Souhan: Time Running Out On Some Players

[stringer bell]

The players called out in this article are all guys that have not met expectations. They all are guys that will determine how successful 2013 is. Plouffe hasn't has an extra base hit explosion, but as mentioned above, he's profiling as a league average 3B. Dozier has been very, very good defensively at a key defensive position, but the offense has been no better than last year. Parmelee has been a surprise defensively, but hasn't hit anywhere near a corner outfielder needs to in order to keep a position. Worley has been pretty close to Marquis-like in most of his starts--really a disappointment. There are replacements for Dozier (Escobar, Carroll) who would most likely be more of the same--Carroll would probably provide more offense, but what is the point when the guy is 39 years old? A replacement for Parmelee as a right fielder is Arcia, who has shown much more with the bat than Parm and looks like he will be on the roster for good. There aren't any real replacements for Plouffe--again Escobar or Carroll could fill in, but neither have power potential--and there is no one in the minors pushing for promotion who is a third baseman (above A ball). Worley has potential replacements. If he doesn't get it going soon, someone (Deduno, Gibson, Walters, De Vriese) will be available to take his place.

 

I'd advise patience with all these guys. While it is nice that the Twins have a competitive product so far, contention is still pretty unlikely. Much more likely is/are trades to open a spot for Parmelee. Let these players play out the first half of the season and see which guys are good enough to play on a playoff team and which need to be replaced for 2014 and beyond.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But if he pitches like this, he's a swing man at best. I remain hopeful, though, that he'll get better. Not sure why, but I do.

 

You should be hopeful... He's not going to maintain a .400+ BABIP all season.

 

Worley has been bad for sure... But he hasn't been nearly as bad as his numbers indicate. A fair amount of his stat line is influenced by absolute **** luck.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To break down Worley's season, here's a comparison to 2012 Nick Blackburn:

 

Worley/Blackburn:

 

BABIP: .405/.330

K/9: 4.85/3.83

BB/9: 2.37/2.39

GB%: 48.4/45.2

LD%: 20.9/19.1

ERA: 7.15/7.39

 

Which stat doesn't line up with the others?

 

Vance has been bad but that BABIP is the result of some really awful luck. Even 2012 Nick Blackburn kept his BABIP at .330, the highest of his career by .013 points... And that's still .075 lower than 2013 Worley.

 

To look at xFIP, Worley is at 4.52 while 2012 Blackburn was at 5.10. One is mediocre, maybe a little bad... The other is replacement level or worse.

 

Give Worley some time. If he keeps doing what he's doing, he'll regress to the mean. If he improves at all, he'll be a decent pitcher.

[Mike Sixel]

Thanks Brock, I was too lazy to look up the numbers myself.....still not quite as good as I'd hoped at the beginning of the year, but not as bad as he's produced.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Thanks Brock, I was too lazy to look up the numbers myself.....still not quite as good as I'd hoped at the beginning of the year, but not as bad as he's produced.

 

It should also be noted that while Worley has been getting the shaft in the luck department, Mike Pelfrey has actually been worse than his ERA suggests and has received a fair amount of luck despite being pretty awful, sporting an xFIP of 5.20 compared to his 3.93 ERA, riding a ridiculous homer-free streak to offset his unlucky ~.350-ish BABIP while striking out pretty much nobody.

 

People should be more concerned with Pelfrey than they are Worley. Vance has been bad but Pelfrey has been a luckier version of Jason Marquis this season.

[Mike Sixel]

I never believed in Pelfrey, nor do I think he's on the roster next year, so I only really pay attn to him when he's starting to see if the team wins or not......

[jay]

I dont agree with A,B or D at all. Heres why-

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

First off how on earth can you actualy ask what is wrong with Plouffes performance? He hasnt shown really any improvement across the board since he joined the league. Hes hitting .239 which is around his career avg and I dont have to tell you thats sad. If he were to play the same amount of games this year as he did last year he would be on pace for less HRs, RBIs, BBs, SLG, OPS.... And he didnt even do well last year, he had 55RBIs on 24HRs because he can only hit Solo HRs. In all hes just a bad player that will be gone soon anyway unless he vastly improves and gets sent to right field.

 

It's increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you continue to use the absolute worst statistics available to you when arguing a point.

 

Batting average only tells a fraction of Plouffe's story, as he's not a contact hitter. And RBI, well... they're entirely useless if you're trying to predict performance (or even gauge past performance in most cases).

 

And RISPy-ness doesn't exist. It just doesn't. Stop using solo homers as some kind of evidence of anything.

 

Plouffe is a flawed player. He's low-average, high slugging, with not a lot of walks. The question is whether his slugging can be maintained at a high enough level to offset some of his more glaring weaknesses, not whether he's wearing his RISP underoos.

[Nick Nelson]

Mike Pelfrey has actually been worse than his ERA suggests and has received a fair amount of luck despite being pretty awful, sporting an xFIP of 5.20 compared to his 3.93 ERA, riding a ridiculous homer-free streak to offset his unlucky ~.350-ish BABIP while striking out pretty much nobody.

 

???

 

Were you accidentally looking at his K-rate instead of his ERA?

[Brock Beauchamp]

???

 

Were you accidentally looking at his K-rate instead of his ERA?

 

Shaddup. It's early.

 

(yes, accidentally used his K rate)

[jun]

A. What is so wrong with Plouffe's performance this year? Low batting avg and bad defense.

C. Parmelee was MESSED WITH last year and now is being messed with again to some extent. I do agree that I don't think he is a long-term guy for the Twins and should be traded when he hits his peak this year (probably around deadline). WELL, I don't think he could hit his peak and could be traded for any value this year.

D. Worley is a good pitcher who has struggled so far in half of his starts. He is going to be just fine and can work into a GOOD team's rotation as the 4th or 5th starter. He has a lot ahead of him. If, by some point in 2014, Diamond and Worley are the 4th and 5th starters for this team, then all is going to be very good. ????????????????????????????????????????

What makes you think Worley is a good pitcher? He has struggled in most of his starts so far. He has not shown anything good. He needs to be sent down immediately.

[jay]

????????????????????????????????????????

What makes you think Worley is a good pitcher? He has struggled in most of his starts so far. He has not shown anything good. He needs to be sent down immediately.

 

First off, 40 question marks is a bit extreme. We probably would have gotten the point at 3 and it's not like the poster claimed to have solved cold fusion in his bedroom. Despite Worley's struggles in EIGHT starts this year, he has actually pitched in his life a few times before that to give us an idea of what else he is capable of. He has some concerning trends (decreasing K-rate) and he might in fact need some AAA time to figure it out, but that level of exasperation is a bit ignorant of both his past and the current SSS.

[Brock Beauchamp]

What makes you think Worley is a good pitcher? He has struggled in most of his starts so far. He has not shown anything good. He needs to be sent down immediately.

 

Why should Worley been sent down when he's been marginally better than Pelfrey once you remove dumb luck from the equation?

 

Worley has a future with this team, Pelfrey does not. I'm not against sending them both to Rochester but at this point, it doesn't make much sense to send down Vance and keep Mike in the rotation.

[jun]

I agree with you, I think both of them should be sent down, Worley would be the first to go though. Deduno, De Vries, Gibson and Walters should all be given a chance.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree with you, I think both of them should be sent down, Worley would be the first to go though.

 

I don't understand this... Why should he be the first to go? Because he's unlucky?

 

You can make the argument that Worley has an option and Pelfrey would have to clear waivers but other than that, there's no reason to send Vance to AAA and keep Pelfrey in the rotation.

[jay]

I don't understand this... Why should he be the first to go? Because he's unlucky?

 

?????????? Haven't you seen his ERA??????? </sarcasm>

[nicksaviking]

Mike Pelfrey has actually been worse than his ERA suggests and has received a fair amount of luck despite being pretty awful, sporting an xFIP of 5.20 compared to his 3.93 ERA,

 

???

 

Were you accidentally looking at his K-rate instead of his ERA?

 

Shaddup. It's early.

 

(yes, accidentally used his K rate)

 

Wow, that is the saddest and funniest accidental stat mis-adventure I have read! Ha, that is so awesome in fact that it taps into a new metric that really should be used to evaluate Twins pitchers because it is unfortunately oh so relevant.

 

K9/ERAd: The difference between the K/9 and ERA. Pelfrey is at -2.1.

 

It's like the guy who attempted to make a military grade epoxy but ended up inventing Silly Putty instead. Well done!

[stringer bell]

I don't understand this... Why should he be the first to go? Because he's unlucky?

 

You can make the argument that Worley has an option and Pelfrey would have to clear waivers but other than that, there's no reason to send Vance to AAA and keep Pelfrey in the rotation.

The other argument to stick with Pelfrey is that his last two outings would qualify and "good" and "okay", whereas Worley hasn't had a "good" outing since he pitched well at Chicago.

[kab21]

Worley has been pretty bad so far but it's 8 starts. He won't be a great pitcher but he has a decent track record and he could turn it around.

 

This Plouffe discussion is silly. Plouffe is not great but if Plouffe isn't at 3B then look out below because it's a big drop in talent in this org until Sano is up.

[Badsmerf]

I'm not entirely on board with the Worley being lucky camp. Yes his babip is high, but he is getting crushed, not letting little ground balls and bloopers fall. I really question his stuff at this point. I'm not sure how the Twins can justify blasting Hendriks and sending him down when Worley has been much worse. I just looked up Hendriks's stats and did a facepalm as I realized he was only given 2 starts before being sent down. Anyway, I hope Worley can right the ship, but there has to be some serious questions about his ability to pitch at this level right now. 8 starts is to compile a strong enough sample to start asking questions.

[jay]

I hope Worley can right the ship, but there has to be some serious questions about his ability to pitch at this level right now. 8 starts is to compile a strong enough sample to start asking questions.

 

Definitely enough to start asking questions about his current performance. Not enough to damn his entire career.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm not entirely on board with the Worley being lucky camp. Yes his babip is high, but he is getting crushed, not letting little ground balls and bloopers fall. I really question his stuff at this point. I'm not sure how the Twins can justify blasting Hendriks and sending him down when Worley has been much worse. I just looked up Hendriks's stats and did a facepalm as I realized he was only given 2 starts before being sent down. Anyway, I hope Worley can right the ship, but there has to be some serious questions about his ability to pitch at this level right now. 8 starts is to compile a strong enough sample to start asking questions.

 

2012 Nick Blackburn had a .330 BABIP.

 

2013 Vance Worley has a .405 BABIP.

 

There's "unlucky" and then there's "holy crap".

[kab21]

The difference between Worley and Hendriks is that Hendriks has been shelled repeatedly in the majors while Worley has had success. The other thing to remember is that worley did have bone spurs removed in September. Worley did have one big warning flag that his K rate would regress. His swstr% is/was really low for a pitcher that has an above average K rate but he still gets some time to turn it around.

[Nick Nelson]

Why should Worley been sent down when he's been marginally better than Pelfrey once you remove dumb luck from the equation?

 

Worley has a future with this team, Pelfrey does not. I'm not against sending them both to Rochester but at this point, it doesn't make much sense to send down Vance and keep Mike in the rotation.

 

I think it's a little strong to suggest that Worley's issues have been completely the result of bad luck. He hasn't pitched well. And what you're failing to acknowledge is that Pelfrey has shown signs of improvement; Worley really has not. I'd stick with Vanimal for a bit longer but I think it's fair for the Twins to have him ahead of Pelf on the chopping block at this point, especially since he has an option.

[gunnarthor]

2012 Nick Blackburn had a .330 BABIP.

 

2013 Vance Worley has a .405 BABIP.

 

There's "unlucky" and then there's "holy crap".

 

Yes, it's unlikely that the .405 babip will remain that high but how much of that are you crediting with his overall numbers? To get a .300ish babip, you'd take away 10 singles and 3 doubles and you still have opponents putting up a pretty scary looking .304/.344/.477 ish line. That's still horrible (2010-2011 Blackburn type).

 

That said, I do think he's a much better pitcher than he's shown but it's hard to say that he's just unlucky. He's been a bit unlucky but he's also been very bad.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think it's a little strong to suggest that Worley's issues have been completely the result of bad luck. He hasn't pitched well. And what you're failing to acknowledge is that Pelfrey has shown signs of improvement; Worley really has not. I'd stick with Vanimal for a bit longer but I think it's fair for the Twins to have him ahead of Pelf on the chopping block at this point, especially since he has an option.

 

I don't know if it's in this thread but I've mentioned several times today that both have been pretty awful, but at least Worley has horrible luck to offset some of that awfulness while Pelfrey is rocking a ridiculous HR/FB rate that is unsustainable. Given Pelfrey's WHIP, once that normalizes, things could get really ugly.

[stringer bell]

Worley has had an unusual amount of bleeders, choppers and bloops go for hits IMHO. However, he's had a high number of line drives and long fly balls hit against him, as well. I don't want to sound like my favorite Twins' analyst, but he needs to get and keep the ball down more. Humpbacked liners become grounders to short and second and become outs when a batter can't muscle the ball over the infield.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes, it's unlikely that the .405 babip will remain that high but how much of that are you crediting with his overall numbers? To get a .300ish babip, you'd take away 10 singles and 3 doubles and you still have opponents putting up a pretty scary looking .304/.344/.477 ish line. That's still horrible (2010-2011 Blackburn type).

 

That said, I do think he's a much better pitcher than he's shown but it's hard to say that he's just unlucky. He's been a bit unlucky but he's also been very bad.

 

Again, both are bad. One can blame some of that awful pitching on luck while the other cannot (to an extent, anyway... Pelfrey's BABIP is .350).

 

Given the situation, I'll take the younger guy who factors into the team's longterm plans over the guy who looks better largely because his HR/FB rate is at 3.7%.

 

Once the weather warms in Minnesota, Pelfrey could look like the second coming of Jason Marquis. Pelfrey's GB rate isn't particularly good (43%) and at some point, those flyballs are going to start leaving the park.

 

And at least Worley is striking out 2% more batters (~11.5% to ~9.5%).

 

Once you look through their peripherals, I don't see a reason why one would demote Worley before Pelfrey (excepting the reason that you want to keep Mike around all season instead of exposing him to waivers, which I don't really care about at this point).

[jokin]

 

 

 

 

 

Once you look through their peripherals, I don't see a reason why one would demote Worley before Pelfrey (excepting the reason that you want to keep Mike around all season instead of exposing him to waivers, which I don't really care about at this point).

 

Well there's that, and the option remaining on Worley. Wouldn't Pelfrey be in the situation medically, where he would agree to a Joe Nathan-like rehab assignment?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well there's that, and the option remaining on Worley. Wouldn't Pelfrey be in the situation medically, where he would agree to a Joe Nathan-like rehab assignment?

 

That would be the preferred situation and hopefully one Pelfrey would agree to should he continue to be awful.

 

As annoying as it is to say, I think I'd keep them both up for the time being. It won't kill team to see two more starts from each before making a decision. After that time, we'll be able to better judge Vance's bad luck and Pelfrey's "rebound".

 

And despite his recent success, as relative as that may be, I'd still send down Hernandez before either Pelfrey or Worley. Nothing about the guy says Major League starting pitcher to me.