTW, I've got no problem with the babying, but additional fatigue isn't going to help those numbers (which leads to a side theory on his bullpen struggles, he's not having trouble pitching in relief - it's not like he's not being given proper warmup time or anything like that - he's not rebounding well from his longer starts).

So, yeah, that's fairly poor. If that's what he does for his career, he's a bust. Like I said, he's got the potential to turn it around in a flash, but this is NOT quality performance or anything like it. It's a work in progress.

When the MW All-League Team gets announced, Bailey won't get an ounce of consideration for it and his performance will cause him to place lower on league and overall prospects list. I imagine there's going to be a lot jawing at BA as to whether he belongs on its Top 100 list in front of piles of guys who outperformed him.

Homer still gives other teams plenty to dream on, so he's got value, but at some juncture he'll have to produce good numbers across the board. That's why you don't stick him in AA next season. You're blurring what he is with what he might be (and what you want him to be). Put him in position to rack up the numbers and you don't have to make the case that he'll be a lot better than what he's doing at the moment. Make his value explicit.

[ochre]

Powell recommended Bailey for a promotion to Class AA next season. To that I say, heck no! Bailey should be in high A next season. Do not rush him, especially considering he hasn't exactly dominated the Midwest League.



http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/daily/0826dragons.html
from what I have seen, heard and read Powell is more or less an idiot.

[traderumor]

While Bailey's portfolio for the entire year is unimpressive, there have been signs that he has turned a corner in the second half, esp. his last three starts. It is something to write home about, whereas the first part of the year he was busting. Hopefully he can carry that momentum to Sarasota next year.

[M2]

While Bailey's portfolio for the entire year is unimpressive, there have been signs that he has turned a corner in the second half, esp. his last three starts. It is something to write home about, whereas the first part of the year he was busting. Hopefully he can carry that momentum to Sarasota next year.

Homer finished the first half of the MWL season with a 4.07 ERA. It's actually risen in the second half.

[Cedric]

It's being 19 and inconsistent. He's trying to find the feel for throwing the breaking ball for strikes. Looking at power pitchers early in their minor league career he is getting hit at about the same range as Zambrano or Burnett were. If he was a control pitcher I'd be more than alarmed.

[Falls City Beer]

4.36 ERA, 1.44 WHIP while being babied. BTW, I've got no problem with the babying, but additional fatigue isn't going to help those numbers (which leads to a side theory on his bullpen struggles, he's not having trouble pitching in relief - it's not like he's not being given proper warmup time or anything like that - he's not rebounding well from his longer starts).

So, yeah, that's fairly poor. If that's what he does for his career, he's a bust. Like I said, he's got the potential to turn it around in a flash, but this is NOT quality performance or anything like it. It's a work in progress.

When the MW All-League Team gets announced, Bailey won't get an ounce of consideration for it and his performance will cause him to place lower on league and overall prospects list. I imagine there's going to be a lot jawing at BA as to whether he belongs on its Top 100 list in front of piles of guys who outperformed him.

Homer still gives other teams plenty to dream on, so he's got value, but at some juncture he'll have to produce good numbers across the board. That's why you don't stick him in AA next season. You're blurring what he is with what he might be (and what you want him to be). Put him in position to rack up the numbers and you don't have to make the case that he'll be a lot better than what he's doing at the moment. Make his value explicit.

I'll give 'em a pass on the ERA due to crap fielding, but the guy litters the diamond with runners and he's really only a decent K pitcher.

[traderumor]

Homer finished the first half of the MWL season with a 4.07 ERA. It's actually risen in the second half.Does that negate the last three starts I specifically referred to? Also, you'll notice that there are two relief appearances of 3 runs and 4 runs in two inning stints apiece. Following that 6 runs over 2 IP debacle (which half that hits, I'm not sure), Bailey has had five starts, covering 24 IP, 4 R, 3 ER, 31 Ks, 7 BB, 17 H, 0 HRs. I think that is what we are looking for out of him and is encouraging that it is occurring in the later part of the year.

EDIT--What that screams to me is that David needs to be removed from the tandem rotation. He is apparently a square peg in relief.

[M2]

Does that negate the last three starts I specifically referred to? Also, you'll notice that there are two relief appearances of 3 runs and 4 runs in two inning stints apiece. Following that 6 runs over 2 IP debacle (which half that hits, I'm not sure), Bailey has had five starts, covering 24 IP, 4 R, 3 ER, 31 Ks, 7 BB, 17 H, 0 HRs. I think that is what we are looking for out of him and is encouraging that it is occurring in the later part of the year.

EDIT--What that screams to me is that David needs to be removed from the tandem rotation. He is apparently a square peg in relief.

I don't see how you can responsibly back those relief appearances out of the mix. That's still Homer Bailey on the mound. IIRC, he hasn't been asked to come in mid-inning at any time. So he gets a full warmup on his normal rest and pitches under pretty much the same circumstances as we would a start. That counts in my book.


It's being 19 and inconsistent. He's trying to find the feel for throwing the breaking ball for strikes. Looking at power pitchers early in their minor league career he is getting hit at about the same range as Zambrano or Burnett were. If he was a control pitcher I'd be more than alarmed.

Sure, but there's plenty of other guys, power pitchers in fact, who manage to be 19 and consistent. Doesn't mean that Bailey won't find the strikezone in the future or that he'll be a lesser pitcher down the road, just that UNTIL HE GAINS CONSISTENCY AND PERFORMS BETTER ON A CONSISTENT BASIS HIS OVERALL VALUE WILL BE LESS THAN IT COULD BE. That's why I don't want to see an aggressive push with Homer. The Reds need to let his performance catch up to his promise.

[Cedric]

I agree on that.

[traderumor]

I don't see how you can responsibly back those relief appearances out of the mix. That's still Homer Bailey on the mound. IIRC, he hasn't been asked to come in mid-inning at any time. So he gets a full warmup on his normal rest and pitches under pretty much the same circumstances as we would a start. That counts in my book.



Sure, but there's plenty of other guys, power pitchers in fact, who manage to be 19 and consistent. Doesn't mean that Bailey won't find the strikezone in the future or that he'll be a lesser pitcher down the road, just that UNTIL HE GAINS CONSISTENCY AND PERFORMS BETTER ON A CONSISTENT BASIS HIS OVERALL VALUE WILL BE LESS THAN IT COULD BE. That's why I don't want to see an aggressive push with Homer. The Reds need to let his performance catch up to his promise.None of which I was arguing against. All I said was that he seems to be heading in the right direction. The reference to the relief appearances were because you had noted that his ERA had actually gone up in the second half. Of course, I'm sure you understand that there is a difference between starting and relieving, and for a 19 year-old, perhaps he can't handle doing Kerry Wood and come in and be lights out in the middle of a game. It isn't like its a totally meritless idea.

Consistency, certainly, which the five starts I have pointed to are not enough to make that claim, which I never did. All I said is he COULD be turning a corner. I'm not sure what is wrong with such an idea. You've made your point, but I was never arguing against it, at least not on purpose.

[TRF]

Bailey in AA once again raises the value question.

One of the purposes of a farm system is to create player value for use in trades. Like having a healthy nest egg to fall back on, it's good to have even if you don't use it.

The Reds consistently undermine their player value with overpromotions. Bailey's been a fairly poor pitcher in the Midwest League this season. Sure, he has the potential to get better in a flash, but right now he's a kid with spotty control and a lot to learn.

Homer Bailey may or may not pitch in the majors. He may or may not pitch well in the majors. He may or may not pitch well in the majors for the Reds. No one knows.

So while you're figuring it out, how about putting him in a position to put up some eye-popping numbers?

Case in point, Tyler Pelland. He's 5-6, 4.15, 93.1 IP (which is awfully low), 1.63 WHIP and too easy to hit in High A. He does have a nifty K rate, but if this is going to what you get from him then he's really not much of a prospect.

Had he been placed in Dayton he probably would have double-digit wins, a tiny ERA, solid-to-gaudy peripherals. Had the Reds allowed Tyler Pelland to post a big season the market perception of him would be a lot more positive and the franchise would have more options as a result of it.

Damn Skippy. I am a huge Pelland fan, and had him pegged to start for Dayton this year. I was stunned to see him in Sarasota. Pelland could have dominated the Midwest league, and really build on that for next year at Sarasota. As it is, I am hoping he repeats High A next year.

[M2]

I don't think there is any difference between starting and relieving in terms of the way Bailey's been used in those situations. As far as I understand, his preparation and warmup for his relief appearances has been handled the exact same way as in his starting appearances. He's not inheriting baserunners, instead he comes in with the bases empty at the start of an inning.

Perhaps he perceives it differently, but his routine hasn't changed, he hasn't been asked to respond to a different set of circumstances and he's known heading into the game that he'll be used each time.

So, in this case, I don't see a difference between starting and relieving from an objective standpoint (again, Homer's subjective view might be different, but that's pure specuation based on nothing). Seems to me the Reds have tried to use in relief after some of his meatier workload outings and that his struggles could just as easily be the result of fatigue. We don't really know. What we do know is he's been inconsistent and that's kept his ERA and WHIP high.

A kid like Bailey could be turning a corner every time he takes the mound, but until I can look at a solid month or two or work and not have to excuse away the blemishes I'm going to resist giving him credit for having turned any corners. What I'm resisting is interpreting every positive outing as a trend when he's still offering up too many shaky outings in the mix. BTW, that's a response to more of a general zeitgeist in the fanbase than anything I'm getting from you personally tr.

[M2]

Damn Skippy. I am a huge Pelland fan, and had him pegged to start for Dayton this year. I was stunned to see him in Sarasota. Pelland could have dominated the Midwest league, and really build on that for next year at Sarasota. As it is, I am hoping he repeats High A next year.

I'm guessing there's little chance of him repeating. The good news is that the SL is a pitcher's league. Then again, so is the FSL.

[traderumor]

I don't think there is any difference between starting and relieving in terms of the way Bailey's been used in those situations. As far as I understand, his preparation and warmup for his relief appearances has been handled the exact same way as in his starting appearances. He's not inheriting baserunners, instead he comes in with the bases empty at the start of an inning.

Perhaps he perceives it differently, but his routine hasn't changed, he hasn't been asked to respond to a different set of circumstances and he's known heading into the game that he'll be used each time.

So, in this case, I don't see a difference between starting and relieving from an objective standpoint (again, Homer's subjective view might be different, but that's pure specuation based on nothing). Seems to me the Reds have tried to use in relief after some of his meatier workload outings and that his struggles could just as easily be the result of fatigue. We don't really know. What we do know is he's been inconsistent and that's kept his ERA and WHIP high.

A kid like Bailey could be turning a corner every time he takes the mound, but until I can look at a solid month or two or work and not have to excuse away the blemishes I'm going to resist giving him credit for having turned any corners. What I'm resisting is interpreting every positive outing as a trend when he's still offering up too many shaky outings in the mix. BTW, that's a response to more of a general zeitgeist in the fanbase than anything I'm getting from you personally tr.You don't want him to succeed because you were against the Reds drafting him. ;) :p:

[lollipopcurve]

You don't want him to succeed because you were against the Reds drafting him.

Well, I doubt this is true of M2, though I think he's been entirely too critical of Homer so far.

There's more hot air on this board on draft day than on any other. I was just checking out the archived thread for this year's draft. You'd think the Reds had drafted a bunch of 8th graders.

[traderumor]

Well, I doubt this is true of M2, though I think he's been entirely too critical of Homer so far.

There's more hot air on this board on draft day than on any other. I was just checking out the archived thread for this year's draft. You'd think the Reds had drafted a bunch of 8th graders.I know its not true of him, just taking a jab because I've seen that accusation whenever someone critiques a draft pick and continues to have reservations about a player afterwards. Same thing happens on a trade or a free agent signing. If the word at acquisition is that the guy stinks and then he ends up stinking, its because the folks that said he stinks want him to fail.

[M2]

Well, I doubt this is true of M2, though I think he's been entirely too critical of Homer so far.

His performance is what it is, not very good with some extremely encouraging outliers.

That's not criticism, it's a recognition of what he's done and where he's at.

[lollipopcurve]

it's a recognition of what he's done and where he's at.

It's one person's take on what he's done -- using one person's selected stats. There are other stats that show strong consistent performance (the low BA against, the low HRs against, the high K rate).

You've also remarked, M2, that Homer would be out of baseball in 5 years -- working for Orvis or something. I wouldn't pretend you've been Mr. Objective.

[cincyinco]

It's being 19 and inconsistent. He's trying to find the feel for throwing the breaking ball for strikes. Looking at power pitchers early in their minor league career he is getting hit at about the same range as Zambrano or Burnett were. If he was a control pitcher I'd be more than alarmed.

I think people seem to forget that Homer Bailey is just 19 years old. He's a kid. This isn't highschool baseball. This is professional ball. He's going to get his licks. But, god willing, he's going to learn, make adjustments, and put it together. I think the critisism of Bailey is far too harsh. Cut the kid a little slack. This is year 1 in all reality.

I agree that he should NOT be in AA next year. High A would be fantastic. Let him log some innings there. Lets see how he fairs. Lets see if he can make the adjustments - and I wholeheartedly believe he can. Year 1 doesn't mean much. Year two will be much more telling about his abilities.

Here are some important things that should indicate future success, as long as the ratios remain strong:

116K in 97.0IP.
84H in 97.0IP.
5HR in 97.0IP.

Its the 56BB that is killing his WHIP. A 19 year old is likely to strugle with his command, while he works on improving his secondary offerings. \

So let me ask you, do these numbers suck?

4.39ERA, 145.2IP, 118H, 73BB, 176K?

ERA isn't stellar, just like Homer. Walks are not stellar, just like Homer. But the other periphrials are there. The above stats belong to Matt Cain, arguably the best pitching prospect in baseball not named Felix Hernandez or Francisco Liriano. I'm not saying Homer is in Cain's class. I'm not saying he ever will be. I'm just pointing out that its not uncommong for youngsters to struggle. That doesn't mean the talent isn't there.

[M2]

It's one person's take on what he's done -- using one person's selected stats. There are other stats that show strong consistent performance (the low BA against, the low HRs against, the high K rate).

You've also remarked, M2, that Homer would be out of baseball in 5 years -- working for Orvis or something. I wouldn't pretend you've been Mr. Objective.

Yeah, I've got some attitude questions about the kid. My hope is it's a result of him being young and not an irretrievable butthead. Though let's pretend that I was being figurative and not literal when making the Orvis crack ... because I was (and I suspect you know that).

And ERA and WHIP aren't my selected stats. They're the measures of how many runs he allows and how many runners he allows on base. They're the fundamental measuring sticks of pitching performance. I'd have used OPS against, but I don't know where to find that for minor leaguers. You're the one using secondary measures to paint a ridiculously inaccurate picture.

Secondary measures are just that: secondary. They may be important road signs. Like I said, those numbers are extremely encouraging, but the bottom line is that a 4.36 ERA and 1.44 WHIP won't take you very far. "Strong consistent performance" doesn't work on a cafeteria model. If you want to claim a guy has strong, consistent performance then you'd better be able to show it all the way across the board and not be in a position where you're trying to run a shell game on core measurements like ERA and WHIP. That's bogus.

[lollipopcurve]

You're the one using secondary measures to paint a ridiculously inaccurate picture.

What is the ridiculously inaccurate picture? I've made no claims other than that Homer has had a good year -- based on what I consider to be important numbers for a power pitcher -- and that there's reason to be encouraged. I've also said he shouldn't be rushed to the majors.

I have said Homer needs to work on his command. That's certainly forgiveable, at least in my view, for a power pitching 19 year old who has needed little more than one pitch for years.

Again -- what's ridiculously inaccurate about ANYTHING I've said about Bailey. You won't find it.

You said he'd be out of baseball in 5 years. Nothing figurative about that.

[M2]

I think people seem to forget that Homer Bailey is just 19 years old.

Actually it's the thing that concerns me most about him. It's nice that he's in Low A and not getting slaughtered at such a young, but 19-year-old arms are about as stable as nitro.

So my main goal for Homer Bailey, due to his age, is that he stay healthy. He's done that so far. If he can do it three more years, I'll breathe a lot easier.


So let me ask you, do these numbers suck?

4.39ERA, 145.2IP, 118H, 73BB, 176K?

Cain's also surrendered 22 HR. IMO he's got no business being where he is (AAA) and you'll probably see him tumble down the BA top prospects list a bit as a result. So the numbers don't suck, but they aren't good either.

Also, Cain's a bad guy to bring up in a discussion about Homer Bailey. Through age 19 Cain had a 2.71 ERA and 1.16 WHIP in 252 professional IP as a #25 overall draft pick with most of his work coming in High A and AA. Bailey's a #7 overall pick pitching far worse in Low A. If Homer were having something like Cain's 2004 season, we'd have people speculating on just how Cy Youngs he'll win.

[cincyinco]

Actually it's the thing that concerns me most about him. It's nice that he's in Low A and not getting slaughtered at such a young, but 19-year-old arms are about as stable as nitro.

So my main goal for Homer Bailey, due to his age, is that he stay healthy. He's done that so far. If he can do it three more years, I'll breathe a lot easier.

Cain's also surrendered 22 HR. IMO he's got no business being where he is (AAA) and you'll probably see him tumble down the BA top prospects list a bit as a result. So the numbers don't suck, but they aren't good either.

Also, Cain's a bad guy to bring up in a discussion about Homer Bailey. Through age 19 Cain had a 2.71 ERA and 1.16 WHIP in 252 professional IP as a #25 overall draft pick with most of his work coming in High A and AA. Bailey's a #7 overall pick pitching far worse in Low A. If Homer were having something like Cain's 2004 season, we'd have people speculating on just how Cy Youngs he'll win.

Cain and Homer are both capable pitchers of making adjustments. My point was too not compare the two's abilities. I was simply trying to show that young power pitchers often struggle with command. Take a deep breathe M2.. Relax. I respect your opinion on baseball matters very much, but to me you come across as having an axe to grind with Homer. Why the hate?

[lollipopcurve]

we'd have people speculating on just how Cy Youngs he'll win.

Again, you're blatantly misrepresenting your opposition here, M2. No one is making claims about what Bailey will do for the Reds -- we're saying he's a real good prospect. That's it. If you disagree with that, OK -- but I haven't heard you say that, yet.

[M2]

Again -- what's ridiculously inaccurate about ANYTHING I've said about Bailey. You won't find it.

Why, I'll find it right here:


There are other stats that show strong consistent performance (the low BA against, the low HRs against, the high K rate).

He hasn't been consistent and there's plenty of weaknesses mixed in with his strengths. You're calling 2005 a good year for him. Since when did a 4.36 ERA and 1.44 WHIP become the hallmarks of a GOOD year?

No one ever said his secondary numbers weren't important, worth consideration or reason for encouragement, but they haven't added up to a good year. Period.


You said he'd be out of baseball in 5 years. Nothing figurative about that

If you're not being a type A whack job about it, it was entirely figurative. RL related a story about Bailey not signing an autograph and I took a gratuitous whack at the kid for being a pud (though in fairness to Bailey it turned out that he isn't the pud he seemed at that moment).

[M2]

Again, you're blatantly misrepresenting your opposition here, M2. No one is making claims about what Bailey will do for the Reds -- we're saying he's a real good prospect. That's it. If you disagree with that, OK -- but I haven't heard you say that, yet.

I think he's a B prospect (A velocity, C control). I like B prospects as a general rule. The Reds could use a good dozen more.

As for "misrepresenting," wasn't it fairly clear that I was speculating on the reaction people would have to a #1 draft posting huge numbers? I mean, wasn't that plain as the nose on your face? Is there some way I could have been MORE obvious about that?

We get people wondering if Ramon Ortiz should be kept around after a few decent starts. It really doesn't take much to get pitching-starved fans dreaming about a banquet.

Hell, if Homer was posting huge numbers, I might even be joining into the Cy Young speculation just for fun.

[wheels]

A few nice outings are great.

Good seasons by two guys in the system are great too.

Pauly and Gardner were consistantly good last season.

Where are they now?

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

Keep that kid's arm firmly attached at all of the appropriate joints, hope he puts up good numbers, and don't rush him.

Oh yeah, burn a few candles, say some kinda chant, and feed that little Homer doll lots of rum and cigars.

[M2]

Cain and Homer are both capable pitchers of making adjustments. My point was too not compare the two's abilities. I was simply trying to show that young power pitchers often struggle with command. Take a deep breathe M2.. Relax. I respect your opinion on baseball matters very much, but to me you come across as having an axe to grind with Homer. Why the hate?

I'd argue that what we've learned to date is that, despite their similarities, Cain's ability was well ahead of Bailey's when they got drafted, though I whole-heartedly agree both have plenty of time to make adjustments that help them overcome their current struggles.

What I'm not doing on Bailey is assuming anything with him. Will he adjust? When will he adjust? What will the effect of those adjustments be?

I have no earthly idea. When he was drafted I made the point, repeatedly, that you could make him out to be Superman since he was such an undefined quantity and no one could say you were wrong. The choice I've made with the kid, and pretty much every HS arm, is to let him define himself. I find empty speculation on HS arms extremely tiresome and almost always overblown. If I'm hating on anything, it's that and not Homer Bailey.

[HermW]

So, in this case, I don't see a difference between starting and relieving from an objective standpoint (again, Homer's subjective view might be different, but that's pure specuation based on nothing).

M2, there is a great basis for concluding that Homer's subjective view is different. His own subjective view, as stated by him.

In the article in the DDN (I believe) his quote is: "It's just something I'm used to," Bailey said of starting. "I'm more comfortable. I've never really been a reliever."

Homer's subjective view of the situations shows that he sees a clear difference between starting and relieving. Does that mean anything? I think with a 19-year old it certainly does, but I'm not sure how much it means. Actually, I might be inclined at Homer's age to think that his subjective view that there is a difference is more important that the objective view that there is no difference (which I actually don't think is quite true because I think there is an objective difference of some kind (again the significance is not really quantifiable), but that is a different discussion).

[M2]

Good points Herm.

That said, I'm unsympathetic if that is the case. The kid needs to treat every trip to the mound as an opportunity to shine (this gets back to my vague concerns about Homer's general attitude).

Also, there's no telling when or if that light goes on, or if there's other extraneous things that will affect his performance, or whether he's making an excuse there, or how much of it is his perception and how much of it is legitimate fatigue.

My main hope is that next season we're not in the position of having to divine Homer's Jeckylls and Hydes.

[cincyinco]

I'd argue that what we've learned to date is that, despite their similarities, Cain's ability was well ahead of Bailey's when they got drafted, though I whole-heartedly agree both have plenty of time to make adjustments that help them overcome their current struggles.

What I'm not doing on Bailey is assuming anything with him. Will he adjust? When will he adjust? What will the effect of those adjustments be?

I have no earthly idea. When he was drafted I made the point, repeatedly, that you could make him out to be Superman since he was such an undefined quantity and no one could say you were wrong. The choice I've made with the kid, and pretty much every HS arm, is to let him define himself. I find empty speculation on HS arms extremely tiresome and almost always overblown. If I'm hating on anything, it's that and not Homer Bailey.

Will he adjust? You can almost guarantee he will make adjustments. A majority of prospects DO. What will the effect of those adjustments be? That remains to be seen. When will he adjust? I think he's doing it right now!

I know there is a popular saying as there is no such thing as pitching prospects, but I dont buy into that. I follow the minor leagues with abandon, I am pretty familiar with the minors of every single ball club - at least their notable players. I take great interest in watching guys careers blossom from rookie ball on up.

Myself, I take the view of opptimism with highly touted prospects, until they give me reason to show otherwise. There is a grace period, a learning curve if you will. Do you ever read John Sickles site? He does a lot of good work on prospect retrospectives. I think it provides some great reads, and it tells how some players made their rise through the minors to stardom, or where studs in the minors and fell flat on their face in the majors.

My point is that, despite the numbers Homer has put up this year, I'm not going to write him off yet. Its far too early to give up on potential. And I believe a lot in potential. Just becuase Homer may not be putting up "cy young" numbers, doens't mean he wont next year. Doesn't mean he can't ever. And doesn't mean he wont figure things out.

Why not give him the chance to fail first? I'm excited to have a player with his calibur of arm in the organization. I can't think of the last pitcher we had, even prospect wise, that had the stuff that Homer is capable of throwing. He could turn out to be the best pitching prospect this organizaiton has seen in the last decade(although thats not saying much).. or he could just as easily be a bust. Lets wait and see! But lets also be happy that we got a kid who is missing bats, has the stuff to be a frontline pitcher... in our organization. And lets watch him develope and have fun.

[wheels]

I don't think anyone's "giving up" on David Bailey.

[HermW]

Good points Herm.

That said, I'm unsympathetic if that is the case. The kid needs to treat every trip to the mound as an opportunity to shine (this gets back to my vague concerns about Homer's general attitude).

Also, there's no telling when or if that light goes on, or if there's other extraneous things that will affect his performance, or whether he's making an excuse there, or how much of it is his perception and how much of it is legitimate fatigue.

My main hope is that next season we're not in the position of having to divine Homer's Jeckylls and Hydes.

You're probably right, looking at the "dark" (realistic? Probably) side but . . .

I am in deep denial about every Reds pitching prospect--they all excite me at Bailey's stage, especially when they show his talent. Of course, all rational thought and available evidence should lead me to the opposite of excitement in every case, but I blindly, stubbornly and irrationally cling to optimism with each one--until they blow out their elbow or shoulder. It is really a form of mental illness at this point after being disappointed by so many promising names in the last ???? years.

But it is the only way I can really cope as a Reds' fan. Knowing that pitching is what the team needs to have a playoff chance and that it needs to be farm-bred talent, blind optimism about the Reds' minor league pitching talent (and seeing how high Dunn's OPS is) is about all that keeps me going.

[cincyinco]

I don't think anyone's "giving up" on David Bailey.

Wheels, people gave up on him the moment he was drafted because he wasn't a "college arm". To them, a high school arm means automatic failure.

[Cedric]

A few nice outings are great.

Good seasons by two guys in the system are great too.

Pauly and Gardner were consistantly good last season.

Where are they now?

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

Keep that kid's arm firmly attached at all of the appropriate joints, hope he puts up good numbers, and don't rush him.

Oh yeah, burn a few candles, say some kinda chant, and feed that little Homer doll lots of rum and cigars.

So basically never talk about pitching prospects then? I agree most fail, that doesn't take rocket science. It was perfectly fine for people to talk about Gardner and Pauly last year. You have to hope, as long as you realize the pitfalls and don't get extremely optimistic. Jesus guys, nobody said Homer was Roger Clemens. It's absurd.

[Cedric]

I don't think anyone's "giving up" on David Bailey.

I don't like digging up old threads but I remember people clearly saying he had no shot at being a good pitcher or sticking in the league. ZERO shot.

[Betterread]

Wheels, people gave up on him the moment he was drafted because he wasn't a "college arm". To them, a high school arm means automatic failure.

Please note that the prevailing "opnions" on this board for the 2004 draft was that the obvious draft choice was Chris Nelson. Here are his numbers:

Name G AB R H 2B3BHR RBI TB BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Nelson72 289 49 69 11 3 3 37 95 23 84 7 3 .239 .302 .329

If people who wish to be pessimistic about prospects and question Homer's potential because of his inconsistency and because his statistics don't measure up to certain expectations, then let's examine Chris Nelson's first year.

If young Mr. Bailey's stats display inconsistency, then young Mr. Nelson's stats display no power, no plate discipline and an obvious inability to make consistent contact. Along with his 22 errors in 72 games, please tell me what you pessimists extrapolate from his first year? Please try to be at least as logical and anaytical as you have been with Mr. Bailey.

[jmcclain19]

From Today's BA Prospect Chat, someone asked a question about Bailey


David from Kennesaw, GA asks:
Matt, now that the season is coming to a close, is it safe to say that even despite his early struggles, Homer Bailey is by far the better prospect over Mark Rogers?

A: Matt Meyers: David, Neither of these guys have had spectacular full season debuts, but Bailey is certainly a step ahead at this point, I wouldn't say "by far" though. Rogers has never gotten it going and has also battled some blister problems which aren't helping. From what I hear, the Brewers are still high on him and believe that he is picking things up slowly and one day it is just going to "click." This is a guy from Maine though, and while I have a lot of Maine pride since I went to college there, the competition he faced in high school was not particularly tough and he should be given the benefit of the doubt. He does have 100 strike outs in 89 innings, but also 61 walks. Way too early to give up on him. Hopefully he can replace Bill Swift as the greatest big leaguer from Maine, Bailey has not put up great numbers either in the Midwest League, but I had a scout recently raving about him and his "hammer curve." His 3.52 ERA in August (with 33 Ks in 23 innings) is his second best ERA of any month so it is good to see he isn't tiring.He has a lot of moxie too. As a writer, I want to see him get to the big leagues for his outlandish quotes if nothing else.

[M2]

Please note that the prevailing "opnions" on this board for the 2004 draft was that the obvious draft choice was Chris Nelson. Here are his numbers:

Name G AB R H 2B3BHR RBI TB BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Nelson72 289 49 69 11 3 3 37 95 23 84 7 3 .239 .302 .329

If people who wish to be pessimistic about prospects and question Homer's potential because of his inconsistency and because his statistics don't measure up to certain expectations, then let's examine Chris Nelson's first year.

If young Mr. Bailey's stats display inconsistency, then young Mr. Nelson's stats display no power, no plate discipline and an obvious inability to make consistent contact. Along with his 22 errors in 72 games, please tell me what you pessimists extrapolate from his first year? Please try to be at least as logical and anaytical as you have been with Mr. Bailey.

I don't know about consensus opinion. IIRC, plenty of people were high on Wade Townshend or Thomas Diamond too. Diamond's the current belle from that ball.

However, I was pimping Nelson as far back as December 2003, so I'll take this one.

Chris Nelson's had a lousy year. No bones about it. He started out injured, struggled, had a little flourish and since then has struggled again. I figured he'd finish the season with an .800+ OPS. I believe got up to .700 after hitting for the cycle at one point, but I figured wrong.

Anyway, what does Nelson offer?

Important to remember this isn't his first year. He tore up rookie ball last season. His career averages (spanning 486 PAs) are .275 BA/.350 OB/.390 SLG. Not horrible, not good. Reminds me of a certain pitcher drafted two slots ahead of him.

And for the record, if the Reds had drafted Nelson, I'd have the good sense to be disappointed in his 2005 season even as I recognized he has the tools to do better.


Wheels, people gave up on him the moment he was drafted because he wasn't a "college arm". To them, a high school arm means automatic failure.

I suppose I could go into how woefully wrong that comment is, but I think I'll just let it stand at "You're woefully wrong." If that's what you've come away from the kajillion discussions this board has had on the subject of HS pitching then there's little point in rehashing it. Same for you Ced - big, swinging miss.

Herm, once again, excellent points.

[Cedric]

No miss. He was given zero shot.

[M2]

No miss. He was given zero shot.

Suuuure he was. Why people couldn't stop themselves from stating it was an absolute certainty that he'd never make it.

[Cedric]

Yeah it was a joke I guess. I guess you didn't mean anything about the post now.

[Falls City Beer]

Heck, I ain't shy: I'd never, ever draft a high school pitcher. Ever. Pi$$in' away good money.

Bailey'll be lucky to scrounge a relief career, IMO.

[Cedric]

You'd be the only gm ever.

[cincyinco]

I suppose I could into how woefully wrong that comment is, but I think I'll just let it stand at "You're woefully wrong." If that's what you've come away from the kajillion discussions this board has had on the subject of HS pitching then there's little point in rehashing it. Same for you Ced - big, swinging miss.

Herm, once again, excellent points.

If you dont believe the vast majority here believe that we made a huge mistake by taking a HS arm, then I dont know.. maybe we're reading two different boards? I dont have the time to dig up threads, because I'm leaving from work in 5 minutes, but this has been my perception. Everyone here is sabremetrics happy(nothing wrong with that), and on the college player being drafted bandwagon.

My main point stands. I would not call Homer's first season a failure. I wouldn't call it a stand out season either. I would call it a good season though, simply for the fact I believe Homer has learned how to pitch better, and that hes shown he can make adjustments. And I believe he'll continue to make adjustments.

You know, I remember when a lot of reds fans were down on our LF after he had a horrible horrible 1st full season. Or was it the sophmore season? In any case, that is my point. Homer is a kid. He's going to hit bumps in the road on his journey to becoming a pitcher. Its how he handles the adversity that will tell what kind of player he will be. I think he'll handle the adversity and become a good pitcher. And I wont be swayed by others vocal pessimism. Instead, I'll wait for Bailey to prove to me he wont make it.

Thanks.

[M2]

I call Homer's first season a poor season, because it's been a a poor season. Failure is your word and something I've yet to see anyone use in conjunction with Bailey.

Speaking of shifting terms, what I took issue with was "people gave up on him the moment he was drafted because he wasn't a 'college arm'. To them, a high school arm means automatic failure." That's worlds different from thinking it's a grandiose mistake for a team in the Reds' situation to be spending a #7 overall pick on a HS arm who isn't primed to set the world on fire from the get-go (which Homer wasn't).

[SteelSD]

No miss. He was given zero shot.

Ced, that's really a drastic overgeneralization.

What was said is that if you take a High School arm in the top 10 of a draft, and that arm isn't absolutely the best overall pitcher in the draft, your chances of him ever turning into an Ace-level SP are nearly zero.


You know, I remember when a lot of reds fans were down on our LF after he had a horrible horrible 1st full season. Or was it the sophmore season? In any case, that is my point. Homer is a kid. He's going to hit bumps in the road on his journey to becoming a pitcher. Its how he handles the adversity that will tell what kind of player he will be. I think he'll handle the adversity and become a good pitcher. And I wont be swayed by others vocal pessimism. Instead, I'll wait for Bailey to prove to me he wont make it.

Not coincidentally, the same people telling folks that Adam Dunn was going to be a monster player are the same folks who are noting their disappointment with the over-drafting and subsequent minor league performance of one David Bailey.

See, drafting Homer Bailey was a bad risk. I don't need Homer Bailey to fail in order to know that it was a bad risk because it was a bad risk the moment the pick was made. Oh, and Homer Bailey can succeed (Lord, I hope so) and it will still have been a poor decision that flew in the face of probability.

I don't consider myself at all pessimistic in this matter. That's the reality.

[Cedric]

Ced, that's really a drastic overgeneralization.

What was said is that if you take a High School arm in the top 10 of a draft, and that arm isn't absolutely the best overall pitcher in the draft, your chances of him ever turning into an Ace-level SP are nearly zero.



Not coincidentally, the same people telling folks that Adam Dunn was going to be a monster player are the same folks who are noting their disappointment with the over-drafting and subsequent minor league performance of one David Bailey.

See, drafting Homer Bailey was a bad risk. I don't need Homer Bailey to fail in order to know that it was a bad risk because it was a bad risk the moment the pick was made. Oh, and Homer Bailey can succeed (Lord, I hope so) and it will still have been a poor decision that flew in the face of probability.

I don't consider myself at all pessimistic in this matter. That's the reality.

I didn't mean to say that everyone that disagreed with the pick gave him zero shot. I apologize if it sounds that way. I was stating that M2 gave him zero shot.

[M2]

I don't consider myself at all pessimistic in this matter. That's the reality.

Pessimism on this board can mean a lot of things. Sometimes it means that you've refused to believe everything the Reds do is sunshine and light. It can mean you've employed reasonable skepticism in a discussion. It can mean you've failed to use the proper amount of happy hyperbole in discussing a given move or player. It can mean you've refused to ignore history and/or probability.

It almost never means pessimism and I'm learning to take it as a high compliment.

[M2]

I didn't mean to say that everyone that disagreed with the pick gave him zero shot. I apologize if it sounds that way. I was stating that M2 gave him zero shot.

Which was dopey and wrong.

But, for the record, here's what I said about Bailey right before the Reds drafted him: "Maybe Homer Bailey turns out to be a superstar, but as of right now he's just a HS pitcher. The Reds can't afford to blow another high pick on one of those - Gruler, Sowers, Howington (none of whom are pitching live games for the Reds at this moment)."

Also, in response to you in that 2004 draft thread, I said: "No one's questioning that he's talented, it's a question of whether he'll be one of the few at his current level of advancement to do anything with that talent."

[Cedric]

First off you'd have to be a total idiot to not be pessimistic about drafting a high school pitcher. I doubt it was the right pick, I had no idea I was arguing the other point. My arguement was that he still deserves a shot, that's my only point.
I misunderstood your earlier quotes on Bailey then. I apologize.

[M2]

Just another little chestnut I dug up from that 2004 draft thread.

During the buildup to the draft, someone brought up that eight of the top 23 picks in the BA top 100 were drafted as HS pitchers. They were:

BBA Top 25-
4.Edwin Jackson
8.Greg Miller
12.Scott Kazmir
13.Adam Loewen
14.Zack Grienke
17.Cole Hamels
18.Dustin McGowan
23.Gavin Floyd

Jackson and Floyd turned into pinatas in AAA. Greinke's getting roughed up in the majors. Miller's just back after losing nearly two years to injury. McGowan also lost a season and a half and now he's in Toronto and getting pelted. Loewen's got a 4.33 ERA in High A. Kazmir's holding his own in the majors, making him the only one of this Magnificent Seven to be thriving at the moment (though he's awfully Rich Ankielish - electric stuff, but sooner or later those baserunners are going to catch up with him).

Of course, you can play this game with the top rated HS arms on practically every BA top 100 list. It's the one thing BA never learns. It's just interesting to see how quickly these things unravel.

On the bright side for Reds fans, it means the HS arms that do make it (and some do) aren't necessarily the top tier guys. So if Homer drops down or off the list for a few seasons it doesn't mean he's a flop.

[wheels]

At the time he was drafted, the hue and cry was that they'd taken a silly risk in drafting a highschooler.

That was it.

I highly doubt that anyone's rooting against him, or being overly harsh about his performance.

He hasn't been bad, but he's only kinda sorta doing well, and that's okay. He's nineteen, he's got two very nice pitches, he's strung together some nice outings.

I'm just not ready to christen him the crowned jewel of the organization just yet.

I got all excited about Pauly and Gardner. In fact, I was feeling like they both were on the fast track to bringing the club's pitching doldrums to an end.

Then they both went under the knife, and it looks like Gardner's gone the way of Chris Gruler, and who knows what's really going on with Pauly....And both of those guys were College arms.

I've just decided to take any and all success by the farmhand pitchers with a grain of salt. I'm not gonna get too high or too low on a guy because it's not worth it to me.
Doesn't mean I won't be training a keen eye on David Bailey, doesn't mean I'm not interested in Travis Wood's insofar otherworldly performance.

I'm just sick of pinning hopes on pitchers. They're attrition rates are just too high.

It's not a knock on any of them, and daggone it, I hope like heck that Bailey defies what has become convention in the Reds organization.

I'm not all giddy, but I sure as heck ain't giving up on him.

[Betterread]

Pessimism on this board can mean a lot of things. Sometimes it means that you've refused to believe everything the Reds do is sunshine and light. It can mean you've employed reasonable skepticism in a discussion. It can mean you've failed to use the proper amount of happy hyperbole in discussing a given move or player. It can mean you've refused to ignore history and/or probability.

It almost never means pessimism and I'm learning to take it as a high compliment.

That's pretty good BS. I'm impressed. Since one good turn deserves another, I will refer you to Harry G. Frankfurt's excellent short book "On Bullsh**" (Princeton Press - 2005). This is a book by a Princeton professor emeritus of moral philosophy which discusses the need for a theory of bullsh**.

[Falls City Beer]

That's pretty good BS. I'm impressed. Since one good turn deserves another, I will refer you to Harry G. Frankfurt's excellent short book "On Bullsh**" (Princeton Press - 2005). This is a book by a Princeton professor emeritus of moral philosophy which discusses the need for a theory of bullsh**.

Yeah, I saw it in Border's next to copies of the Historian and The Nanny Diaries.

My money's on M2's Lucifer.

[wheels]

That's pretty good BS. I'm impressed. Since one good turn deserves another, I will refer you to Harry G. Frankfurt's excellent short book "On Bullsh**" (Princeton Press - 2005). This is a book by a Princeton professor emeritus of moral philosophy which discusses the need for a theory of bullsh**.

Way to ruin a pretty good discussion.

Nice job.

[M2]

That's pretty good BS. I'm impressed. Since one good turn deserves another, I will refer you to Harry G. Frankfurt's excellent short book "On Bullsh**" (Princeton Press - 2005). This is a book by a Princeton professor emeritus of moral philosophy which discusses the need for a theory of bullsh**.

One time I read a book about duckies.

[lollipopcurve]

Oh, and Homer Bailey can succeed (Lord, I hope so) and it will still have been a poor decision that flew in the face of probability.

I don't consider myself at all pessimistic in this matter. That's the reality.

The reality in my view is that one determines the wisdom of any particular draft pick by whether or not the player turns out to have good value to the franchise. Right now I'd say Homer has good value, based on his stuff and his performance in several important respects this year.
Take a look at Wade Townsend, the college arm taken right after Homer. He's been absolutely terrible this year, in short season ball. If you say he would have been a better pick than Homer, I'd say you're basing it on ideology, not performance.
I was interested in this debate while we analyzed Homer's performance this year -- there's still more to say about the differences between starting and piggybacking in Dayton, the lack of good defense behind Homer (just speculating, but Piepkorn in the OF and Drew Anderson at SS are likely weak spots), and more. But unless someone wants to take that up separately, I'm not going to engage it. I appreciate what Betteread, Ced, cincyinco and others are trying to do here, but my advice, guys, is to let this blow over. Draft day ideologies die hard, if ever, and as long as you've got people saying Homer will have been a bad draft choice even if he stars for the Reds, you've got to know you're not in a rational debating environment.

[Betterread]

The reality in my view is that one determines the wisdom of any particular draft pick by whether or not the player turns out to have good value to the franchise. Right now I'd say Homer has good value, based on his stuff and his performance in several important respects this year.
Take a look at Wade Townsend, the college arm taken right after Homer. He's been absolutely terrible this year, in short season ball. If you say he would have been a better pick than Homer, I'd say you're basing it on ideology, not performance.
I was interested in this debate while we analyzed Homer's performance this year -- there's still more to say about the differences between starting and piggybacking in Dayton, the lack of good defense behind Homer (just speculating, but Piepkorn in the OF and Drew Anderson at SS are likely weak spots), and more. But unless someone wants to take that up separately, I'm not going to engage it. I appreciate what Betteread, Ced, cincyinco and others are trying to do here, but my advice, guys, is to let this blow over. Draft day ideologies die hard, if ever, and as long as you've got people saying Homer will have been a bad draft choice even if he stars for the Reds, you've got to know you're not in a rational debating environment.

Well-said. I add that I find discussions centered on specific aspects of a minor-leaguers skills, phyiscal health, psychological makeup and development are very interesting. I especially value the eye-witness accounts provided by people like Redsfanatic in this thread. There is an amount of hyperbole used by the Reds FO when dealing with minor leaguers, so discussions about players that involve analysis of their potential and development is interesting. This board is the source of information on injuries. Look at the post related to richie Gardner for a recent example. This board is where I search if a minor leaguer has "disappeared" for a period of time.

[Falls City Beer]

The reality in my view is that one determines the wisdom of any particular draft pick by whether or not the player turns out to have good value to the franchise. Right now I'd say Homer has good value, based on his stuff and his performance in several important respects this year.
Take a look at Wade Townsend, the college arm taken right after Homer. He's been absolutely terrible this year, in short season ball. If you say he would have been a better pick than Homer, I'd say you're basing it on ideology, not performance.
I was interested in this debate while we analyzed Homer's performance this year -- there's still more to say about the differences between starting and piggybacking in Dayton, the lack of good defense behind Homer (just speculating, but Piepkorn in the OF and Drew Anderson at SS are likely weak spots), and more. But unless someone wants to take that up separately, I'm not going to engage it. I appreciate what Betteread, Ced, cincyinco and others are trying to do here, but my advice, guys, is to let this blow over. Draft day ideologies die hard, if ever, and as long as you've got people saying Homer will have been a bad draft choice even if he stars for the Reds, you've got to know you're not in a rational debating environment.

Too bad we really can't judge a draft in futurity. It's perfectly rational, nay, perhaps the only rational way, to judge a draft: when it happens; based upon years and years of accumulated statistical evidence regarding high school draft choices.

As William James says, "Wisdom is knowing what to overlook."

[lollipopcurve]

It's perfectly rational, nay, perhaps the only rational way, to judge a draft: when it happens; based upon years and years of accumulated statistical evidence regarding high school draft choices.


Those years and years of statistical evidence have proven nothing conclusive about whether players should be chosen based on their age -- pitchers or nonpitchers. I believe a study this year from Baseball Prospectus backed this.

Like it or not, the evidence that counts most in distinguishing player A from player B is the evidence gained by scouts in the field. What kind of stuff does the kid have? What's his makeup? What are his mechanics? How solid is his command? If a high school pitcher looks better in these areas, in the eyes of an experienced scout, crosschecked by another experienced scout, that means a lot more than whatever semi-conclusive collection of statistics you want to put together from past drafts. And again, I don't believe there is a convincing set of statistics that says you should take college pitchers over high school pitchers anywhere in the draft.
The only way to judge a draft is by the performance of the players as professionals. Draft-day assessments are fun, but they whistle in the wind.

[M2]

Those years and years of statistical evidence have proven nothing conclusive about whether players should be chosen based on their age -- pitchers or nonpitchers. I believe a study this year from Baseball Prospectus backed this.

We've backed over this about a thousand times, but there's no vagary whatsoever on the success rate of high school arms vs. college arms taken in the first round. The college arms obliterate them, especially if you add the caveat of having delivered something for the team that drafted them. The success rates of HS pitchers follow a completely random pattern. You're as likely to nab a HS arm who becomes a quality pitcher in the 8th round as you are in the 1st round (more likely using the current set of major leaguers). I know you've seen the data. If you want to claim otherwise, go back and review 40 years of drafts.

You mentioned Wade Townshend above and he's struggled after a year's hiatus, but he's hardly the only college arm taken in the first round of that draft. Justin Verlander's perhaps the top pitching prospect in the minors. Jeremy Sowers isn't far off. Thomas Diamond, Jered Weaver, Jeff Niemman, David Purcey and Taylor Tankersley are alll moving along at a good clip.

Meanwhile Scott Elbert and Philip Hughes have already leapfrogged Bailey and Rogers from the HS ranks, turning that whole "Homer was the best HS pitcher in the draft" argument on its head (which is good because it never had any legs to begin with - being the top HS arm in the draft is no indication of future success).

Like it or not, we can say right now that the college arms from the 2004 1st round will go onto have better careers than the HS arms with only a sliver of a chance that the future will prove out otherwise.

If you want to make the case that Homer Bailey will be the guy to beat those odds, fine, but the same people who claimed that a year ago also insisted he was ready to tear up the minors and they never mentioned what have turned out to be some rather profound control problems. In short, many of the people pimping Bailey have been making it up every step of the way, always assuming he'll do X, Y and Z in the future. On that side there hasn't been a rational balancing of his strengths and weaknesses (or even a recognition that he has weaknesses). People wildly overestimated what he'd deliver out of the chute and what his standing was relative to his draft peers. Apparently it's going to be a case of lather, rinse, repeat every season. Perhaps it will all come together for him in 2006, perhaps he'll get a little bit better, perhaps he'll continue to yo-yo, perhaps he'll backslide and perhaps the injury whammy will get him.

I'm perfectly willing to kick around what's more likely among those choices, but why on earth would I put much stock in the comments of those who've failed to acknowledge what's been more likely at every step up until this juncture? A new set of happy rationalizations doesn't really add much to the discussion. It's just more interference across the wire in trying to figure out what we should reasonably expect from this kid.

[SteelSD]

The reality in my view is that one determines the wisdom of any particular draft pick by whether or not the player turns out to have good value to the franchise.

You're playing blackjack. You have an 18. Dealer has a six showing.

You can hit if you like, but the wisdom of that decision does not rest on whether or not you win the hand. We can judge, before the dealer ever flops your card over, the quality of your decision because we understand how probability works. We don't have to wait until the dealer flops his.

If you're a General Manager and you consistently take bad risks, you're not going to have time to "wait and see" how smart you may or may not have been. You're going to be gone because you did a lot of things that had very little chance of working out.

Irrationality is waiting for the future to determine the intelligence of one's decisions when those decisions fly in the face of probability in the now.

[Betterread]

[QUOTE]Scott Elbert and Philip Hughes have already leapfrogged Bailey and Rogers from the HS ranks, turning that whole "Homer was the best HS pitcher in the draft" argument on its head (which is good because it never had any legs to begin with - being the top HS arm in the draft is no indication of future success). [QUOTE]

Elbert is arguably ahead of Bailey - he's had a good year and has good command of a nice set of pitches. Hughes had a very good year and has stuff to match Bailey, but ominously has been shut down - with no explanation from the Yankees as to why.
Bailey has pitched strongly to end the year. Developmentally, that is encouraging.
Bailey and Rogers still are described by scouts as having great stuff - along with Verlander these are the 3 pitchers from the 2004 draft who are considered to have the best raw stuff.

[Aronchis]

Elbert leads now, but will he by next year at this time? Bailey's power potential dwarfs everybody, including college pitchers in the draft except for Verlander. He is all power, power fastball, power change, power curve. Whether he developes these tools into that potential is the question, but that is the question of all the young pitchers. Right now, he is not leading the pack, but don't let that blur your judgement of his final outcome.

[Betterread]

We need power pitchers/pitchers with the stuff to make batters miss. There are only 3 Cincinnati pitchers with a K/9 ration over 7.00 - Harang, Wagner and Weathers. That is evidence of the talent on our ML staff. Even though we have some AA/AAA pitching prospects, you really have to go down to Pelland at high A for a prospect with high K/9 rates. Bailey has a high K rate so that is another reason for optimism. If people don't think Bailey will be that kind of success - who do they suggest will fill that role?
Oh yeah - those are the people who think we can flip Sean Casey for Matt Clement or something as far-fetched as that.

[lollipopcurve]

The success rates of HS pitchers follow a completely random pattern. You're as likely to nab a HS arm who becomes a quality pitcher in the 8th round as you are in the 1st round (more likely using the current set of major leaguers). I know you've seen the data. If you want to claim otherwise, go back and review 40 years of drafts.

This is patently false and a misuse of statistical method. If you want an accurate analysis, compare slots, not rounds. I made this distinction when we debated this before -- did you not understand? Teams select in slots -- one player at a time. Teams do not select in rounds, 30 players at a time. Your method pits one team's chances vs the success rate of ALL other teams. There is no question that the success rate of HS pitchers taken in slots 1-30 (first round) will prove much higher than the success rate of HS pitchers taken in slots 221-240 (eighth round). The fact that there are some HS pitchers from the 8th round doing well right now is random. There may be none from the 7th round -- does that prove one should only select HS pitchers in round 8, and never in round 7? Of course not.

No more for me -- the fact that there appears to be no humility from the crowd that anointed Travis Wood a horrible pick -- with great certitude -- is continuing proof that these debates are fruitless.

[M2]

[QUOTE]Scott Elbert and Philip Hughes have already leapfrogged Bailey and Rogers from the HS ranks, turning that whole "Homer was the best HS pitcher in the draft" argument on its head (which is good because it never had any legs to begin with - being the top HS arm in the draft is no indication of future success). [QUOTE]

Elbert is arguably ahead of Bailey - he's had a good year and has good command of a nice set of pitches. Hughes had a very good year and has stuff to match Bailey, but ominously has been shut down - with no explanation from the Yankees as to why.
Bailey has pitched strongly to end the year. Developmentally, that is encouraging.
Bailey and Rogers still are described by scouts as having great stuff - along with Verlander these are the 3 pitchers from the 2004 draft who are considered to have the best raw stuff.

You just walked along the stuff fault line apparently without noticing it. You listed Verlander, Bailey and Rogers in the same category. Yet already we can see the vast difference between stuff in theory (Bailey and Rogers) and stuff in practice (Verlander). And what's the critical difference between Verlander and the two wannabes? Three years.

In 2001 Justin Verlander (and Jeff Niemann, who was the other filthy stuff college guy in the draft) was a distant blip on the radar screen, nowhere near top prospect status. From age 18 to 21 you've got an enormous amount of flux in terms of who has the best stuff and who's ready to punish hitters with it. According to BA, Homer Bailey had the best command of anyone coming out of HS in 2004 as well. BS indeed.

There's nothing arguable about it, Elbert pitched the pants off of Bailey this season and, despite the shutdown, Hughes clearly came into A ball two steps ahead of Homer. Yes, Homer's K rates are encouraging, but so were the K rates of Rob Bell, Ty Howington, Chris Gruler and Ricardo Aramboles. I've had this same basic discussion about all of them too. The Reds have needed power pitchers forever, but some people refuse to see the Great White Hope theme running through the Reds' efforts to develop them ... and so we get the unending joy of kicking around why a 4.36 ERA and 1.44 WHIP add up to something good. Me, I'd prefer the organization bring in the kind of talent for whom we don't have to make excuses.

[pedro]

You're playing blackjack. You have an 18. Dealer has a six showing.

You can hit if you like, but the wisdom of that decision does not rest on whether or not you win the hand. We can judge, before the dealer ever flops your card over, the quality of your decision because we understand how probability works. We don't have to wait until the dealer flops his.

If you're a General Manager and you consistently take bad risks, you're not going to have time to "wait and see" how smart you may or may not have been. You're going to be gone because you did a lot of things that had very little chance of working out.

Irrationality is waiting for the future to determine the intelligence of one's decisions when those decisions fly in the face of probability in the now.

well said.

[RFS62]

You're playing blackjack. You have an 18. Dealer has a six showing.

You can hit if you like, but the wisdom of that decision does not rest on whether or not you win the hand. We can judge, before the dealer ever flops your card over, the quality of your decision because we understand how probability works. We don't have to wait until the dealer flops his.

If you're a General Manager and you consistently take bad risks, you're not going to have time to "wait and see" how smart you may or may not have been. You're going to be gone because you did a lot of things that had very little chance of working out.

Irrationality is waiting for the future to determine the intelligence of one's decisions when those decisions fly in the face of probability in the now.


Yep, good analogy.

[SteelSD]

We need power pitchers/pitchers with the stuff to make batters miss. There are only 3 Cincinnati pitchers with a K/9 ration over 7.00 - Harang, Wagner and Weathers. That is evidence of the talent on our ML staff. Even though we have some AA/AAA pitching prospects, you really have to go down to Pelland at high A for a prospect with high K/9 rates. Bailey has a high K rate so that is another reason for optimism. If people don't think Bailey will be that kind of success - who do they suggest will fill that role?

Actually, Bailey's high K rate is a reason for optimism as his his lower HR rate.

But really, this thread appears to be diverging. On one hand, we have a debate about how smart or dumb it was to draft him. The other tangent is how well he's actually doing right now.

But I'm not at all sure where your comments above fit into either argument. You appear to be saying that because the Reds desperately need good pitchers, then Homer Bailey must be that good pitcher because of the dearth of good pitchers in the Reds' system.

Uh-uh. Doesn't work that way. Homer Bailey is a good or bad pitcher based on what he's done- not because there's no one else around. That's the primary reason reason we see so many folks positioning Bailey's fairly mediocre 2004 and 2005 seasons as being better than they are. There's no one else, so they cling desperately to the concept that David Bailey is THE guy who's going to be THE GUY because there are no other THE GUYS around. He was, after all, drafted very high. But upon quick inspection, that simply doesn't make any sense because positional depth has nothing to do with a player being better or worse.


Oh yeah - those are the people who think we can flip Sean Casey for Matt Clement or something as far-fetched as that.

Strawman Argument 101- i.e. if you can create a ridiculous position and then act like said position is held by those opposing you in debate, then you can attempt to position their current argument as equally non-credible.

Problem is that no one has ever proposed a "Casey-for-Clement" trade- much less anyone you're currently arguing with so the Strawman is easy to identify and set to flame.

[lollipopcurve]

There's a lot of different ways to massage the data. I'm not smart enough to know which methods are the most valid, but then I'm not deathly interested in knowing whether the advantage enjoyed by college players is 12% or 13%. In terms of the general brushstrokes, I'm comfortable in saying that college players are worth, on average, somewhere between 10 and 20% more than an equivalent high-school draftee. It's enough of a disparity that you need to be aware of it, but not so much that you need to obsess over it.

Whether a player is drafted out of high school or out of college is a factor that must be considered, but it's only one factor of many, and unlike 20 or even 10 years ago, it's no longer the dominant factor.

This is from Rany Janyzerli's (spelling) 2005 Baseball Prospectus study of the draft. What it says essentially supports my position -- that holding to the ideology that one player is necessarily a better choice than another based on whether that player is a high schooler or a college player is short-sighted and ignores many important factors.
I think we can all agree that when it comes to crunching numbers, BP knows what they're doing.
To my way of thinking, this settles the argument, and I haven't learned anything new. You judge a draft by how the players perform, not according to some ideology that you can apply on draft day.

[lollipopcurve]

Actually, Bailey's high K rate is a reason for optimism as his his lower HR rate.

Oh, but Steel, M2 would scold you for saying this because you appear to be playing a "shell game" with peripherals, somehow hiding the core stats of ERA and WHIP. Shame on you. Optimism is verboten.

[pedro]

This is from Rany Janyzerli's (spelling) 2005 Baseball Prospectus study of the draft. What it says essentially supports my position -- that holding to the ideology that one player is necessarily a better choice than another based on whether that player is a high schooler or a college player is short-sighted and ignores many important factors.
I think we can all agree that when it comes to crunching numbers, BP knows what they're doing.
To my way of thinking, this settles the argument, and I haven't learned anything new. You judge a draft by how the players perform, not according to some ideology that you can apply on draft day.

OTOH, I could just as easily point to Billy Beane's philosophy as explained in Moneyball, which says just the opposite, and as good as BP is, they are on the sidelines, Billy Beane is putting this to practice, with success, in real life.

[M2]

This is patently false and a misuse of statistical method. If you want an accurate analysis, compare slots, not rounds. I made this distinction when we debated this before -- did you not understand? Teams select in slots -- one player at a time. Teams do not select in rounds, 30 players at a time. Your method pits one team's chances vs the success rate of ALL other teams. There is no question that the success rate of HS pitchers taken in slots 1-30 (first round) will prove much higher than the success rate of HS pitchers taken in slots 221-240 (eighth round). The fact that there are some HS pitchers from the 8th round doing well right now is random. There may be none from the 7th round -- does that prove one should only select HS pitchers in round 8, and never in round 7? Of course not.

No more for me -- the fact that there appears to be no humility from the crowd that anointed Travis Wood a horrible pick -- with great certitude -- is continuing proof that these debates are fruitless.

As far as I can tell your only method is to ignore sensibility and reason.

My method takes the largest possible cut of players in order to see if patterns have arisen (and they have). That's the responsible way to do it. Teams may pick one at a time, but that is not how numbers get crunched and your assertion to the contrary is like putting up a gigantic billboard that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

College arms, college players and high school players taken in the first round have, for decades, have made it to the majors and been impact performers at significantly higher rates than college arms, college players and high school players taken later in the draft. In fact if you dig deeper (as opposed to not at all) there's even a fault line in the middle of the first round. Yet high school pitchers taken in the first round have the lowest success and impact rates. In fact other rounds yield similar or at times higher success rates. I suppose the lightbulb on what this random distribution means will never go on for you, but here it is for the zillionth time: If high school pitching talent succeeds in a completely random pattern, it means the overwhelming bulk of MLB clubs don't know how to scout it properly and make intelligent picks between the winners and the losers, at least not in any systematic fashion.

Round 8 and, iirc, round 3 just happen to be ahead of round 1 these days. Rounds 2, 4 and 6 might be as well, it's always in flux. At that's the point, it's always in flux. With other types of players, it's rarely-to-never in flux.

This brings us to Travis Wood, who has had a stellar debut. The available scouting reports on him sucked. He's a vastly different animal from the taxonomy he'd been given, particulary in the control department. Conversely, seemingly every scout on the planet missed Homer Bailey's control issues. Welcome to Random Town, where not even the fundamental skills of the high school arms in question can be listed with any sort of reliability. I fully admit Wood's been a huge, and hugely pleasant, surprise as far as I'm concerned. Though the core reason for that surprise is that we got bad information on him.

Now that doesn't save Wood from the crucible he's still got to run in order to reach the majors and be a plus starter at that level, but the Reds deserve credit in that he's the first HS arm in five years who's put together an eye-popping debut. Of course since Justin Gilman was the last guy to do it, so I recommend taking Wood's debut with a grain/bag/block of salt.

[M2]

Oh, but Steel, M2 would scold you for saying this because you appear to be playing a "shell game" with peripherals, somehow hiding the core stats of ERA and WHIP. Shame on you. Optimism is verboten.

No, Steel and I are saying the exact same thing. We're both saying that K rate is a very encouraging peripheral. Yet we both recognize that he's yet to be such great shakes. Perhaps you missed this from Steel's post, so I'll re-post it (because it was excellent):


Homer Bailey is a good or bad pitcher based on what he's done- not because there's no one else around. That's the primary reason reason we see so many folks positioning Bailey's fairly mediocre 2004 and 2005 seasons as being better than they are. There's no one else, so they cling desperately to the concept that David Bailey is THE guy who's going to be THE GUY because there are no other THE GUYS around. He was, after all, drafted very high. But upon quick inspection, that simply doesn't make any sense because positional depth has nothing to do with a player being better or worse.

Note the use of "mediocre" as a descriptor.

[SteelSD]

No more for me -- the fact that there appears to be no humility from the crowd that anointed Travis Wood a horrible pick -- with great certitude -- is continuing proof that these debates are fruitless.

You called Travis Wood "...clearly very high risk."

Just wanted to make sure you remember that.;)

BTW, the primary reason I wasn't enthused about the Wood selection is that I wanted the Reds to draft Cesar Carrillo in round one. I felt that Carrillo fit a need and was talent-equitable to Bruce long-term.


This is from Rany Janyzerli's (spelling) 2005 Baseball Prospectus study of the draft. What it says essentially supports my position -- that holding to the ideology that one player is necessarily a better choice than another based on whether that player is a high schooler or a college player is short-sighted and ignores many important factors.

You might want to go back and read the passage you quoted again. It's talking about PLAYERS in general- not pitchers. And we are, after all, talking about pitchers aren't we?

[Buckaholic]

OTOH, I could just as easily point to Billy Beane's philosophy as explained in Moneyball, which says just the opposite, and as good as BP is, they are on the sidelines, Billy Beane is putting this to practice, with success, in real life.

Billy Beane himself said after this latest draft that people should not take that practice as gospel, and that he had no problems with taking a qualified high school pitcher. College pitchers were a slightly lower risk, but that they didn't necessarily always end up being the better pitcher.

Once again, it all comes back to moneyball. Believe it or not, there are good practices that go against this book. People here live and die by that thing. For the discipleship of Beane that goes on here, you would have to wonder why the A's have not got to a World Series and why they rarely get out of the first round of the playoffs.

I tend to believe the A's have been successful more on their development of players than the drafting of them.

[Cedric]

Was it mediocre? Based on how? I say his k/9 rate, hr rate and staying healthy all year and pitching stronger in the late parts of the second half make it a good year overall for Homer. Why is it assumed that his draft position is the only reason people see positives in his game?

[pedro]

Billy Beane himself said after this latest draft that people should not take that practice as gospel, and that he had no problems with taking a qualified high school pitcher. College pitchers were a slightly lower risk, but that they didn't necessarily always end up being the better pitcher.

Once again, it all comes back to moneyball. Believe it or not, there are good practices that go against this book. People here live and die by that thing. For the discipleship of Beane that goes on here, you would have to wonder why the A's have not got to a World Series and why they rarely get out of the first round of the playoffs.

I tend to believe the A's have been successful more on their development of players than the drafting of them.

I agree there are always exceptions, but the Reds consistently go against the odds, which is troubling IMO.

[M2]

You judge a draft by how the players perform, not according to some ideology that you can apply on draft day.

And if you take a look back at how the players drafted in certain spots have performed over time it shows you highly drafted HS pitchers are a particularly bad bet. I remember that Jayazerli piece. The thing to remember about Jayazerli is that he's often lazy. He was in that piece and, IMO, pitcher abuse points have turned into a dead-end as well.

In you put high school position players and high school pitchers in the same pile then you get a relatively uninteresting blob of data that tells you very little. It's only when you noticed the blob contains one set that represents a good risk balanced out by another that represents a bad risk that you're able to cull something meaningful out of it.

[lollipopcurve]

The most striking change has been with high-school pitchers. Once upon a time, these were disastrous picks, earning less than half the value of any other subset of first-round pick. High-school pitchers more than doubled their value in the later set of drafts. From 1992 to 1999, while they were still the riskiest picks overall, high-school pitchers were just 12-14% less valuable than high-school hitters or college pitchers.

The old mantra is dead. Thou Probably Should Not Draft a High School Pitcher in the First Round, but Thou Can.

Again, this is Rany Janerzyli, from his 2005 draft study published in Baseball Prospectus (this study looked at drafts from the mid 80s to 1999). First round high school pitchers are 10-15% more risky than college pitchers, according to this study. In my mind, this is a negligible difference, to be discarded in the face of the data one collects in any given year of scouting. To think otherwise is to cling to a dying ideology.

[SteelSD]

Oh, but Steel, M2 would scold you for saying this because you appear to be playing a "shell game" with peripherals, somehow hiding the core stats of ERA and WHIP. Shame on you. Optimism is verboten.

Well, I don't think that M2 is saying that Bailey's doing nothing encouraging.

Good Stuff: K Rate, HR Rate
Mediocre Stuff: ERA
Bad Stuff: BB Rate, WHIP

Unfortunately, we don't have the info to figure out OPS Against right now, which is the only reason I include ERA and WHIP. The other thing rarely mentioned is that Bailey (because of the Pitch Count limitation) has been very protected thusfar in his minor league career. While that may be something done in an effort to prevent injury (remains to be seen if it actually DOES prevent injury), it still means that his endurance has never really been taxed. In short, we may be seeing only the best of David Bailey right now and that's a mitigating factor I don't think we can't ignore.

[M2]

Billy Beane himself said after this latest draft that people should not take that practice as gospel, and that he had no problems with taking a qualified high school pitcher. College pitchers were a slightly lower risk, but that they didn't necessarily always end up being the better pitcher.

Once again, it all comes back to moneyball. Believe it or not, there are good practices that go against this book. People here live and die by that thing. For the discipleship of Beane that goes on here, you would have to wonder why the A's have not got to a World Series and why they rarely get out of the first round of the playoffs.

I tend to believe the A's have been successful more on their development of players than the drafting of them.

I'd argue it's a combination of both.

BTW, during draft day a number of us so-called disciples were talking about how it made some sense for a team with a solid system and young pitching in the majors to take some risks on HS arms, particularly low in the first round (where your sure-thing rate drops) and particularly when you've got extra picks to spread around.

Minnesota's done the same thing in recent years and I always thought it was a smart plan.

[lollipopcurve]

I remember that Jayazerli piece. The thing to remember about Jayazerli is that he's often lazy. He was in that piece

It's a 6-part piece for which he used the help of a research assistant. I'm curious to know what you think is lazy about it.

[GullyFoyle]

I think that a consensus is forming that is somewhere in the middle of this debate. Here is an article (posted July 14th) that sheds some light on the discussion of HS vs. College pitching in process of reviewing the book Scout's Honor (a book about how how the Braves prefered HS Pitchers): http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/baseballs-hegelian-dialectic/

One interesting quote FWIW:

Finally, in support of drafting high schoolers, Shanks cites a study done by Baseball America's Jim Callis. The study showed that in the first 10 rounds of the draft from 1990 to 1997, 39% of college players made it to the majors, while only 28% of high schoolers did. Callis also found that 8.7% of college players and 8.4% of high schoolers became major-league regulars or better. However, 4.3% of high schoolers became better than average players or stars while only 2.3% of college players did.

[Cedric]

Again, this is Rany Janerzyli, from his 2005 draft study published in Baseball Prospectus (this study looked at drafts from the mid 80s to 1999). First round high school pitchers are 10-15% more risky than college pitchers, according to this study. In my mind, this is a negligible difference, to be discarded in the face of the data one collects in any given year of scouting. To think otherwise is to cling to a dying ideology.

Take that 10-15% risk and compare it with the high ceilings of certain high school pitcher and I don't think it's really that bad. Look at the top pitchers in baseball and most of them didn't attend college.
Dontrelle Willis, Johan Santana, A.J. Burnett, Ben Sheets, Roy Halladay, Millwood, Jon Garland, Bartolo Colon, Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood, Freddy Garcia, John Patterson, Jake Peavy.

You can come up with a good list of college pitchers, but in my view it's nowhere near the level of that group.

[SteelSD]

Again, this is Rany Janerzyli, from his 2005 draft study published in Baseball Prospectus (this study looked at drafts from the mid 80s to 1999). First round high school pitchers are 10-15% more risky than college pitchers, according to this study. In my mind, this is a negligible difference, to be discarded in the face of the data one collects in any given year of scouting. To think otherwise is to cling to a dying ideology.

Hey, do you have a link to that study you can provide? I'm not sure that the word "value" (from the study) is interchangeable with your use of the word "risk".

It's possible for a player subset to be Y% more or less valuable while still being Z% more risky.

[lollipopcurve]

Hey, do you have a link to that study you can provide? I'm not sure that the word "value" (from the study) is interchangeable with your use of the word "risk".

It's possible for a player subset to be Y% more or less valuable while still being Z% more risky.

You have to be a subscriber -- go to the Baseball Prospectus Web site. $40/year or $4.95/month.

[SteelSD]

Take that 10-15% risk and compare it with the high ceilings of certain high school pitcher and I don't think it's really that bad. Look at the top pitchers in baseball and most of them didn't attend college.
Dontrelle Willis, Johan Santana, A.J. Burnett, Ben Sheets, Roy Halladay, Millwood, Jon Garland, Bartolo Colon, Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood, Freddy Garcia, John Patterson, Jake Peavy.

You can come up with a good list of college pitchers, but in my view it's nowhere near the level of that group.

Carlos Zambrano wasn't drafted. Neither was Johan Santana or Freddy Garcia. Ditto Bartolo Colon. Ben Sheets went to college.

[SteelSD]

You have to be a subscriber -- go to the Baseball Prospectus Web site. $40/year or $4.95/month.

Ok, then can you cut-and-paste where the author defines the word "value" in the article?

Fair use and all that.

[OnBaseMachine]

Let me jump in on thise and toss in some names of high school pitchers taken in later rounds. As someone else(M2?) pointed out earlier, it's just as easy to find a good high school arm in rounds three, seven or eight.

My philosophy has always been draft a safer pitcher(college) in round one or two and then you can take some risks in later rounds.

Jake Peavy-15th round of 1999 draft
Dontrelle Willis-8th round of 2000 draft
Kevin Millwood-11th round of 1993 draft
Zach Duke-20th round of 2001 draft
Carl Pavano-13th round of 1994 draft
A.J. Burnett-8th round of 1995 draft
Edwin Jackson-6th round of 2001 draft
Jason Schmidt-8th round of 1991 draft
John Smoltz-22nd round of 1985 draft
Matt Clement-3rd round of 1993 draft

Prospects with big league futures:

Troy Patton-9th round of 2004 draft
Joel Zumaya-11th round of 2002 draft
Kyle Davies-4th round of 2001 draft
Scott Olsen-6th round of 2002 draft
Anthony Lerew-11th round of 2001 draft
Ian Snell-26th round of 2000 draft

2004 draft--HS pitchers taken after Bailey in round 3 or later:

Gaby Hernandez-3rd round
Eduardo Morlan-3rd round
Chuck Lofgren-4th round
Sean Gallagher-12th round
Troy Patton-9th round

[Cedric]

Carlos Zambrano wasn't drafted. Neither was Johan Santana or Freddy Garcia. Ditto Bartolo Colon. Ben Sheets went to college.

I know that. I apologize about Sheets. All those guys obviously weren't first round picks. I was just showing that for whatever reasons even in later rounds high school pitchers have higher ceilings than those that attend college. Because FCB said he'd never draft one, ever. I was talking about that 10-15% risk.

[M2]

Again, this is Rany Janerzyli, from his 2005 draft study published in Baseball Prospectus (this study looked at drafts from the mid 80s to 1999). First round high school pitchers are 10-15% more risky than college pitchers, according to this study. In my mind, this is a negligible difference, to be discarded in the face of the data one collects in any given year of scouting. To think otherwise is to cling to a dying ideology.

And why are we looking at an eight-year slice?

Seriously, why? I mean, outside of that's the only way Jayazerli could claim to have found something new.

And for the folks playing along at home, Jayazerli (being lazy) did not put the percentages in relation to each other. That 10-15% rate is the overall gap between them. Also we're not talking about the difference between a 50% hit rate and a 60-65% rate. It's more like a 10% hit rate and a 20-25% rate. When that 10-15% represents DOUBLE the success rate, then, yeah, it's significant.

Complete sidenote, one of the things the A's did so well was revamp the way they scout college players, based on performance more than tools. During the '90s you had some scouting directors, notably Terry Reynolds with the Dodgers, who fell in love with toolsy college talents and they came out of the decade with a big goose egg. Simply by recognizing the value of performance, the A's were able to boost their hit rate. Jayazerli know this, but apparently he couldn't be bothered with including it in a discussion about how the draft has changed.

BTW, if anyone's gotten an impression that Jayazerli isn't high on my list of folks who made meaningful baseball observations, you'd be absolutely right.

[lollipopcurve]

And for the folks playing along at home, Jayazerli (being lazy) did not put the percentages in relation to each other. That 10-15% rate is the overall gap between them. Also we're not talking about the difference between a 50% hit rate and a 70-75% rate. It's more like a 10% hit rate and a 20-25% rate. When that 10-15% represents DOUBLE the success rate, then, yeah, it's significant.

It appears to me you haven't read the articles. RJ does not talk in terms of "hit rate." He uses measurements that he terms expected value and discounted value, and he aggregates these -- and compares them against each other, of course -- for college and high school players. Where you get this "hit rate" thing is beyond me. I really think you're just blustering here, M2 -- but a calm explanation of how you are translating RJ's research into "hit rate" would be appreciated.
My recommendation to those reading along -- since M2 has graciously offered his guidance for you already -- is that you read Jayazerli's piece yourself, on the Baseball Prospectus Web site.

[M2]

Take that 10-15% risk and compare it with the high ceilings of certain high school pitcher and I don't think it's really that bad. Look at the top pitchers in baseball and most of them didn't attend college.
Dontrelle Willis, Johan Santana, A.J. Burnett, Ben Sheets, Roy Halladay, Millwood, Jon Garland, Bartolo Colon, Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood, Freddy Garcia, John Patterson, Jake Peavy.

You can come up with a good list of college pitchers, but in my view it's nowhere near the level of that group.

As Steel noted, much of that list isn't high school guys. Also, only three of those guys were first round picks and only two managed to deliver big perfomance for the club that drafted them (Wood and Halladay). Josh Beckett's the other guy who fits that mold.

BTW, Roger Clemens, Barry Zito, Randy Johnson, Roy Oswalt, Curt Schilling, Andy Pettitte, Mark Buehrle, Tim Hudson, Mike Mussina, Mark Mulder, Mark Prior and Brett Myers were all college or JC guys. Six of those guys were #1 picks and each one of those six delivered big results for the team that drafted him.

[lollipopcurve]

And why are we looking at an eight-year slice?

Seriously, why? I mean, outside of that's the only way Jayazerli could claim to have found something new.

Because, as he explains at the beginning of Part 1, he felt it was too soon to judge the drafts beginning in 2000.
And here we have people judging drafts as they happen.
"The only way Jayazerli could claim to have found something new" -- this is some bizarre channeling -- I don't read any such boastful claim's in the piece.

[M2]

It appears to me you haven't read the articles. RJ does not talk in terms of "hit rate." He uses measurements that he terms expected value and discounted value, and he aggregates these -- and compares them against each other, of course -- for college and high school players. Where you get this "hit rate" thing is beyond me. I really think you're just blustering here, M2 -- but a calm explanation of how you are translating RJ's research into "hit rate" would be appreciated.
My recommendation to those reading along -- since M2 has graciously offered his guidance for you already -- is that you read Jayazerli's piece yourself, on the Baseball Prospectus Web site.

"Hit rate" was shorthand for success rate, e.g. how many of these guys actually turned out to be functional major leaguers, e.g. how often these guys went from draftees to bona fide players. Of course the entire bloody point of using what's supposed to be obvious shorthand is not to have to explain it afterward.

And you're right, Jayazerli introduced numerous pointless, vague and ultimately fruitless concepts into the piece. Meanwhile he forgot how to compare percentages to each other, go figure.

Though I also suggest people read the study as well. Like PAP (man, was that well-named), it's a magnificent piece of machinery that goes nowhere. It's kind of like going to a transportation museum.

[Falls City Beer]

Like PAP (man, was that well-named), it's a magnificent piece of machinery that goes nowhere. It's kind of like going to a transportation museum.

:laugh: You're killin' me. I think I might have browned my drawers a bit on that one.

[M2]

Because, as he explains at the beginning of Part 1, he felt it was too soon to judge the drafts beginning in 2000.
And here we have people judging drafts as they happen.
"The only way Jayazerli could claim to have found something new" -- this is some bizarre channeling -- I don't read any such boastful claim's in the piece.

If you don't find anything new, then you don't get to publish. Law of the jungle. Good research often does find something new, but, IMO, Jayazerli tweaked the living hell out of his data even to get a few mild statements from it.

And I wasn't talking about why there's nothing past 2000 (I think 1999 may even be too recent), I was talking about just why anyone would choose to use an eight-season slice. I believe Jayazerli chose it because 1992 is when the Marlins and Rockies started drafting, but it doesn't address the larger question of why that means anything as opposed to taking a 10-year or more slice. You pick a weird-sized chunk and you run the risk of getting weird data. Mind you, Jayazerli specializes in not thinking these things through.

[RedsUp]

There was a lot of marketing made over Bailey since last year. What has he done in 2004 in GCL? Didn't he get a knee surgery last fall and could barely participate in the fall instructional league? He was injured early this summer and was put on Billings' roster to give him a break.
Note he also had shoulder pain in June and skipped a few starts.
The Reds baby him a lot and they will not leave him on the mound very long if his stint is mediocre. Just check how many times he pitched 5 innings since the start of the season.
Yes he is improving, early he had wild pitches and a few HBP wich seem to get better. The thing I do not forgive is the number of BB and the amount of runs that scored when he was pitching. A pitcher is suppose to prevent batters to reach bases.
I certainly do not understand why the fans are so high about him, maybe because of the marketing, after all the Reds paid a lot of money for him.
I saw much better pitchers in Dayton and many have a better ERA and better stats in general.

My opinion is : Bailey is a good pitcher now and he is not THE GUY.
Time will tell if he becomes dominant or not.

[Betterread]

[QUOTE=SteelSD]
But I'm not at all sure where your comments above fit into either argument. You appear to be saying that because the Reds desperately need good pitchers, then Homer Bailey must be that good pitcher because of the dearth of good pitchers in the Reds' system.
[QUOTE]

No, I'm saying that because the Reds need a pitcher with overpowering stuff who can start and Homer Bailey appears to be our best option for the time being, I am rooting for him to avoid injury, develop his abilities and succeed. He had a good start on Thursday night, and this thread started out by some posters who felt the need to share their optimism over an example of his potential. I'm sure you and M2 pity us poor fools who in our delusion think Mr. Bailey may pitch in the majors some day. It's OK. I'll be alright.

[M2]

Oh, I think Bailey may pitch in the majors someday. I also think he may not pitch in the majors someday. I'm also all for trying to sort out which one is more likely. Unfortunately, when you do something as simple as note that Bailey didn't exacly pull a Denny Terio out on the MWL dance floor or that a kid his age faces stiff odds, you run afoul of those who refuse to look at him as being anything other than an unqualified success with a guaranteed major league star turn in his future. Yet that doesn't really have anything to do with who he is or where he's going.

[lollipopcurve]

"Hit rate" was shorthand for success rate, e.g. how many of these guys actually turned out to be functional major leaguers, e.g. how often these guys went from draftees to bona fide players. Of course the entire bloody point of using what's supposed to be obvious shorthand is not to have to explain it afterward.

And you're right, Jayazerli introduced numerous pointless, vague and ultimately fruitless concepts into the piece. Meanwhile he forgot how to compare percentages to each other, go figure.

Not how I read it at all. The research is based on "Wins Above Replacement Player" -- the shorthand for which is "above average contribution to wins" (wins being a Bill James measure). It has nothing to do with "success rate" or "how many of these guys" or "how often these guys went from draftees to major league players." The aggregated performance of all HS pitchers drafted in the first round -- both those who reached the majors and those who flamed out before getting there -- IS compared to the aggregated performance of all college pitchers taken in the first round. They are remarkably close for the period 1992-1999.
I'll take BP's research over yours (which is where again?) any day, M2. Or atleast until I have something tangible to compare to BP's work.

[Betterread]

Oh, I think Bailey may pitch in the majors someday. I also think he may not pitch in the majors someday. I'm also all for trying to sort out which one is more likely. Unfortunately, when you do something as simple as note that Bailey didn't exacly pull a Denny Terio out on the MWL dance floor or that a kid his age faces stiff odds, you run afoul of those who refuse to look at him as being anything other than an unqualified success with a guaranteed major league star turn in his future. Yet that doesn't really have anything to do with who he is or where he's going.

This is a rational and understandable position. You have identified the most difficult aspect of a minor leaguer to determine "who he is"- his intangible qualities of competitiveness, willingness to work hard, willingness to learn and resiliency, among other things. And these are qualities that both HS and college draftees need to learn to turn their raw talent into professional skills and abilities. Some guys have those qualities at 18 or even younger, while other grow into them - perhaps in college or perhaps even later in their career.
That is why the ideal age at which to add talent to your organization will never be quantified with precision.

[lollipopcurve]

those who refuse to look at him as being anything other than an unqualified success with a guaranteed major league star turn in his future

None of whom post on this board. They post on that board in M2's imagination known as Zone of Those Who Disagree with Me about Homer Bailey.

[M2]

Not how I read it at all. The research is based on "Wins Above Replacement Player" -- the shorthand for which is "above average contribution to wins" (wins being a Bill James measure). It has nothing to do with "success rate" or "how many of these guys" or "how often these guys went from draftees to major league players." The aggregated performance of all HS pitchers drafted in the first round -- both those who reached the majors and those who flamed out before getting there -- IS compared to the aggregated performance of all college pitchers taken in the first round. They are remarkably close for the period 1992-1999.
I'll take BP's research over yours (which is where again?) any day, M2. Or atleast until I have something tangible to compare to BP's work.

And WARP would be a measure of success. Is there any point so basic that you can grasp it?

[M2]

None of whom post on this board. They post on that board in M2's imagination known as Zone of Those Who Disagree with Me about Homer Bailey.

So says the guy trying to argue that a 4.36 ERA and 1.44 WHIP are hallmarks of a good season.

Then again, didn't you also think the Reds had a good offseason in the pitching acquisition department?

[M2]

This is a rational and understandable position. You have identified the most difficult aspect of a minor leaguer to determine "who he is"- his intangible qualities of competitiveness, willingness to work hard, willingness to learn and resiliency, among other things. And these are qualities that both HS and college draftees need to learn to turn their raw talent into professional skills and abilities. Some guys have those qualities at 18 or even younger, while other grow into them - perhaps in college or perhaps even later in their career.
That is why the ideal age at which to add talent to your organization will never be quantified with precision.

It's an imprecise science to be sure. Look at how long it took Felipe Lopez. That said, in general a kid in his teens is farther away from understanding who he is than a guy in his early 20s.

[lollipopcurve]

And WARP would be a measure of success. Is there any point so basic that you can grasp it?

How childish can you get? Really, I thought better of you.


So says the guy trying to argue that a 4.36 ERA and 1.44 WHIP are hallmarks of a good season.

My posts citing reason for optimism about Bailey always pointed to K/9, HR allowed and BA against. Never once did I cite ERA or WHIP as the hallmarks. Not once. But maybe I should let you write my posts for me, so you could ridicule yourself without having to revise what I say.


Then again, didn't you also think the Reds had a good offseason in the pitching acquisition department?

This doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll give it anyway. I'm not sure I said that -- I certainly expressed hope. But I have also posted that I felt I had misjudged things. Would be nice to see some humility from you too. Could be way too much to ask, I realize. And -- can we not divert the discussion? It's poor form.

[Falls City Beer]

How childish can you get? Really, I thought better of you.



My posts citing reason for optimism about Bailey always pointed to K/9, HR allowed and BA against. Never once did I cite ERA or WHIP as the hallmarks. Not once. But maybe I should let you write my posts for me, so you could ridicule yourself without having to revise what I say.



This doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll give it anyway. I'm not sure I said that -- I certainly expressed hope. But I have also posted that I felt I had misjudged things. Would be nice to see some humility from you too. Could be way too much to ask, I realize. And -- can we not divert the discussion? It's poor form.

lollipop, I truthfully mean no disrespect, but you are being incredibly hypocritical calling M2 on thrusting veiled and not-so-veiled jabs.

[lollipopcurve]

you are being incredibly hypocritical calling M2 on thrusting veiled and not-so-veiled jabs.

Probably. But we know who the bullies are around here, and I get sick of playing nice sometimes. When someone repeatedly misrepresents my position and claims I have said stuff I never said, I react. When someone calls me stupid, I react. Wouldn't you?

[Falls City Beer]

Probably. But we know who the bullies are around here, and I get sick of playing nice sometimes. When someone repeatedly misrepresents my position and claims I have said stuff I never said, I react. When someone calls me stupid, I react. Wouldn't you?

Yeah, I suppose I would. But I wouldn't call M2 a bully.

[SteelSD]

No, I'm saying that because the Reds need a pitcher with overpowering stuff who can start and Homer Bailey appears to be our best option for the time being, I am rooting for him to avoid injury, develop his abilities and succeed. He had a good start on Thursday night, and this thread started out by some posters who felt the need to share their optimism over an example of his potential.

And your optimism is what it is. But that line of thinking still doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Bailey has performed well thusfar nor does it say anything about whether or not drafting him was a smart or dumb thing to do.


I'm sure you and M2 pity us poor fools who in our delusion think Mr. Bailey may pitch in the majors some day. It's OK. I'll be alright.

I don't pity anyone. I can empathize with folks who, because the Reds have pretty much nothing resembling an "Ace", feel the need to overrate success while ignoring failure. The Reds pitching situation stinks. It's human nature to desperately want a guy like Bailey to be better than he has been because of it.

[SteelSD]

I know that. I apologize about Sheets. All those guys obviously weren't first round picks. I was just showing that for whatever reasons even in later rounds high school pitchers have higher ceilings than those that attend college. Because FCB said he'd never draft one, ever. I was talking about that 10-15% risk.

The problem with the concept of "10-15% risk" is that I don't think the word "value" from the article lollipopcurve posted and the word "risk" are interchangable terms. I'm still waiting for a definition of "value" from that article, but it appears that I need to spend five bucks to get it (good grief, eh?).

The funny thing about the whole HS vs. College pitcher thing is that I don't have an issue with drafting a High School pitcher.

WHAT??? WHAT DID STEEL JUST SAY???????

Heh. There's a qualifier to the above statement of course. And that qualifier is "...IF the situation is right."

But I'll tell ya', if it's in the top 10 of Round One and the guy isn't absolutely the head-and-shoulders best pitcher in the draft, it's pretty much never right (I did a study on this one myself). But from the middle of round one on, hey go for it if it's the best talent and value pick available.

[Caveman Techie]

Not to beat a dead horse here, I can see both sides of this argument. Do I think that Homer Bailey has had a good year, not particularly no. But I do think that his last three starts have been very promissing with a .93 WHIP, an ERA of 1.20, SO 21, and giving up 0 HR's. I hope this is a corner that he has turned and that next year he continues to improve (at Dayton still). And it is also promising that this improvement is coming late in the season it shows that he has some stamina.