Time to Send Parmelee Down

[Otto von Ballpark]

Since May 23, Parmelee is hitting .281/.379/.528 for a .907 OPS.

This is a little more encouraging than Brock's stat -- it's a longer sample and a better OPS number. But again, it's a little misleading, as a day ago, his OPS in this time frame was "just" .834. It also kind of highlights how awful he was before May 23 -- .198/.275/.302 for a .577 OPS. Instead of complaining that he's only on a 480 PA season pace, we should be thankful he's on that pace after such a dreadful start, following a disappointing 2012 MLB season.

[TABLE=class: sortable stats_table row_summable]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[/TABLE]

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is a little more encouraging than Brock's stat -- it's a longer sample and a better OPS number. But again, it's a little misleading, as a day ago, his OPS in this time frame was "just" .834. It also kind of highlights how awful he was before May 23 -- .198/.275/.302 for a .577 OPS. Instead of complaining that he's only on a 480 PA season pace, we should be thankful he's on that pace after such a dreadful start, following a disappointing 2012 MLB season.

[TABLE=class: sortable stats_table row_summable]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

More encouraging, but also more cherry-picked. When I pull my "recent OPS" stats, I don't specify parameters to make a player look good or bad. I grab one month (or, if using BB-Ref, 28 days) and go with that.

 

Chris went 2-3 with a walk on May 23rd. His first decent game in two weeks.

[diehardtwinsfan]

C'mon Brock, you gotta quit quoting a player's OPS over a small sample immediately after the player has a good game. Before yesterday, Parmelee's OPS over the last month of play was .721. Of course Monday's game counts as much as any other, but there is still not much of a trend that indicates Parmelee is a .750 hitter, or an .800 hitter, much less an .833 hitter.

 

No one doubts that Parmelee can occasionally have big games at the plate like Monday, or like he did in Cleveland. But he needs to do those with greater frequency. He's got his season OPS over .700 for the first time since April 13, so that's good. Maybe he's on a slow climb up to .750?

 

And you need to stop excluding his big games to validate your point that he's not hitting. I agree he's not getting enough of those big games, but when you start 3 games a week at best and pinch hit another one or two, you aren't getting enough opportunity to even get into a rythm.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But conveniently, Brock, you always quote those "last 28 days" stats the day after Parmelee has 2 extra base hits...

[Brock Beauchamp]

But conveniently, Brock, you always quote those "last 28 days" stats the day after Parmelee has 2 extra base hits...

 

Yes, it's terribly inconvenient that Parmelee continues to... hit.

 

I've been in this thread almost every day for the past 7-10 days.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I am not trying to exclude his big games. Just reminding folks that after a big games is not the best time to go parsing his trend stats. I will admit his last month plus has looked good, especially in the K/BB department.

 

His 480 PA pace is higher than Randy Bush ever had. I can't imagine that is suppressing his OPS by 40+ points.

 

Honestly, a Randy Bush career might be a pretty good outcome for Parmelee right now, no?

[Otto von Ballpark]

I thougt the thread was pretty dormant between his big weekend in Cleveland and now. Those were the times I recall those "last 28 days" stats posted, sorry if I missed some other times.

[BabyJesusBuxton]

I am not trying to exclude his big games. Just reminding folks that after a big games is not the best time to go parsing his trend stats. I will admit his last month plus has looked good, especially in the K/BB department.

This argument about not bringing up his stats right after a couple big games doesn't make much sense. That same argument can be made right after a 3 game slump where he goes 1 for 13 with 4 k's. The fact is baseball is a game of hot and cold streaks. Very few players will have a consistent box score every game of the year.

 

IMO a period of 100 AB would be considered a fair time table to base how a batter has done "recently". Depending on playing time it is roughly 1/5 to 1/6 of a season and pretty close to the 28 days worth of games Brock has been using.

[Brock Beauchamp]

IMO a period of 100 AB would be considered a fair time table to base how a batter has done "recently". Depending on playing time it is roughly 1/5 to 1/6 of a season and pretty close to the 28 days worth of games Brock has been using.

 

I use 28 days a lot for a few reasons:

 

1. It's readily available after two clicks on BB-Ref

2. It's roughly a month, which is a good chunk of recent games

3. It's readily available after two clicks on BB-Ref

 

I don't see the fuss. The stat lines that bother me are the "in the past 84 days, Player X has blah blah blah" because it's obvious the poster chose that particular 84 day cutoff to suit his or her point. I almost exclusively use the 28 days split or a complete month (if we're close to the end of the month) because it's easy and unless I go into the game logs, I don't know if it's biased for or against the player.

[Otto von Ballpark]

This argument about not bringing up his stats right after a couple big games doesn't make much sense. That same argument can be made right after a 3 game slump where he goes 1 for 13 with 4 k's.

 

I think it's specifically how it was being used in this thread (and I think another Parmelee thread) -- hey, Parm had a two-homer game in Cleveland, and his OPS is over .850 or whatever for the last month! Sounds good, except before the two-homer game, his OPS for the previous month was .700. Right around his season OPS. And the following week, after his two-homer game, he slumped and his "last month" OPS was back down near .700 again. So was there ever really a .850 OPS "trend"? That sounds an awful lot like the normal ups and downs of a .700 OPS hitter to me, just like you describe.

[JB_Iowa]

I think it's specifically how it was being used in this thread (and I think another Parmelee thread) -- hey, Parm had a two-homer game in Cleveland, and his OPS is over .850 or whatever for the last month! Sounds good, except before the two-homer game, his OPS for the previous month was .700. Right around his season OPS. And the following week, after his two-homer game, he slumped and his "last month" OPS was back down near .700 again. So was there ever really a .850 OPS "trend"? That sounds an awful lot like the normal ups and downs of a .700 OPS hitter to me, just like you describe.

 

But shouldn't you just point out that the one game (or 2 games or whatever) significantly impacted the stat rather than saying the person is cherry-picking? I really didn't have any idea that a 1 game performance could have that much of an effect on OPS.

 

Learn something every day.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I use 28 days a lot for a few reasons:

 

1. It's readily available after two clicks on BB-Ref

2. It's roughly a month, which is a good chunk of recent games

3. It's readily available after two clicks on BB-Ref

 

I don't see the fuss. The stat lines that bother me are the "in the past 84 days, Player X has blah blah blah" because it's obvious the poster chose that particular 84 day cutoff to suit his or her point. I almost exclusively use the 28 days split or a complete month (if we're close to the end of the month) because it's easy and unless I go into the game logs, I don't know if it's biased for or against the player.

 

I agree that selective endpoints are dumb, although I admit to using monthly splits -- it's easy, and they are generally those decent-sized 1/6 season chunks. And it tends to remove the bias of quoting these stats right after he has a big game. If you checked your BB-Ref 28 days split yesterday, Parm was at a .721 OPS -- how encouraging is that? It's also his overall season OPS. His "trend" of hitting better than that is still very, very small.

 

That's why I want to see an .800+ OPS month from Parmelee -- it would go a long way to suggesting he could be a .750 OPS hitter overall.

[TheLeviathan]

That's why I want to see an .800+ OPS month from Parmelee -- it would go a long way to suggesting he could be a .750 OPS hitter overall.

 

Then lets give him more than 400 scattered at bats to see it. He has so many unlucky things from his BABIP and his K/BB ratio and LD rate to be encouraged that recent big games could become more regular.

[Danchat]

Parmelee is likely to get full time in RF now that Willingham is going to the DL. It should be a key 2 weeks for him. Let's see if he can hit.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Honestly, a Randy Bush career might be a pretty good outcome for Parmelee right now, no?

 

No not really. He could have a decent Randy Bush career, but I'd much rather see him having a chance to prove he's more than that, not being pushed in the Randy Bush role and then saying he was a Randy Bush type guy.

[Boone]

I agree that selective endpoints are dumb, although I admit to using monthly splits -- it's easy, and they are generally those decent-sized 1/6 season chunks. And it tends to remove the bias of quoting these stats right after he has a big game. If you checked your BB-Ref 28 days split yesterday, Parm was at a .721 OPS -- how encouraging is that? It's also his overall season OPS. His "trend" of hitting better than that is still very, very small.

 

That's why I want to see an .800+ OPS month from Parmelee -- it would go a long way to suggesting he could be a .750 OPS hitter overall.

 

Using a single month for a split is certainly unbiased, but the fact that it has an arbitrary start and end point isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

Furthermore, although selective endpoints might be biased, they also have some advantages:

1. They can provide a larger sample size, which is generally a good thing.

2. They are often better for viewing a trend or a shift for a player.

 

Remember that Parmelee is just 25 and he has played roughly the equivalent of just one season. It is very possible that something clicked for Parmelee in mid-May, triggering his hot streak. If this is the case (and this article suggests it is: Minnesota Twins: Chris Parmelee more aggressive, more successful - TwinCities.com), my selected starting point might provide a better indication of the kind of numbers Parmelee is capable of posting going forward.

[Kwak]

Last time I checked there are no OFers on the 40-man roster, who aren't on the DL,that are not on the active roster. Why on earth would the Twins send Parmalee down? Who would/could replace him? Also, there are only 4 OFers on the Active Roster so demoting Parmalee leaves an OF of Arcia, Hicks, and Thomas. Whew. Others on the Active Roster have no business being a regular OF.