You Make the Call: Bobby Parnell

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

This is a half-assed attempt to replicate the popular "Expectations of Eleven" series from last year. If we do these at a rate of 1 or 2 a day we'll get the roster complete and the threads into the prediction archives by Opening Day.

What I'll do in this series is give you a guy, discuss a few things about him, and solicit your predicted results this year.

Starting with Parnell who in addition to being my most successful adoptee since the AAP program began, is, according to Tracky in today's Snooze, working on a curveball this spring ("a parting gift from Jason Isringhausen") that would provide a 14-mph spread in his deliveries. Tracky reminds us that Bobby Pee was woeful as a closer last year but I tend to think that it was just a matter of getting the assignment at the same time he encountered a "slump" but we'll see. His struggles in that role last year no doubt influenced Sandy's shopping list this offseason. He has a minor league option left.

Bobby last year was 4-6 with 6 saves and a 3.64 ERA (102 ERA+), 64/27 K/BB in 60 appearances, 59.1 innings.

What do you got?

[Ceetar]

Just as an aside..I hope you have some sort of list or order for these so we don't miss someone, perhaps Daniel Herrera, who I imagine gets overlooked a lot. (haha, short joke)

I agree on the slump/closer thing. I've actually liked Parnell's 'makeup' for whatever that's worth, since he's come up.


I'll go with 2.80 ERA, 79/27 K/BB in 70 IP.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Roster issues may cause him to start the season at Buffalo, but I'll predict that Bobby spends the bulk of the year with the Mets. I'll say 60 games, 3.80 ERA, two saves.

I'll also say that by the end of the year there will be less uncertainty about whether or not he's the "closer of the future." He'll either do well enough that it will become pretty much the official plan, or poorly enough that he'll be out of the conversation.

[Edgy MD]

His control was alright. He just pounded the zone with too many predictable fastballs. So yeah, I think a mediocre offspeedy pitch could help, keeping batters a little more honest.

My concerns are: (1) him having the cahnfidence to throw it, especially (a) after it fails him the first time, and ( with a catcher still figuring shit out; and (2) Terry may be a little emotional over BP's failure last year and reluctant to promote him to high leverage spots again even if he initially succeeds.

There's been enough redundancy (if not necessarily quality) been thrown into the bullpen this season that I'm not expecting a crisis big enough for him to get promoted back to the closer role any time soon, but I can envision sometime late this summer him having established the ability to make folks miserable in the eighth. Something akin to Jon Rauch six or so years ago.

I can also see Terry pulling a Jerry and rewarding his success with over-frequent appearances that dampen it.

5-3, 2.93, 19 holds, 3 saves. 77 IP, 92 SO, 35 BB.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

He doesn't have the sangfroid or the consistent offspeed stuff, I fear, to be a real late-inning/high-leverage guy.

I'll go with a year something like Edgy described, only with slightly worse results, thanks to walks/our new bandbox.

58 games, 62 innings, 68 K/38 BB, 20 holds, 2 saves, 4.02 ERA, 1.47 WHIP

[MFS62]

I remember the stories of when Bobby was a starter in the minors that said that he not only maintained his velocity in later innings but actually increased it (in the upper 90's). I'm guessing that the reason they converted him to a reliever was the lack of a decent second pitch. Now that he's learning one, are there thoughts of turning him back into a starter? I dunno.
But f they are, and because he has an option left, I think he may start the year as a starter in Buffalo. That said, that makes predicting his production as a Met very iffy. But here goes:
20 games (11 as a starter), 67 IP, 3.44 ERA, 71K/ 27BB.

Later

[Ceetar]

I think Manuel's "I'm bored, let's make Parnell a starter randomly in August!" may have eliminated any belief that he'll be a starter.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

5-4, 3.67 ERA, 2 saves. 71 Ks, 22 BBs in 66.66 innings.

[TransMonk]

70 IP, 3-6, 4.23 ERA, 3 saves, 65 K, 36 BB

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: I think Manuel's "I'm bored, let's make Parnell a starter randomly in August!" may have eliminated any belief that he'll be a starter.

I'm certain that move wasn't Manuel's pet project at all, out of boredom or otherwise, but rather arose as a worthwhile initiative from the consensus of the braintrust. I also think it was certainly defensible even in the light of its subsequent lack of success.

[metirish]

This is the year Bobby fulfills the dream ..............he shall come to be known as "Work Horse Bobby"

81 IP - 7-2 - 3.15 ERA - 25 BBs - 89Ks - 25 saves.....takes over from Francisco during the pennant drive

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think Manuel's "I'm bored, let's make Parnell a starter randomly in August!" may have eliminated any belief that he'll be a starter. I'm certain that move wasn't Manuel's pet project at all, out of boredom or otherwise, but rather arose as a worthwhile initiative from the consensus of the braintrust. I also think it was certainly defensible even in the light of its subsequent lack of success.

exaggeration. But it was certainly one of the most difficult ways to actually succeed and perhaps was unfair to him. They'd already put him on the roster instead of the minors to refine his secondary stuff and now they're going to try to have him put it all together, at the major league level after most of a season of bullpen work needed to ramp up his arm strength and effort?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

As I recall they were hurting for starters too. I had no problem with trying him there, there was little to lose at that point.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As I recall they were hurting for starters too. I had no problem with trying him there, there was little to lose at that point.

I don't have a problem with them doing it, but I do have a problem with them using that sample as the main reason he won't ever be a starter.

[Edgy MD]

One of the most difficult ways? Two hundred and ninety five people a year become starters because they are relievers, doing OK, and a starter is needed. The process was more deliberate with him than most.

Complaining about why he's not a starter now is an entirely new issue, but I don't think evidence shows that sample is the "main reason he won't ever be a starter."

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: One of the most difficult ways? Two hundred and ninety five people a year become starters because they are relievers, doing OK, and a starter is needed. The process was more deliberate with him than most. Complaining about why he's not a starter now is an entirely new issue, but I don't think evidence shows that sample is the "main reason he won't ever be a starter."

The evidence is they didn't even attempt to stretch him out in 2010 with a SP depth issue in Spring Training.

I think pitchers get pigeon holed into roles too easily sometimes. He's a reliever because he relieved. He's not a closer because he "doesn't have the makeup" or whatnot. Frank Francisco IS a closer because he's done it before. You hear all these stupid arguments, just listen to Yankees fans/writers over the past couple of years with the Hughes/Joba stuff.

[Edgy MD]

The evidence is they didn't even attempt to stretch him out in 2010 with a SP depth issue in Spring Training.

To the extent that I can parse this, I don't know what to make of it. They should have been giving him starter innings in spring training to show you how open they continued to be to his starting capacity, and that spring training leads you to a conclusion about his perpetual destiny? And about the attitudes toward that destiny of two different regimes?

It's an odd bee in your bonnet, I think.

[Ceetar]

It's not really a bee in my bonnet, I just believe the Mets decided he wasn't a starter at least in part to that mid-season experiment. By the time Sandy got here I'm not sure taking a random reliever they'd had in that role and converting him to a starter was even ever a consideration.

For an organization that was criticized, sometimes unfairly, for rushing guys to the majors, there does seem to be some evidence that they converted Parnell to a reliever in order to help out the 2009 pen. This is a guy who had finished more games in the minors that he started than that as a reliever. (prior to that point)

He wasn't particularly successful starting, and he was only a 9th round pick, but as to MFS62's question about making him a starter again now that he's maybe commanded another pitch I think that failed experiment mid-season may have been perceived as the final straw. He wasn't really brought up too fast in order to help the club, he was showing he wasn't a starter and they felt relieving was where his value was.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: It's not really a bee in my bonnet, I just believe the Mets decided he wasn't a starter at least in part to that mid-season experiment.

You said it was the main reason.

Ceetar wrote: By the time Sandy got here I'm not sure taking a random reliever they'd had in that role and converting him to a starter was even ever a consideration.

So they have to somehow demonstrably prove to you their flexibility with each player? They're guilty until proven innocent with spring training usage patterns?

Players are cast into roles of starting and relieving too permanently, sure. They're cast into roles infielder and outfielder or hitter or pitcher too permanently too, probably. Organizations want things they can put in place in place so they can concentrate on what isn't in place, whether that's necessarily best for the player's career or not. This is no more true of Parnell than 95% of all other pitchers.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: This is no more true of Parnell than 95% of all other pitchers.

Just because it's common and true of most other players/pitchers doesn't make it less true for Parnell either. But it still seems like a factor in them not making him a starter right now, which was what was asked.

[smg58]

He makes the team because there aren't seven better relievers on the roster. Actually, I'd only put Ramirez ahead of him with confidence, but that's not necessarily meant as a huge endorsement of Parnell. I'll say his curveball gives him a slight boost, and he winds up with a 3.35 ERA over 62 innings with 70 Ks.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Um... Parnell has a curve?

[Edgy MD]

Yes, suddenly. And now that he's had zero success with it so far, in our 17-second news cycle, it's an issue in why he isn't starting.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Is it any good? 'Cause the other stuff he has... well, he could work on that stuff.

[metirish]

He throws his curve 98 mph....same as his other pitch.

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Is it any good? 'Cause the other stuff he has... well, he could work on that stuff.

Supposedly it's like a 17mph diff, so I guess that's like 81? Parting gift from Izzy.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Is it any good? 'Cause the other stuff he has... well, he could work on that stuff. Supposedly it's like a 17mph diff, so I guess that's like 81? Parting gift from Izzy.

Jesus H you guys. The particulars and where to find more on this story are in this very thread. I know its more than 17 seconds old.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Is it any good? 'Cause the other stuff he has... well, he could work on that stuff. Supposedly it's like a 17mph diff, so I guess that's like 81? Parting gift from Izzy. Jesus H you guys. The particulars and where to find more on this story are in this very thread. I know its more than 17 seconds old.

and right there inthe first line "half-assed"

[metirish]

Well, now that I know he has a curve I would like to revise my prediction.

He'll fall in love with it after some early success and subsequently fall asunder.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Is it any good? 'Cause the other stuff he has... well, he could work on that stuff. Supposedly it's like a 17mph diff, so I guess that's like 81? Parting gift from Izzy. Jesus H you guys. The particulars and where to find more on this story are in this very thread. I know its more than 17 seconds old. and right there inthe first line "half-assed"

I salute your half-assedness.