Jose Berrios Promoted to Triple-A

[bird]

 

{Pelfrey} has no business starting on a team in the AL. 

 

 

Based on xFIP perhaps. But hasn't he "given the team a chance to win" in most of his starts, and hasn't the team won a majority of the games he's started? Doesn't that account for something? It seems to be a big deal to ballplayers and their managers. We hear it all the time, right?

[nicksaviking]

Based on xFIP perhaps. But hasn't he "given the team a chance to win" in most of his starts, and hasn't the team won a majority of the games he's started? Doesn't that account for something? It seems to be a big deal to ballplayers and their managers. We hear it all the time, right?

It does, and it's cruel to say, but it would be nice to pull the plug before things go bad.

 

Most teams have stopped paying free agents for what they DID do and now hand out contracts based on what they project them to do going forward. In-season decisions should follow the same logic. Pelfrey did a great job of helping this team win early this year, but if the front office believes, as many of us do, that this isn't sustainable, they need to make the hard decision.

[diehardtwinsfan]

yes and no to Pelfrey.  The problem here is that he has been our best pitcher to date.  His last start skewed his numbers pretty bad, and perhaps that is the beginning of the regression that people think will happen, but for all the talk about winning, putting Pelfrey out there every 5 days has given us a better shot than Hughes, Gibson, May, and Milone.  I agree on the sell high part, but without the crystal ball that tells us when he's going to fall off the wagon, the front office is essentially punting on a season where they might actually reach the post season.  I have a feeling that there a few people around here that wouldn't appreciate it. 

 

I'd add to it that if he continues to pitch well, his best value may be the QO that he rejects.  Not quite sure someone is going to give up a very good prospect for him.  At the very best, you might see a team in need of pitching with a similar situation at C or SS trading a guy on his last year so they can call up some stud in AAA. 

[tobi0040]

 

yes and no to Pelfrey.  The problem here is that he has been our best pitcher to date.  His last start skewed his numbers pretty bad, and perhaps that is the beginning of the regression that people think will happen, but for all the talk about winning, putting Pelfrey out there every 5 days has given us a better shot than Hughes, Gibson, May, and Milone.  I agree on the sell high part, but without the crystal ball that tells us when he's going to fall off the wagon, the front office is essentially punting on a season where they might actually reach the post season.  I have a feeling that there a few people around here that wouldn't appreciate it. 

 

I'd add to it that if he continues to pitch well, his best value may be the QO that he rejects.  Not quite sure someone is going to give up a very good prospect for him.  At the very best, you might see a team in need of pitching with a similar situation at C or SS trading a guy on his last year so they can call up some stud in AAA. 

 

Let's just all pause for a second.  His ERA is up to 3.81 now and that number has a great deal of luck. He has stranded 74.6% of his runners versus a career clip of 70.4%.  

 

His WHIP is 1.44, which is not good at all. FIP is 4.10. xFIP is 450.    K per 9 is 4.3.  By year end his ERA will likey be in the mid 4's with bad peripherals.

 

I really hope the Twins do not offer the QO to Pelfrey.  I don't want to gamble that he rejects it and lose, then have another guy on scholarship here.

I don't think the market for him will be more robust than 1/15 or 1/16.  Maybe he gets a two years deal at slightly more but he would still take the QO.

[drivlikejehu]

Pelfrey is not the Twins' best starter. Period. He doesn't have the best ERA, or the most innings, or the most wins, or the best peripherals, or the best anything. He is the same mediocre pitcher he has always been, but for some reason plenty of people still get excited because of a fluky ERA that isn't going to last and is rapidly coming back into line with reality.

 

The Pelfrey boosters just need to get over it.

[jimmer]

 

Pelfrey is not the Twins' best starter. Period. He doesn't have the best ERA, or the most innings, or the most wins, or the best peripherals, or the best anything. He is the same mediocre pitcher he has always been, but for some reason plenty of people still get excited because of a fluky ERA that isn't going to last and is rapidly coming back into line with reality.

 

The Pelfrey boosters just need to get over it.

I think there's some middle ground where one can say, hey, let's enjoy what we've gotten from him so far this year and hope it's good enough to flip him at the deadline.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I think there's some middle ground where one can say, hey, let's enjoy what we've gotten from him so far this year and hope it's good enough to flip him at the deadline.

 

It's not good enough, because non-Minnesota MLB front offices have long since recognized that Pelfrey isn't good. 

[tobi0040]

 

It's not good enough, because non-Minnesota MLB front offices have long since recognized that Pelfrey isn't good. 

 

I think a chance exists we trade him, but to your point my expectations are really, really low.  Many teams will look at his FIP, xFIP, and peripherals and conclude they can promote someone from AAA and achieve these results.  The 1,000 career innings are also important here (ERA + of 89, Career WHIP near 1.50, 4.50 ERA, etc)

 

 

[jimmer]

 

Based on xFIP perhaps. But hasn't he "given the team a chance to win" in most of his starts, and hasn't the team won a majority of the games he's started? Doesn't that account for something? It seems to be a big deal to ballplayers and their managers. We hear it all the time, right?

In most sports, new thought processes take forever to reach players and even longer for managers (for the most part), because they've been in the game even longer. These are a bunch of players who grew up playing a game and now do it for a living. Traditional thought processes are handed down from generation to generation, player to player, coach to coach, and taken as gospel.  If a guy goes 6 innings and gives up three runs then yes, he put the team in position to win, but he also carries a 4.50 ERA and if we are going to say that's okay, then that's fine.  At that point, one could say most of the time every pitcher puts their team in a position to win in a majority of the time.

 

 

[d-mac]

 

yes and no to Pelfrey.  The problem here is that he has been our best pitcher to date.  His last start skewed his numbers pretty bad, and perhaps that is the beginning of the regression that people think will happen, but for all the talk about winning, putting Pelfrey out there every 5 days has given us a better shot than Hughes, Gibson, May, and Milone.  I agree on the sell high part, but without the crystal ball that tells us when he's going to fall off the wagon, the front office is essentially punting on a season where they might actually reach the post season.  I have a feeling that there a few people around here that wouldn't appreciate it. 

 

I'd add to it that if he continues to pitch well, his best value may be the QO that he rejects.  Not quite sure someone is going to give up a very good prospect for him.  At the very best, you might see a team in need of pitching with a similar situation at C or SS trading a guy on his last year so they can call up some stud in AAA. 

 

I think you are vastly overestimating Pelfrey's value. 

[d-mac]

 

I think a chance exists we trade him, but to your point my expectations are really, really low.  Many teams will look at his FIP, xFIP, and peripherals and conclude they can promote someone from AAA and achieve these results.  The 1,000 career innings are also important here (ERA + of 89, Career WHIP near 1.50, 4.50 ERA, etc)

 

What team is dumb enough to trade for Pelfrey?

[d-mac]

 

In most sports, new thought processes take forever to reach players and even longer for managers (for the most part), because they've been in the game even longer. These are a bunch of players who grew up playing a game and now do it for a living. Traditional thought processes are handed down from generation to generation, player to player, coach to coach, and taken as gospel.  If a guy goes 6 innings and gives up three runs then yes, he put the team in position to win, but he also carries a 4.50 ERA and if we are going to say that's okay, then that's fine.  At that point, one could say most of the time every pitcher puts their team in a position to win in a majority of the time.

 

In today's run scoring environment, a 4.50 ERA is essentially replacement level- i.e., terrible. The Twins' pitching has been so horrible the past few seasons, to the point where as fans, we haven't been able to experience the rapid increase in quality pitching that the rest of baseball has seen. In other words- us Twins fans have no idea what a good starting pitcher looks like in today's game. 

[tobi0040]

 

What team is dumb enough to trade for Pelfrey?

 

Drew Butera was traded. So was Sam Fuld.  Pelfrey can be too.  We are just not going to get anything of value for him.

[bird]

 

Pelfrey is not the Twins' best starter. Period. He doesn't have the best ERA, or the most innings, or the most wins, or the best peripherals, or the best anything. He is the same mediocre pitcher he has always been, but for some reason plenty of people still get excited because of a fluky ERA that isn't going to last and is rapidly coming back into line with reality.

 

The Pelfrey boosters just need to get over it.

 

You know, I find myself agreeing pretty much with this, except I can't think of a single commenter, ever, on TD that could accurately be called a Pelfrey booster. Lots of people have castigated the Twins regarding him. A handful of people have pushed back and argued that the decision to insert him in the rotation when Ervin got caught instead of Alex Meyer wasn't necessarily a horrible, mind.boggling decision. That hardly qualifies us as being boosters, does it?

[tobi0040]

 

You know, I find myself agreeing pretty much with this, except I can't think of a single commenter, ever, on TD that could accurately be called a Pelfrey booster. Lots of people have castigated the Twins regarding him. A handful of people have pushed back and argued that the decision to insert him in the rotation when Ervin got caught instead of Alex Meyer wasn't necessarily a horrible, mind.boggling decision. That hardly qualifies us as being boosters, does it?

 

I think some had blind hope that we will receive something of value for him in a trade (based on a short stint of a low-ish ERA)......but not a booster. Not by any stretch.  Good call.

[drjim]

 

In today's run scoring environment, a 4.50 ERA is essentially replacement level- i.e., terrible. The Twins' pitching has been so horrible the past few seasons, to the point where as fans, we haven't been able to experience the rapid increase in quality pitching that the rest of baseball has seen. In other words- us Twins fans have no idea what a good starting pitcher looks like in today's game. 

 

Even after getting shelled twice in last handful of games, Twins are still in top half of starters era.

 

I don't think anyone is thinking the Twins are dominant, but they have certainly been solid. We should know what a solid starter looks like, it's our rotation (now the question is whether it is sustainable).

[d-mac]

 

Drew Butera was traded. So was Sam Fuld.  Pelfrey can be too.  We are just not going to get anything of value for him.

 

Fuld had some value as a speedy 4th outfielder and a plus defender. Butera was perceived to have plus defensive value before (most, i.e. not the Twins) realized that pitch framing is really the only catcher defense matters. Pelfrey is a replacement level starter. Most teams have a AAA starter they can insert for a fraction of the cost. No value. 

[tobi0040]

 

Fuld had some value as a speedy 4th outfielder and a plus defender. Butera was perceived to have plus defensive value before (most, i.e. not the Twins) realized that pitch framing is really the only catcher defense matters. Pelfrey is a replacement level starter. Most teams have a AAA starter they can insert for a fraction of the cost. No value. 

 

Sam Fuld is a 33 year old who over 8 years has a career .643 OPS.  

 

4th OF and "speed" but can't hit, teams could find a player in AAA or AA, which is actually the definition of replacement level. 

 

And I am not sure he is a "plus" defender.  He had a dWAR of 1.5 over 550 games, or .44 per full season.

 

These types of players move around the league based on need at the moment.  Pelfrey could as well. 

[bird]

 

In most sports, new thought processes take forever to reach players and even longer for managers (for the most part), because they've been in the game even longer. These are a bunch of players who grew up playing a game and now do it for a living. Traditional thought processes are handed down from generation to generation, player to player, coach to coach, and taken as gospel.  If a guy goes 6 innings and gives up three runs then yes, he put the team in position to win, but he also carries a 4.50 ERA and if we are going to say that's okay, then that's fine.  At that point, one could say most of the time every pitcher puts their team in a position to win in a majority of the time.

 

 

Maybe what the players and managers see, with their old-school thinking, is the fact that, out of 15 starts, Pelfrey has given them 8 starts of 7 innings or more, and in each case, gave up 2 earned runs or less. 

 

This fact gets overlooked by the new thought processes to which you allude.

[d-mac]

 

Even after getting shelled twice in last handful of games, Twins are still in top half of starters era.

 

I don't think anyone is thinking the Twins are dominant, but they have certainly been solid. We should know what a solid starter looks like, it's our rotation (now the question is whether it is sustainable).

 

They've certainly improved. But I'd hardly call a 13th best ERA and the 22nd best xFIP solid. That's with the worst K/9 rate, yet again in the majors and having the 6th highest LOB% and 13th highest BABIP resulting in the 7th highest WHIP. We better hope that Santana comes in and pitches well and TR and Co. make the correct choice in moving Pelfrey to the pen, because there's only downside here. 

[jimmer]

 

Maybe what the players and managers see, with their old-school thinking, is the fact that, out of 15 starts, Pelfrey has given them 8 starts of 7 innings or more, and in each case, gave up 2 earned runs or less. 

 

This fact gets overlooked by the new thought processes to which you allude.

I didn't even mention new thought processes.

 

Anyway, 8 out of 15 is a hair over half the games he's started.  Meaning almost 50% of the time, he didn't do that. 

 

Are you advocating we just care about the quality start percentage stat when evaluating starting pitchers? That's a slippery slope.  One that would say Pelfrey has been better than Archer, Gibson,  Kluber, etc.

[tobi0040]

 

 there's only downside here. 

 

May - 4.62 ERA - Upside

 

Hughes - 4.10 ERA - Upside

 

Gibson - 3.30 ERA - Downside

 

Santana over Milone/Pelfrey - Downside over their respective 3.19 and 3.81 ERA. Upside over Nolasco's 5.51 ERA

[d-mac]

 

Sam Fuld is a 33 year old who over 8 years has a career .643 OPS.  

 

4th OF and "speed" but can't hit, teams could find a player in AAA or AA, which is actually the definition of replacement level. 

 

And I am not sure he is a "plus" defender.  He had a dWAR of 1.5 over 550 games, or .44 per full season.

 

These types of players move around the league based on need at the moment.  Pelfrey could as well. 

 

Fuld was cheap. And he was worth 2.9 fWAR last season, and 13.7 runs above average defensively and 4.3 runs above average on the basepaths. Career 5.3 fWAR and a career 20.9 runs above replacement defensively. Pelfrey is not cheap.

 

My point whether or not you perceive Fuld or Pelfrey to return greater value is moot when you consider the financial cost. Baseball is still a business, last time I checked. Butera and Fuld didn't make significantly more than major league minimum when they were traded. Pelfrey is getting paid $5.5 mil/yr to be a replacement level pitcher. Why give up something in a trade AND pay his salary? It makes no logical sense. 

[Eephus]

Ryan is always saying he wants to see people dominate their level. I actually thought Berrios might be a little more dominant this year. He's been good, but not quite "dominant". True dominance is pretty rare. AAA seems like a good place for him.

[d-mac]

 

May - 4.62 ERA - Upside

 

Hughes - 4.10 ERA - Upside

 

Gibson - 3.30 ERA - Downside

 

Santana over Milone/Pelfrey - Downside over their respective 3.19 and 3.81 ERA. Upside over Nolasco's 5.51 ERA

 

Hughes's xFIP is identical to his ERA, which is a bit misleading because it assumes a major league average HR/FB rate, which in Hughes' case may not hold up. SIERRA does not and that says 4.21. So I'd say even at best. His K% is down big compared to last year.

 

Nolasco isn't healthy and may need surgery so I wasn't considering him. 

 

And we'd have to be banking on Santana replacing Pelfrey or Milone, which we would both agree would be the right decision, but based off the Twins' media it sounds like they were hinting at Santana replacing May in the rotation yesterday. Which is apparently because the Twins are so outdated when it comes to pitching decisions that they base it off of ERA and seniority. 

 

Furthermore, we have to hope we get good Santana, and not bad Santana. He's a career 4.17 ERA pitcher that every three years throws up a 5 spot in the ERA column. And we have to assume his elbow stays intact, which was likely the reason why he was on PED's in the first place. He's literally like the only person to ever successfully return from a UCL tear with only rest and rehab. 

 

[tobi0040]

 

Fuld was cheap. And he was worth 2.9 fWAR last season, and 13.7 runs above average defensively and 4.3 runs above average on the basepaths. Career 5.3 fWAR and a career 20.9 runs above replacement defensively. Pelfrey is not cheap.

 

My point whether or not you perceive Fuld or Pelfrey to return greater value is moot when you consider the financial cost. Baseball is still a business, last time I checked. Butera and Fuld didn't make significantly more than major league minimum when they were traded. Pelfrey is getting paid $5.5 mil/yr to be a replacement level pitcher. Why give up something in a trade AND pay his salary? It makes no logical sense. 

 

On July 31, Pelfrey will be owed $2M. 

 

On August 15, Pelfrey will be owed $1.5M. 

 

This is not some egregious salary we are talking about and the Twins could pick up part of it.  I don't think it is really a controversial position that we could trade Mike Pelfrey and get nothing of value back.  Seems more likely than any other alternative from here to the end of the year to me.

[bird]

 

I didn't even mention new thought processes.

 

Anyway, 8 out of 15 is a hair over half the games he's started.  Meaning almost 50% of the time, he didn't do that. 

 

Are you advocating we just care about the quality start percentage stat when evaluating starting pitchers? That's a slippery slope.  One that would say Pelfrey has been better than Archer, Gibson,  Kluber, etc.

 

 

You did mention new thought processes, in your first sentence, but that's neither here nor there. I believe a few of his other starts met the old "quality start" standard, which I've never been a big fan of and don't "advocate".  But, let's be fair. He hasn't had that many blow-up starts, and relying on his xFIP numbers doesn't tell his story. I don't debunk advanced statistics. I wish others (not you) wouldn't so readily debunk opinions based on other facts. All I'm saying, jimmer, is that in Pelfrey's case for 2015, while the stats overlook the fact that a meaningful majority of his starts were MUCH better than average, the opinion that he's been bad based on the peripherals either unintentionally or obtusely ignores the complete picture of his value and performance.

[drjim]

 

They've certainly improved. But I'd hardly call a 13th best ERA and the 22nd best xFIP solid. That's with the worst K/9 rate, yet again in the majors and having the 6th highest LOB% and 13th highest BABIP resulting in the 7th highest WHIP. We better hope that Santana comes in and pitches well and TR and Co. make the correct choice in moving Pelfrey to the pen, because there's only downside here. 

 

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to Pelfrey going to the pen out of the current collection.

[drivlikejehu]

 

You know, I find myself agreeing pretty much with this, except I can't think of a single commenter, ever, on TD that could accurately be called a Pelfrey booster. Lots of people have castigated the Twins regarding him. A handful of people have pushed back and argued that the decision to insert him in the rotation when Ervin got caught instead of Alex Meyer wasn't necessarily a horrible, mind.boggling decision. That hardly qualifies us as being boosters, does it?

 

The post I responded to called him the Twins' best starter. Before his recent implosion, that was regularly being stated by posters on TD.

[jimmer]

 

You did mention new thought processes, in your first sentence, but that's neither here nor there. I believe a few of his other starts met the old "quality start" standard, which I've never been a big fan of and don't "advocate".  But, let's be fair. He hasn't had that many blow-up starts, and relying on his xFIP numbers doesn't tell his story. I don't debunk advanced statistics. I wish others (not you) wouldn't so readily debunk opinions based on other facts. All I'm saying, jimmer, is that in Pelfrey's case for 2015, while the stats overlook the fact that a meaningful majority of his starts were MUCH better than average, the opinion that he's been bad based on the peripherals either unintentionally or obtusely ignores the complete picture of his value and performance.

When I say I didn't mention new thought processes, I meant I didn't point to any alternate sayings or stats that would counter the old school thought process you mentioned that coaches and players talk about.  I just said that, in general, they are harder to finally be accepted.

 

In any event, most pitchers don't have a ton of blow up starts.  Pelfrey isn't unique in that regard. That's the truth of it.  A small percentage do and those guys usually don't last.  We could take out a bunch of pitchers' handful of starts and say they look better than their season numbers look like.  We could do that with any batter too, really.

 

And yes, maybe a few other stats agree he's been good, but what are they? Wins and losses?

 

Question: If you don't advocate for the idea that at least 6 IP and 3 or less earned runs means a guy gave a quality stat, would you be fine if the stat was 7 IP with 2 ER or less?

 

Follow-up question, don't both scenarios keep the pitcher's team in the game, which was your original idea behind saying Pelfrey has been good? Kind of why I mentioned quality start to begin with, because it certainly falls under the whole idea of judging a pitcher by keeping his team in the game.

 

Edit: after re-reading the original post of your I responded to, you were actually advocating looking at the team's record in games a pitcher starts as a way to say whether he was good or not.  So, actually, you were talking about judging a pitcher's performance by team wins or losses.