Now starting: Bobby Parnell?

by D.J. Short on Aug 6, 2009 10:51 AM EDT Comment 10 comments

In the course of one afternoon, the Mets lost one starting pitcher for the year, but potentially found another one. And it wasn't Wednesday's winning pitcher Nelson Figueroa. Nope, I'm talking about Bobby Parnell. He tossed three effective innings, fanning three, on the way to earning his first major league save. During the broadcast, it dawned on Gary Cohen like it did the rest of us: 'Hey, this guy might be able to start for us.' After the game Jerry Manuel confirmed our suspicion:

"That is a consideration, and that was part of the plan today going forward. That's a part of why we did what we did today."

Parnell put up a 5.40 ERA during a brief cup of coffee towards the end of 2008, but he has compiled a 3.74 ERA, 1.60 WHIP and 38/22 K/BB ratio in 45 2/3 innings (54 games) in 2009. Solid, if unspectacular numbers in his first full major league season. The 24-year-old has managed an excellent 1.10 ERA over his last 15 appearances after struggling to a 13.50 ERA in June. Thus far, all 60 of his appearances in the bigs have come out of the bullpen.

So what to expect if he enters the rotation? Eh. Don't get too excited.

Parnell had a 4.04 ERA, 1.40 WHIP and 414/204 K/BB ratio over 94 games (92 starts) in the minors. Not exactly eye-popping. Parnell can't expect to maintain a 4.34 BB/9 in the majors and be effective, especially as a starter. We all knows he throws hard (an average of 95.2 MPH on his fastball, according to FanGraphs), which is great, but only a special talent Clayton Kershaw can survive with a walk rate like that.

Then there's the question of whether he has a true quality second pitch. Actually, we know he doesn't. Parnell possesses an okay slider, with average movement on it, but he doesn't have much confidence in it. Using it as a change of pace in the bullpen is fine, but his well-documented inconsistency with the pitch will only be exposed as he is stretched out.

While I realize the Mets are in dire straits right now, ultimately I fear this will be a mistake in what is already a lost season. With Parnell coming out the bullpen, the Mets actually have a pretty valuable trade chip; getting beat up over the course of a few meaningless starts will do nothing to help his value. I can't help but think back to September of 2007, when we were forced to sit through starts by the likes of Brian Lawrence and Philip Humber when Aaron Heilman, who actually had a legitimate arsenal, sat idly by in the bullpen. Just sayin.'

2 recs | Comment 10 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm with you for the most part

except that last sentence about Heilman. Isn’t that the opposite of your argument?

by dtro on Aug 6, 2009 11:36 AM EDT reply actions

I think what I’m saying is that the organization has had a misplaced sense of urgency for a long time. Does it really matter who starts right now? Not really. Should it be Bobby Parnell. No, because we can pretty much predict what the results will be.

by D.J. Short on Aug 6, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

I don’t think we should get our hopes up about Parnell the starting pitcher. While there are numerous examples of decent starters being remade into good (or great) relievers, the list of those who have competently performed the reverse transformation is considerably shorter. Parnell hasn’t been a reliever all that long, but, to D.J.‘s point, he also wasn’t anything special as a starter in the minors.

Parnell is a fastball-slider pitcher and neither of his pitches is well above average. The fastball is hard but not spectacularly effective. He apparently throws a changeup every so often, and if he were able to turn that into a decent offering he might be rotation-worthy. As it stands I don’t see that he’s a better option than Figueroa, and as D.J. points out, Parnell has more value — both to the Mets and as a prospective trade chip — in the bullpen.

by Eric Simon on Aug 6, 2009 12:04 PM EDT reply actions

Yes, he wasn't special as a minor league starter.

But he wasn’t exactly bad either. He did a really good job of keeping the ball on the ground/limiting homers and was able to maintain a pretty good K-rate at each level. It’s obvious that Parnell has a problem with control: his BB/9 is 4.34 after posting rates in the high 3’s throughout his minor league career. His K/9 is 7.49 this season, which is pretty good, but not really good enough to make that high walk rate tolerable in relief. All of those baserunners + a decent amount of balls put in play + Mets crap defense + small sample sizes isn’t the best situation for a pitcher like Parnell, in my opinion. A pitcher with Parnell’s attributes might be better suited as a starting pitcher, where the larger sample size will “spread his walks out” and make better use of his ground ball prowess.

If Parnell can prove to be an average starter (or even slightly below), how is that less valuable to the Mets than his current role as 6th/7th inning reliever (currently 0.5 Fangraphs WAR / 0.8 Statcorner WAR)? As far as how other teams perceive Parnell, all of their interest has to be based on his “live arm” and fastball, because the results certainly haven’t been great in relief. I don’t get how exposing him to starting would decrease his value. If anything, his move to the rotation may cause teams to believe that he’s a “versatile, live young arm”.

by All Shook Down on Aug 8, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions

grrr

and what about injury while he adjusts to longer outings on the fly? And if by some miracle he avoids physical injury, his confidence is at risk of being damaged too.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Aug 6, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions