Pressure on Pelfrey in Pivotal Position
February 3rd, 2010 | by Richard Gross |
The Mets are truly fortunate that they have a bona fide ace in Johan Santana but after him, well, there’s a huge drop off. The team has not been able to boost their pitching staff this off-season and acquire a player who might level off the disparity of skill from the top of the rotation to the bottom. They’ve made minor additions but essentially the rotation is the same as it was last year.
The current Mets’ depth chart has Mike Pelfrey listed as the #2 man in the rotation. This would provide the average Met fan with more comfort if he were coming off a successful season like he had in ‘08, rather than the dismal, erratic season he had last year. Pelfrey has all the talent worthy of a #2 starter: a 6′ 7” frame that delivers a 93 MPH fastball, a devastating sinker and a developing slider. But something went off course last year on the road to Pelfrey’s development as a premier pitcher in the league: he lost his control of the strike zone and took a dramatic step backward. His BB/9 went up from 2.9 in ’08 to 3.2 in ’09 which in itself is not overly alarming. But when you combine that with an increased H/9 (9.4 in ’08 to 10.4 in ’09) and increased home runs allowed, it highlights the struggles that Pelfrey had throughout the season. His home runs went up from 1 home run every two games in ’08 to about a home run given up in every game. In fact, 66% of his home runs last season were allowed in the second half of the year. Considering that Pelfrey is primarily a sinker ball pitcher, it’s a concerning statistic.
If Pelfrey is to turn things around this season he will need to do a significantly better job of working himself out of tough jams. Rather than shutting the door in crucial situations, Pelfrey seemed to come unraveled, allowing big hits or having difficulty finding the plate. He seemed to nitpick too much with his pitches and therefore worked behind too often to hitters. Opponents batted .382 off Pelfrey when runners were in scoring position and he was behind in the count. His 66.7 LOB% was below the league average (71.9%) and down by almost 9% from the previous year. As a point of comparison, the Pirates’ Paul Maholm had a 69.2 LOB% and Maholm, by most standards, is a pretty middle-of-the-road pitcher.
There was much talk that Pelfrey had lost some of his confidence during the season and was perhaps over thinking situations rather than just relying on his natural ability. If this is true, he will need to find a way to figure this out and fast. The Mets can’t afford a repeat of his challenges with runners on base and the organization did him no favors by not acquiring another pitcher to add to their rotation. A serviceable, consistent veteran starter would have been able to take some of the pressure off of Pelfrey and allow him to relax a little more and hopefully provide him with a better opportunity to restore some confidence. It would have been similar to what the Phillies were able to accomplish by trading for Roy Halladay. Cole Hamels, who had an off year himself in ‘09, will be the beneficiary of Halladay’s presence and won’t have to bear the weight of being the team’s ace. Thankfully Pelfrey isn’t being asked to be the ace of the club, but he has a hard act to follow in Santana.
Unless the Mets are able to pull off a trade before April, they will have to rely heavily on Pelfrey to bounce back from last season. For Pelfrey, this season is pivotal as he attempts to right himself and prove that he is worthy of a #1 draft choice. For the Mets as a whole, they need many things to go their way, improved performances from underachievers, improved health for injured players. But Pelfrey as the #2 man must come through if they Mets have any chance to compete.
Tags: Johan Santana, Mets, Mike Pelfrey, New York Mets
By James on Feb 4, 2010
I don’t think we can ignore the Met team defense when looking at Pelfrey’s 2009 season. On the surface, it appears that he regressed a great deal, but I think the Met defense going from above average to miserable accounts for a lot of that perceived regression.
In 2008, the Met team UZR was +27.1, good for 7th in the major leagues. Pelf’s ERA was 3.72, with a 3.96 FIP. In 2009, the Met defense posted a -47.3, 29th in the majors. Pelf’s FIP was 4.39 (only 0.43 runs worse than the previous year), but his ERA bloated to 5.03 (1.31 runs worse), an ugly number.
It’s no coincidence that Pelf’s ERA was better than his FIP when the Met defense was good in 08, then the opposite situation took place when the Met defense was terrible.
To give another example about how Pelf’s defense failed him, consider that despite raising his ground ball percentage in 09 from 08, he actually got half as many double plays.
Peripheral/fielding independent wise, Pelf’s 09 was very similar to his 08. His walks and homers were up a bit, but so were his K’s. He gave up less line drives and induced more grounders.
That’s not to say there aren’t things Pelfrey can improve on. There is plently of room to get better. But I think that if the Met defense puts up a better effort (the left side of the infield should be better with the return of Reyes and hopefully a bounce back from Wright), then Pelf’s ERA will look much better.
By Craig on Feb 5, 2010
Unfortunately, if Mike Pelfrey is the Mets’ #2 starter, there will not be much to celebrate in 2010. At least I’ll know from Day 1 that I won’t have to worry about being crushed come August. Aside from a handful of starts in his career, I have not been impressed at all with his stuff or the results. The Mets should have been all over Ben Sheets and Rich Harden on short term deals. I really don’t know what they’re doing. I know those two are likely to get hurt but, damn, at least they provide some upside. What are we looking at now? Pelfrey, Ollie, Maine and Niese? That’s a joke, I’d rather stick the aforementioned injury prone guys in there and see what happens. I know the Mets signed Bay and that you can’t have EVERYTHING you ask for but, Sheets and Harden would not have cost that much considering its a short term deal. I’ve stayed off of the Omar Minaya hater’s bandwagon but, I’m getting ready to hop on.
Mets are looking at a third place finish and we should be happy if we get that because I would not be surprised if the Braves knocked us off and bumped us to fourth.
By Richard Gross on Feb 6, 2010
James you make some very valid points and it’s true that a healthy Reyes in the field should make a considerable difference not only for Pelfrey but for the other pitchers as well. But Pelfrey’s HR/FB went up over 3% in ‘09 and this was a significant issue along with the poor defense as you suggest. Unfortunately, even Reyes can’t defend a home run.
But crucial game situations was also Pelfrey’s undoing. Opponents batted .320 against him in high leverage situations as opposed to .265 in ‘08. While shoddy play most likely contributed to some of the higher average, blame also falls on Pelfrey’s shoulders.
I do agree that improved defense will make a significant difference for Pelfrey, but he is going to have to bear down when the game is on the line as well. Let’s hope for both scenarios and and we will both be glad to see an improved Pelfrey in the upcoming season.
Appreciate your contribution and comments on the board James.
By Richard Gross on Feb 6, 2010
Craig, I can only imagine that the front office felt that Sheets and/or Harden presented too much of a risk–even on a one year deal.
But I have to agree that they both have amazing upside and a threesome of Santana-Sheets-Harden would have been fun to see.