Pelfrey's Trade Value

[DaveW]

I would do whatever I could to dump the nolasco contract. Then give pelfrey a 2 year/17 mil extension before the end of the season.

 

This allows you to be able to trade one of Gibson or May eventually for a better prospect/return.

[Shane Wahl]

I would trade Milone and Pelfrey for two C+ prospects (think 30-ish on Twins lists) who are in A ball or lower.

[USAFChief]

I would trade Milone and Pelfrey for two C+ prospects (think 30-ish on Twins lists) who are in A ball or lower.

What would be the reasoning for this?

 

Why would a team in contention trade two starters away? Heck, Why would a team in contention trade two starters for two top A-ball prospects, much less two C+ prospects?

 

That makes no sense to me.

[Jham]

If you consider having "too many pitchers" an actual problem instead of a leverage point or strategic advantage, fine.  But I don't think the correct solution is to trade away one of our better pitchers only to replace him with someone worse.  Pelfrey has not only been better, but significantly better than the rest of the staff who have also thrown well.  In a previous Pelfrey thread, I said keep throwing him til his arm fall off or the wheels fall off.  Why not extend him at an affordable K?  If his trade value is low, how would his free agent value be any higher?

Last year, we had a couple injuries/underperformances  and had to wade through like 7 failed below-fringe starters.  Let one of those teams to come to us with an offer.  Don't trade away depth just for the sake of clearing space for a) Santana who may or may not come back and pitch well, or Berrios who was shelled in his one start above AA, and frankly projects as a middle rotation type in his prime.  

[jorgenswest]

Milone is under team control until 2019.

 

Since 2012 (Milone's first full season)

 

Milone 34-24, 3.97 ERA, 98 ERA+, 506 IP

 

Santana 32-33, 4.06 ERA, 95 ERA+, 585 IP

 

Milone is 28 and Santana is 32. Is it possible that Milone is the better pitcher today and into the future? Is it clear that he is not the better pitcher?

 

Santana had better dominate in his three Rochester starts. Milone set that bar. Santana needs to approach it or take a spot in the pen. Let's certainly not trade Pelfrey or Milone until Santana is dominant.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Pelfrey has not only been better, but significantly better than the rest of the staff who have also thrown well. 

 

This is just not correct. Pelfrey's ERA reflects a lot of good fortune... he has been good by his own standards, but by 2015 we should all be over the idea that partial-season ERA is the only stat that matters.

[DaveW]

This is just not correct. Pelfrey's ERA reflects a lot of good fortune... he has been good by his own standards, but by 2015 we should all be over the idea that partial-season ERA is the only stat that matters.

Results are what matters, so far Pelfrey has had the best results, you ride that until that isn't the case any more.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Results are what matters, so far Pelfrey has had the best results, you ride that until that isn't the case any more.

 

His ERA is better than Clayton Kershaw, though Pelfrey's peripherals are of course much worse.

 

Who has been a better pitcher? And, in terms of riding the hot hand, who would you pick to start a wild-card game?

[USAFChief]

This is just not correct. Pelfrey's ERA reflects a lot of good fortune... he has been good by his own standards, but by 2015 we should all be over the idea that partial-season ERA is the only stat that matters.

Nobody's making the case it's ALL that matters.

 

Except perhaps you.

[Brock Beauchamp]

His ERA is better than Clayton Kershaw, though Pelfrey's peripherals are of course much worse.

 

Who has been a better pitcher? And, in terms of riding the hot hand, who would you pick to start a wild-card game?

I didn't realize Mike Pelfrey and Clayton Kershaw were the only two pitchers in baseball.

 

Lots of middle ground there you didn't cover.

[DaveW]

His ERA is better than Clayton Kershaw, though Pelfrey's peripherals are of course much worse.

 

Who has been a better pitcher? And, in terms of riding the hot hand, who would you pick to start a wild-card game?

Nice straw man.

 

Obviously kershaw, but that isn't even the point

[USAFChief]

His ERA is better than Clayton Kershaw, though Pelfrey's peripherals are of course much worse.

 

Who has been a better pitcher? And, in terms of riding the hot hand, who would you pick to start a wild-card game?

 

 

I'd pick Kershaw, but that's not the relevant comparison.

 

The relevant comparison is, " who would you pick to start every fifth game from here on out in 2015...Pelfrey or whoever takes his place in the rotation if they trade him now?"

 

I'd pick Pelfrey.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I didn't realize Mike Pelfrey and Clayton Kershaw were the only two pitchers in baseball.

Lots of middle ground there you didn't cover.

 

Sure that's an extreme case, so what?. The same logic explains why Trevor May has been better than Pelfrey, and how Gibson has been comparable at worst. Pelfrey has not been the Twins best starter, which is the claim I responded to.

 

Pelfrey is the same Pelfrey. 2015 FIP of 4.14. Career FIP of 4.24. 2015 xFIP of 4.48 vs career xFIP of 4.54. Everything is the same except ERA. So any argument about how well he's doing is per se about his ERA - what else could it possibly be about?

 

Note that I was not advocating a trade.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Sure that's an extreme case, so what?. The same logic explains why Trevor May has been better than Pelfrey, and how Gibson has been comparable at worst. Pelfrey has not been the Twins best starter, which is the claim I responded to.

But May hasn't been better than Pelfrey. That's kind of the point.

 

May should be better than Pelfrey but reality often doesn't line up with what should happen.

 

This is where people get lost in advanced metrics. FIP and xFIP are great, I love 'em. But they don't tell you who was (notice past tense usage there) the better player because at the end of the day, the guy who allows less runs and helps win more games is the better player, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Maybe an inferior player is crazy-lucky. That doesn't matter. He did more - through his own action or not - to help the team win and FIP doesn't count in a tie-breaker to see who makes the playoffs and who doesn't. Wins are the only stat that do that and the player who scores and/or prevents the most is the better player every time.

 

But FIP and xFIP are great for predicting future success, better than ERA and other traditional stats... But again, there's a big difference between "what happened" and "what should have happened".

[drivlikejehu]

 

But May hasn't been better than Pelfrey. That's kind of the point.

 

 

 

Pelfrey has allowed fewer earned runs than Kershaw. Has he been better than Kershaw?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Pelfrey has allowed fewer earned runs than Kershaw. Has he been better than Kershaw?

Probably not because Kershaw has pitched 15 more innings. We're less than 70 games into the season, that's a pretty huge split.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Probably not because Kershaw has pitched 15 more innings. We're less than 70 games into the season, that's a pretty huge split.

 

Pelfrey has allowed fewer earned runs per inning. Has he been better, on a rate basis, than Kershaw?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Pelfrey has allowed fewer earned runs per inning. Has he been better, on a rate basis, than Kershaw?

Rate basis isn't the only thing that matters.

 

more good innings > less good innings

 

Or maybe you think the guy who has an OPS of .900 in 400 PAs is more valuable than the guy who has an OPS of .860 in 600 PAs.

 

Value is cumulative.

[USAFChief]

Pelfrey has allowed fewer earned runs per inning. Has he been better, on a rate basis, than Kershaw?

Grienke has almost exactly the same IP as Kershaw. He has a better ERA by a run and a half, a better W-L record, and a better WHIP.

 

But his FIP is worse by a half run. Is it your contention that Kershaw has out pitched Grienke this year to date? That Kershaw has been better?

[drivlikejehu]

 

Rate basis isn't the only thing that matters.

 

I didn't say it is. You know that I know that, so patronizing remarks aren't necessary.

 

I asked a very simple question - on a rate basis, who has been better, Kershaw or Pelfrey?

[Willihammer]

In a trade discussion the projection is what matters more than past performance. Sure Pelfrey has had a great ERA but the peripherals are better indicators of future performance, and thus trade value, no?

 

That said, I think Pelfrey's a bit of an outlier as he seems to consistently be a stud *if* he's dealing at 94-95 and not 91-93, even though the K-numbers seem to stay about constant either way.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I didn't say it is. You know that I know that, so patronizing remarks aren't necessary.

 

I asked a very simple question - on a rate basis, who has been better, Kershaw or Pelfrey?

From 4/6-6/20, Mike Pelfrey has helped his team win just a tick more than Clayton Kershaw per inning.

 

From 6/21-10/4, that will probably not be the case.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

In a trade discussion the projection is what matters more than past performance. Sure Pelfrey has had a great ERA but the peripherals are better indicators of future performance, and thus trade value, no?

On a contending team, does that matter? I don't believe it does.

 

The only thing that matters to me right now is that Mike Pelfrey is probably better than anyone the Twins will use to replace him.

 

That could be the difference between a Wild Card appearance or also-ran status. That's what should matter to the Twins right now, not potential trade value when the team is coming off four consecutive 90-loss seasons.

[Willihammer]

 

On a contending team, does that matter? I don't believe it does.

 

The only thing that matters to me right now is that Mike Pelfrey is probably better than anyone the Twins will use to replace him.

 

That could be the difference between a Wild Card appearance or also-ran status. That's what should matter to the Twins right now, not potential trade value when the team is coming off four consecutive 90-loss seasons.

I agree with that. I doubt any trade partner is going to discount his k-rate and thus the return would be lousy. I just hope he can stay at 94+ rest of the year.

[drivlikejehu]

 

From 4/6-6/20, Mike Pelfrey has helped his team win just a tick more than Clayton Kershaw per inning.

 

From 6/21-10/4, that will probably not be the case.

 

Well I'm glad you admitted this is your view, but I think it's factually wrong.

 

Logically, I can think of no reason why someone should be credited for things outside of his or her control. I don't think people deserve credit for being tall, having rich parents, or having a better defense behind them, or for getting lucky on balls in play.

 

Pitchers are paid to minimize the success of hitters, not to get lucky. Hitters have fared worse per at-bat against Kershaw, but due to circumstances largely out of his control, opposing players have scored earned runs at a higher rate than against Pelfrey.

 

Ultimately though, your definition of the "better" pitcher to date - which includes luck, fielding, and so on - is meaningless due to all the noise. So when you say not to trade Pelfrey because he's been the Twins best pitcher, you are really saying, don't trade Pelfrey because I value luck over skill.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So when you say not to trade Pelfrey because he's been the Twins best pitcher, you are really saying, don't trade Pelfrey because I value luck over skill.

I'm not saying that at all and it's absurd to imply such a thing.

 

I've said it multiple times in this thread already: Mike Pelfrey should not be traded because the Twins will almost surely replace him with an inferior pitcher.

 

Is Pelfrey getting by on some luck? Absolutely. That tempers my expectations for him through the rest of the season but guys get lucky and stay lucky for a season all the time. It's called a "career year".

 

That's why you ride the lucky horse until he's no longer lucky (provided the team is in contention and wins actually matter). That could come tomorrow. It could come in April of 2016.

 

It's also why I find the idea of extending Mike laughable. Luck can't be maintained but it can often stick around a hell of a lot longer than you think it will.

[USAFChief]

Well I'm glad you admitted this is your view, but I think it's factually wrong.

 

Logically, I can think of no reason why someone should be credited for things outside of his or her control. I don't think people deserve credit for being tall, having rich parents, or having a better defense behind them, or for getting lucky on balls in play.

 

Pitchers are paid to minimize the success of hitters, not to get lucky. Hitters have fared worse per at-bat against Kershaw, but due to circumstances largely out of his control, opposing players have scored earned runs at a higher rate than against Pelfrey.

 

Ultimately though, your definition of the "better" pitcher to date - which includes luck, fielding, and so on - is meaningless due to all the noise. So when you say not to trade Pelfrey because he's been the Twins best pitcher, you are really saying, don't trade Pelfrey because I value luck over skill.

You've ignored the Grienke comparison...why?

 

Does it not fit the narrative? Do we use FIP only when it fits the argument?

[drivlikejehu]

 

I'm not saying that at all and it's absurd to imply such a thing.

...

That's why you ride the lucky horse until he's no longer lucky (provided the team is in contention and wins actually matter). That could come tomorrow. It could come in April of 2016.

 

It's also why I find the idea of extending Mike laughable. Luck can't be maintained but it can often stick around a hell of a lot longer than you think it will.

 

You don't like how I phrased it, but your comments here line up perfectly with what I said. You believe luck is a persistent quality (over limited time periods) and is something that should be considered over a short-to-medium time frame. That is the notion of 'riding the lucky horse,' as you state.

 

I do not believe luck persists at all, not for a month, or a start, or even an opposing batter. To the extent it appears that way, it's due to selection bias - there will always be some pitchers that have a bunch of lucky outcomes within a particular period of time. You are creating a narrative after the fact that is unrelated to any real phenomenon.

 

You've ignored the Grienke comparison...why?

Does it not fit the narrative? Do we use FIP only when it fits the argument?

 

Sorry my reply was not rapid enough for you. I wanted to address the other point first. Yes, I think Kershaw has been better.

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

 

 

Sorry my reply was not rapid enough for you. I wanted to address the other point first. Yes, I think Kershaw has been better.

Thanks.

 

We don't agree on that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You don't like how I phrased it, but your comments here line up perfectly with what I said. You believe luck is a persistent quality (over limited time periods) and is something that should be considered over a short-to-medium time frame. That is the notion of 'riding the lucky horse,' as you state.

 

I do not believe luck persists at all, not for a month, or a start, or even an opposing batter. To the extent it appears that way, it's due to selection bias - there will always be some pitchers that have a bunch of lucky outcomes within a particular period of time. You are creating a narrative after the fact that is unrelated to any real phenomenon.

Luck can be a persistent quality over a short time frame. I don't even see how this is debatable. The longer you stretch the timeline, the less likely it is that a player will get lucky (ie. have a favorable outcome to events he did not control) but in the short or mid-term, it can very much be persistent. The same way you can flip a coin 20 times and get 19 heads, you can get a player who routinely "beats the odds" and remains lucky over a stretch of time.

 

Danny Santana maintained a .405 BABIP over 101 games last season. He had a .408/.400 BABIP split in the first and second halves of the season. In no month did his BABIP drop below .342. Did those things not happen? Given that you think luck cannot persist, you seem to believe that they did not.

 

I was one of the loudest people about Santana's possible regression but while he was out there performing, I certainly wasn't going to demote him just because I didn't agree with how he was achieving good results.