I understand your thoughts and the poster who said that a .80 difference in the ERA makes the pitcher.
Here's something you need to keep in mind.
I made the reference to Halladay and Blanton to show you the difference in money. Blanton's big difference with halladay is .80 ERA. But look at the rest of the numbers and how they match up. Pretty damn similar. Now look at their age can cost. Blanton can do exactly what halladay does, but will give some more runs. But he's 27 years old and making WAY less than Halladay.
And that my friends, is how you build a ball club. You get VALUE for your money. If you were creating a team right now, would you spend $14 million on Halladay? OR take a guy who's ERA is greater, but matches in all the other peripherals and makes $10 million less?
The numbers don't lie - and I am not just talking about blanton vs. halladay. Blantons' peripherals vs. ip have improved every year.
The salaries don't lie - look at the $16million that pettite is getting this year vs. Big Fat Joe's 3.7 million for example. And now look at the difference in their numbers.
There's a reason why blanton isn't so attractive to many of you. One reason is, you don't hear anything about him. He plays in Oakland, he's not flashy and he's certainly not a tall, think fireballer. He's not a superstar. He's just a solid pitcher who eats innings and does everything else very well. He's not johan santana and he's not eric bedard (but he's more durable). But that also means, you are getting very high production at a fraction of the cost. Building a rotation with 3 guys like Harang, Blanton and Arroyo as 3 200+ ip will simply be a force, flat out. Having a stud and 4 other slots filled with #4 and #5 starters as some other teams do, will simply not get it done.
Blanton in the NL on most teams (definitely the Reds) a #2 pitcher. If you look at his stats, they tell you so. The move to the NL will also tell you that.
Bailey is possibly a huge talent, but it's not guaranteed and history will show it's more likely for him to be mediocre than a star.
The other thing that gets me thinking about him:
He's played 3 years in the minors if you take out the 12 ip he pitched in 2004.
In 2005, he threw a ton of k's, but his era and whip were worrisome. His walks were okay vs. his k's.
.....that was Single A.
In 2006, he split time between AA and A and interestingly enough, his ERA was 1/2 as much in AA, than in A. His peripherals were basically identical. Great stuff.
.....that was Double A and Single A.
In 2007, his ERA and WHIP were impressive at 3.08 and 1.21. However, his peripherals declined and were pretty bad as he sunk to 59 k's and 32 walks - way off pace from his Single A and AA peripherals.
.....that was Triple AAA.
When he got to the majors, he had ONE outstanding start vs. Oakland (1 ER in 7ip's, only 2 hits!! but 4 walks and 3 k's). His next best start was against ARI (5ip, 2ER, 5k's, 2bb's). The rest of his starts were basically terrible and here are some numbers to chew on from those starts:
Those are his bb/k in his starts in the majors.
He ended with a 5.75 ERA and a 1.56 WHIP.
What does all that show me?
It shows me Bailey is at his best when he's striking people out and is likely a boom or bust pitcher (at this point). And as he moved up in the ranks, he was not able to (at this point) overpower hitters in the upper leagues.
Thus, if he loses his ability to blow people away, he could be in trouble and he could be ineffective.
I am not say that is his fate. However, it's interesting to note, even on the short sample size, because Bailey-crazy fans are doing that based on what? 2 seasons of A and AA ball? Well, then it's not that crazy to show the other numbers.
Now, again, Bailey could be terrific, but really, it's too early to tell and I think he could use another 1/2 or full year in AAA. Just my opinion.
I don't think he's going to be our Jamie Shields breakout candidate this year. And when you look at shield's Minor league numbers (and his major league numbers from his first ML year in 2006 and his breakout year in 2007) he has a tremendous k/bb rate, at every level, through the majors.
Shields is an interesting guy to look at. This guy has "star" quality way over Blanton. He throws very hard and k's a lot of guys. But hey, look at last year, he already got injured and they had to shut him down. Look at Rich Harden? Same thing. He's got better stuff than anyone, k's guys, throws really hard and is a cy young pitcher, if he can stay healthy. But he can't. And alot of guys who throw really hard have issues (not all, but many). And bailey already got hurt last year while in the majors.
But in Blanton, here's a guy that won't blow you away (But he does well in the low 90's with a great curve) but he puts the ball in play by pitching to contact, has great control, doesn't walk you, doesn't give up the long ball and most importantly, is very durable.
Bailey may be better than Blanton down the road and it could be this year. But I doubt it greatly. And if I am on the Reds, I want to get a guy now who will give me a shot to win this year and Blanton can do that. At the same time, he's cheap.
It just makes sense.
What does that show me?
High Heater wrote:
ams wrote:Last I checked, developing very good starting pitching is about the hardest thing to do in baseball.
3. Blanton is actually a VERY good pitcher. He's not only an innings eater (averages 200 per season over 3 seasons, and 230 last year) he's never missed a start, is very durable, doesn't walk anyone (40 in 230ip last year) and doesn't give up the long ball. His total k numbers are not "Stud" status, but his k/bb ratio is strong and consistent (and did I mention he only walked 40 batters in 230 innings?) He does give up hits, that's because he pitches to contact.
i liked reading your post but i do have to disagree with blanton and not being just an innings eater. to me the definition on an innings eater is 1.): who pitches alot of innings a year and is dependable there. 2.) one who has a "rubber arm" 3.) one who's generaly a good ground ball pitcher and relies on his defense to get his outs instead of the ability to strikeout a batter, i.e. not fantastic stuff but knows how to pitch.
to me that lists blanton in a definition..... hes a valuable comodity but i just dont see people giving up a blue chiper guy for his services. some could i mean i eye witnessed Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir just a few years ago to take a recently bad trade in reference.
could happen. blanton is certainly better then zambrano and has value. but i think he is what he is a very dependable arm that knows how to pitch but nowhere near #1 and a good #2. he makes for a great #3 on good teams imo.