Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

  • WARNE: Could The Twins Be Replacing Mike Pelfrey

    Brandon Warne

    By Brandon Warne

    Prodded by a caller on his weekly radio show, Minnesota Twins manager Paul Molitor admitted the club was exploring their options with regards to the rotation spot of right-hander Mike Pelfrey. A number of factors make the situation difficult, including the shutdown of Jose Berrios, the presence of Tyler Duffey, and the current situations surrounding Phil Hughes and Trevor May.

    Image courtesy of Troy Taormina, USA Today

    Twins Video

    To be clear, the presence of Duffey is simply just that he’s already promoted, and thus not a candidate to take Pelfrey’s rotation spot. May is not stretched out, as he’s worked as a reliever almost exclusively for over two months. There isn’t time, or really a place — short of using him during Chattanooga’s playoff run — to get him lengthened back out. Hughes isn’t healthy enough to return to the rotation yet either, otherwise he might be the natural choice to take Pelfrey’s rotation spot.

    A possible wild card in the situation is left-hander Logan Darnell, whom the club recalled after his last start with Rochester on Thursday. And if Darnell’s usage is any indication — he threw just 4.2 innings and 45 pitches in that start — he might in fact be the man for the job. A Rochester-based source indicated he was removed for reasons other than ineffect, and his spot to start lines up quite nicely with Pelfrey — who pitched (poorly) on Friday. Darnell has also been a man on fire of late. While he hasn’t pitched at all in the big leagues this year, Darnell took strongly to a late-season move to the rotation. Darnell started in his final five appearances of the season for Rochester and posted a 0.83 ERA and 28-7 K/BB ratio. Opposing batters hit just .185/.228/.210 off Darnell in that stretch, and he’s been especially stingy against left-handed hitters all season, allowing just one extra-base hit (a double) as they’ve collectively batted just .265/.327/.275.

    Opposing batters haven’t been as kind to Pelfrey, who has allowed a triple-slash line of .298/.354/.404. For context, just 27 of 154 qualified batters across baseball (17.5 percent) have a batting average that high across MLB in this depressed offensive era. Despite starting off well enough even with shaky peripherals, the wheels have come off for Pelfrey since his 2.28 ERA at the 11-start mark of the season. To that point, opposing batters had hit .254/.321/.331 against Pelfrey, which made up for the fact that he had just a 34-19 K/BB ratio through those 67 innings. It’s truly odd that a pitcher with good velocity and a solid splitter still gets barreled up to that extent, but it’s just the truth.

    Anyway, since mid-June it’s been rough for Pelfrey. Sure, there have been good starts here and there, but the aggregate numbers tell a pretty definitive story: 5.76 ERA, .331/.378/.459 slash against and just 42 strikeouts in 79.2 innings. Pelfrey’s groundball-heavy tendencies (No. 7 in AL at 51.9 percent) keep him from being an unmitigated disaster (just six home runs allowed), but there’s still way too much contact and damage being done. An enterprising team is going to put him in their bullpen, where he’ll turn into a very nice back-end option with a velocity uptick, grounders and what’ll likely be a strong jump in strikeouts. It just doesn’t appear that’ll be the Twins.

    UPCOMING

    The Twins are fortunate enough to miss ace Johnny Cueto in the series with the Royals, but won’t be as lucky with the White Sox series that follows. As it currently stands, the Twins are slated to face Chris Sale and Jose Quintana — two of the finest lefties in the junior circuit. And while the Twins have strangely owned Sale all season long — 6.30 ERA versus the Twins, 2.68 against everyone else — this is a guy who’d probably be the AL Cy Young if it weren’t for the fact that his team around him has been a huge disappointment. There is a silver lining here in the series, though: John Danks is slated to start one of the games as well. The Twins have absolutely obliterated Danks through the years (5.76 ERA), and that is even more magnified this season (1.188 OPS, 9.39 ERA).

    ALLEN vs ANDERSON

    It’s only the perception of the writer, but it appears that Twins fans have been far more supportive of current pitching coach Neil Allen than his deposed predecessor, Rick Anderson. Whether it’s on Facebook, Twitter or even in sports bars, it seems as though fans have really bought into Allen, despite the fact that stats show a pretty interesting story.

    Here are the numbers for the 2014 rotation:

    5.06 ERA/4.03 FIP

    6.4 K/9

    2.4 BB/9

    1.0 HR/9

    And now, 2015:

    4.23 ERA/4.19 FIP

    6.2 K/9

    2.4 BB/9

    1.1 HR/9

    Even if you don’t want to buy FIP’s argument that this rotation is actually worse, it’s not as though you could pick out one or the other out of a crowd of numbers. And I’m not saying you have to believe this year is as bad as last year, but it’s pretty close. It’s just a simple exercise to see if perception mirrors reality. In this case, not really.

    This article was originally posted at Cold Omaha here; please click through to support the content.

    Follow Brandon Warne on Twitter: Brandon_Warne

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share
     Share
    Go to articles

    Community Blogs

    • How many games will the Minnesota Twins win in 2023?
    • Gopher Preview (Week 3)

    Forum Topics

    • PVTEST
    • Hey, look here
    • This is an exceptionally long title to test how various points look on a phone and smaller devices
    The Ultimate Minnesota Twins Gift Ideas Shopping Guide

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted (edited)

    from fangraphs:

     

    Some teams will grade for components of command (throwing quality strikes) with control (throwing it in the strike zone, usually closely following walk rate)

     

    from ESPN:

    A pitcher with control can throw strikes. He'll usually get the ball over the plate, doesn't often fall behind a hitter, and will rarely hand out free passes to first. In that manner, he remains in control of the at-bat. Hitters often get defensive against control pitchers, expanding their strike zone and chasing pitches they might lay off when facing pitchers with less control.

     

    Command more specifically describes a pitcher's ability to hit the catcher's target seemingly at will. If the catcher sets up on the outside corner at the knees, a pitcher with good command will deliver the ball right on target and the catcher will hardly have to move. If a pitcher has command, he's less likely to fall behind a hitter and issue walks, but he's also rarely going to leave a pitch over the middle of the plate.

     

    or here:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/9/2/2400473/another-scouting-primer-how-to-scout-pitchers

     

    Edited by mike wants wins
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willihammer

    Willihammer 4,021

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted (edited)

    The distinction implies that pitchers can throw strike after strike after strike and somehow have lousy command and vice versa, throw a ball outside of the zone on purpose but have no control. Its stupid. Does the ball end up where the pitcher is trying to throw it or not? In other words, what are his K and BB rates? 90% of "command" or "control" or whatever you want to call it will be captures by those two stats.

    Edited by Willihammer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

    I was merely answering the question of what the difference was, not opining on it at all.......You can call it stupid all day, scouts have used this for years, and they think it works. Even the stats geeks talk about it, so the two sides agree.......maybe it has value and isn't stupid.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willihammer

    Willihammer 4,021

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

     

    I was merely answering the question of what the difference was, not opining on it at all.......You can call it stupid all day, scouts have used this for years, and they think it works. Even the stats geeks talk about it, so the two sides agree.......maybe it has value and isn't stupid.

    Yeah I know you were. I'm annoyed by it because all I've ever seen the distinction do is introduce an unhelpful level of semantics. If I'm wrong then I'd welcome an example where the distinction is actually useful.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    Yeah I know you were. I'm annoyed by it because all I've ever seen the distinction do is introduce an unhelpful level of semantics. If I'm wrong then I'd welcome an example where the distinction is actually useful.

     

    There are lots of articles about the difference, with examples of pitchers. I just didn't quote them all.....if you really want, you can find them pretty fast. I was surprised that it did matter all that much, frankly.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USAFChief

    USAFChief 58,010

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

    Yeah I know you were. I'm annoyed by it because all I've ever seen the distinction do is introduce an unhelpful level of semantics. If I'm wrong then I'd welcome an example where the distinction is actually useful.

    I think all you have to do is watch the difference in what happens if Tommy Milone issues no walks but throws many pitches that cross the middle of the plate, thigh high, and what happens if Tommy Milone throws many pitches that cross the very outside corner of the plate, knee high.

     

    Both are strikes, but they are very different pitches.  

     

    Control, vs. command.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willihammer

    Willihammer 4,021

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

     

    I think all you have to do is watch the difference in what happens if Tommy Milone issues no walks but throws many pitches that cross the middle of the plate, thigh high, and what happens if Tommy Milone throws many pitches that cross the very outside corner of the plate, knee high.

     

    Both are strikes, but they are very different pitches.  

     

    Control, vs. command.

    What if the catcher was setting targets under the batter's hands?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    drjim

    drjim 7,100

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

     

    The distinction implies that pitchers can throw strike after strike after strike and somehow have lousy command and vice versa, throw a ball outside of the zone on purpose but have no control. Its stupid. Does the ball end up where the pitcher is trying to throw it or not? In other words, what are his K and BB rates? 90% of "command" or "control" or whatever you want to call it will be captures by those two stats.

     

    You do draw one important distinction though, in reality no pitcher has command without control.

     

    But of course the opposite can be true. I can always hit a dart board, but don't often hit the triple 20 I'm aiming for. I can certainly control the dart, but don't have great command of it. At least not until I have a couple more beers.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willihammer

    Willihammer 4,021

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted

     

    You do draw one important distinction though, in reality no pitcher has command without control.

     

    But of course the opposite can be true. I can always hit a dart board, but don't often hit the triple 20 I'm aiming for. I can certainly control the dart, but don't have great command of it. At least not until I have a couple more beers.

    Again, what if I aim for the same target and hit a bunch of double 17s on the other side of the board while you are hitting single 1s and 5s right around the triple 20. I win, you lose. But who has the better command/control?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USAFChief

    USAFChief 58,010

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

    Again, what if I aim for the same target and hit a bunch of double 17s on the other side of the board while you are hitting single 1s and 5s right around the triple 20. I win, you lose. But who has the better command/control?

    Is it possible you are intentionally missing the point?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Brock Beauchamp

    Brock Beauchamp 39,328

  • Administrator

    • Posted

     

    Again, what if I aim for the same target and hit a bunch of double 17s on the other side of the board while you are hitting single 1s and 5s right around the triple 20. I win, you lose. But who has the better command/control?

    Play nine games that way and see who wins more consistently.

     

    Come on, you're being intentionally difficult. This is baseball. Sometimes games are won with a swinging bunt. That doesn't mean you train your players to rely on swinging bunts.

     

    The pitcher who can put the ball where he wants it (command) is going to beat the player who can throw it in the strike zone (control) more often than not.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willihammer

    Willihammer 4,021

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted (edited)

     

    Is it possible you are intentionally missing the point?

    I'm really not trying to be difficult. There's something I'm not getting across. The control-command distinction suggests to me that a pitcher has a say in the direction he misses his target which seems wrong for a couple reasons. One, even if a pitcher missed to a certain side - say he was opening up early and missing high and to the arm side. That will miss for a strike and miss for a ball depending on where the catcher is setting up and depending on the handedness of the batter. But more likely, IMO, is that the misfires are random in direction and the only consistency is how far away from the target the pitcher misses. And since a catcher always sets up on one corner of the zone (and never outside it) this is almost entirely captured by BB and K rates and can be described simply as "control" or "command" along one scale.

    Edited by Willihammer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ashbury

    ashbury 48,546

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

    I always thought of command as being able to get the movement you need to make the pitch effective and control was being able to locate. If you can't "command" your breaking pitch, you can't get it to break. If you leave your curveball up, you couldn't "control" it. I agree that they are used sloppily.

    However, this kind of overlaps on a third characteristic, "stuff", doesn't it?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Mike Sixel

    Mike Sixel 41,021

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

     

    I'm really not trying to be difficult. There's something I'm not getting across. The control-command distinction suggests to me that a pitcher has a say in the direction he misses his target which seems wrong for a couple reasons. One, even if a pitcher missed to a certain side - say he was opening up early and missing high and to the arm side. That will miss for a strike and miss for a ball depending on where the catcher is setting up and depending on the handedness of the batter. But more likely, IMO, is that the misfires are random in direction and the only consistency is how far away from the target the pitcher misses. And since a catcher always sets up on one corner of the zone (and never outside it) this is almost entirely captured by BB and K rates and can be described simply as "control" or "command" along one scale.

     

    One of the articles I linked talks about why command and control are not on the same scale. Also, see the web for the distinction between accuracy and precision, as pointed out above. They just aren't the same thing, even though we sometimes think they are.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willihammer

    Willihammer 4,021

  • Provisional Member

    • Posted (edited)

    One of the articles I linked talks about why command and control are not on the same scale. Also, see the web for the distinction between accuracy and precision, as pointed out above. They just aren't the same thing, even though we sometimes think they are.

    I read it, and I understand the difference between accuracy and precision. The difference in baseball is that you have a bullseye that moves along the periphery of a rectangular target instead of a conventional circle inside concentric circles which could be more *accurately* used to describe the degree of accuracy. With a strikezone you have to assume the pitcher can control the direction he misses his target in order for the grade to have any meaning. I don't believe there's any evidence that's the case over a large enough sample.

    Edited by Willihammer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...
    ×

×
×
  • Create New...