13
2011
Parnell VS Beato: A Quick Look
An article by 
When you think of closers in this generation, you think of flame throwing pitchers who are able to come in and shut down the opposition for one inning. The Firemen era, where closers handled 3 innings and got the traditional save, will no longer be visited. It comes down to a point in the game where the one inning closer is extremely overvalued compared to the legendary closers of history. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to put down Mariano or Hoffman or even Franco, but when you put them up against Gossage, Eckersley, Fingers, Sutter, Wilhelm? Well. Regardless, Mariano and Hoffman never got 17.5 million and K-rod sure didn’t deserve it. When you look at the likely road the Mets will take for this year, Parnell or Beato will probably get the shot to be the closer for them. Parnell is more likely – based on experience and the stuff he packs.
Robert Allen Parnell – He’ll be 27 in September and throws ridiculously hard. This is his 4th year in the majors. His average fastball speed for the past two years is 96.45 – and his fastball sits above 95 with regularity. He works with a slider and as of this year, a two-seam fastball (or some variation of it.) One of the reasons for his success this year is that he’s mixing in that moving fastball, or two-seam variant, a lot more often. According to Fan Graphs, his career 4-Seam percentage is 73.5% – while his rate this year is 53.2%. His two-seam rate is up to 19.8%, a serious increase on the 0.9% from last year. His slider usage percentage is also up. So what’s the deal from all the numbers? Parnell throws hard, he’s throwing a fastball with more movement, and he’s trying to mix in the slider more. His WHIP is 1.33 which is… it needs to be improved. The walks aren’t killing but the hits allowed are. The fact that he focuses on his fastball is no big secret – but if he can throw the slider for strikes, we have truly a quality reliever on our hands.
Pedro Beato – Rule 5 Pick from the Baltimore Orioles has the stuff to stick around in the majors. He is a rookie, turning 25 in October, but still showed really good control and good stuff overall in the beginning of the season. He started the season with a 17 IP scoreless streak, drawing comparisons to Joakim Soria from me. He hasn’t looked the same after coming back from the DL but he still has a promising future. Beato runs with a two-seam variant, four-seam, curveball, and slider. None of his pitches are MLB Plus pitches (like Parnell’s fastball) but he works pretty well with what he’s got. He mixes speeds well (Two Seam around 91, 4 Seam around 93, Curve 79, Slider 86) and has looked like he’s going to stick with the Mets the rest of the way – so he’ll be under our control for a little bit. If Beato keeps his control steady (12 BB in 40 IP) and keeps the K/BB steady (2:1), he’ll be good a long the way. A WHIP of 1.00 and an AVG against of .197? Nice. He’s also only allowed 2 HRs this year, so that’s good to see as well.
Here’s the skinny in my opinion: from what I’ve seen and from what the stats show me. Bobby Parnell’s ceiling is more of a Brian Wilson type closer and Pedro Beato is more of a Joakim Soria type closer –> if they both hit their ceilings. If either one of them is able to reach such a ceiling, I would be a very happy fan. The likelihood is that the true endpoint for the two of them lies between the high projections I set and where they are now. It is more likely Parnell will pan out to be a better reliever but Beato is probably more likely to hit the Soria type ceiling. I assume Parnell will get the chances to close from here on out and I’ll be observing him closely.
About the Author: Satish Ram
I am a Senior Writer and Editor here at MetsMerized - where I specialize in Minor League coverage. I have been on the staff since 2007 and I am currently in my third semester of college in New York City. You can find me at www.facebook.com/SatishRam or @SilverHeatMMO. Feel free to message me - I love talking about the Mets or baseball overall with anybody.
38 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- Connor O'Brien: on So Where Are All Those Moneyball Players?: Agree Phillip. Good post. Although I would say...
- Metsie: on So Where Are All Those Moneyball Players?: Thats right Mike Cashen had those picks...
- Metsie: on So Where Are All Those Moneyball Players?: Dooby... has it ever occurred to you the...
- Connor O'Brien: on So Where Are All Those Moneyball Players?: You'll ban everyone that doesn't agree with...
- Connor O'Brien: on So Where Are All Those Moneyball Players?: LOL Alex "looking at the peripherals" Just...
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5391 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
satish:
thanks for the article, as usual very good, some ppl are wishing is parnell others beato, if beato (IF) beato hits the cealing then yeah, i can see a good closer in the future, what if he doesnt then? what’s next? mets are trying to save money, are we sure they’ll pay 10 million for a closer? nope.. futility under saber alderson here we come!!
God forbid the Mets pay $10 million for a closer.
yes, this new front office will low ball us to death.. of should i say moneyballin us to death?
because checkbook baseball worked out so well
lickety, mention me a team that has won the world series in the past 15 years with closers by committee.. i am waiting.
Well, the Yankees comprise 1/3 of those, so that only leaves 10 options.
To my knowledge, all of those teams went along with the fallacy. I have no idea why that proves me wrong. It just reinforces the image of a country club running MLB.
Now answer me this:
How many of those teams won because of their closer?
How close are the Mets to a World Series?
ok, since 1987 then.. try it and get back at me
So, you’re not going to tell me how many teams won specifically because they had a 1 inning closer?
Fine, I’ll extend you a courtesy you don’t seem to return.
the 1987 Twins
the 88 Dodgers
the 89 As
the 90 Reds
the 92 Blue Jays
All of those teams won without relying on a single guy to just come in for the 9th inning 3 days a week.
that’s around 20 years ago…….The game has changed since then.
The last few teams that won a WS had very good closers.
2010: Wilson
2009: Rivera
2008 Lidge
2007 Papelbon
all top closers.
But did they win because of the closer?
I find it funny that the people who usually justify doing something because “that’s how we did it for 100 years” and rant about how players are soft now are now trying to defend 1 inning closers
But would they have won if they didn’t have a good closer?
and I’m just going to ignore the rest of what you wrote because I have no idea what your talking about.
Also, how could a Met fan, that watched the whole 2008 season, go on and say, closers aren’t important?
It was a disaster every night after Wagner got hurt.
“But would they have won if they didn’t have a good closer? ”
Probably. Since 1900, the team with a 1 run lead in the 9th inning has won 84% of the time. How many closers are 84% successful in 1 run games?
“Also, how could a Met fan, that watched the whole 2008 season, go on and say, closers aren’t important?”
Because I watched closely?
“It was a disaster every night after Wagner got hurt.”
That’s because the bullpen as a whole was lousy except for 2 LOOGYs and the team stopped hitting except for 2 guys.
The Phillies wouldn’t have won. Brad Lidge was successfull 100% of the time. They probably don’t make the playoffs without him. he also was perfect in the playoffs too.
The Giants wouldn’t have won without wilson either. they won the division only by two games. He got 6 saves in the playoffs, and didn’t give up one run.
They don’t win the WS without them.
If we had a very good closer that year, we would have made the playoffs.
What team RECENTLY has won a WS with a bad closer?
Saves are a meaningless stat. They do not reflect the effectiveness of the pitcher.
Show me what those pitchers themselves did to contribute to those wins that couldn’t have been done by an average pitcher. Or one that was already on the roster.
At best, closers are a luxury item for World Series contenders. But, in reality, they are most likely misused roster spots.
“If we had a very good closer that year, we would have made the playoffs.”
Or, if we had a league average bullpen. Or if we had better starters. Or, if we had a line up that didn’t burn out.
I think any of those 3 would have proven more effective than a guy you treat like fine China and pay like a #1 starter.
“What team RECENTLY has won a WS with a bad closer?”
A good closer is a pretty low bar.
I don’t think I have to “show you” that Lidge and Wilson had great seasons in 2010 and 2008. You know they did good.
They don’t win the WS without them.
“Or, if we had a league average bullpen. Or if we had better starters. Or, if we had a line up that didn’t burn out.”
Well, it’s hard to have a “league average bullpen” without a good closer. And of course, the Mets had other problems in 08, sure everyone knows that. But if we had a solid guy closing out the games, we would have made the playoffs beacause we only lost by one game, and we blew so many games that year.
And how do you think they should be used? What’s the “right” way of using the closer in your opinion?
“I don’t think I have to “show you” that Lidge and Wilson had great seasons in 2010 and 2008. You know they did good.”
Because they racked up saves? Is that your proof?
“They don’t win the WS without them.”
Says you. I don’t see the proof of that.
“Well, it’s hard to have a “league average bullpen” without a good closer.”
It’s harder if your only decent relievers are LOOGYs
” And of course, the Mets had other problems in 08, sure everyone knows that.”
Then let’s not ignore them
” But if we had a solid guy closing out the games, we would have made the playoffs beacause we only lost by one game, and we blew so many games that year.”
If we had a better offense or over all better pitching, closing isn’t even a question.
“And how do you think they should be used? What’s the “right” way of using the closer in your opinion?”
For one, end the idea of a closer. What ever happened to the bullpen ace? The Gossage/Eckersley/Stewart type of guy who came in when the team needed outs, not when the outcome was all but decided.
Here’s a scenario: You are Terry Collins. The trade didn’t happen. It’s Spetember and the Mets are in the Wild Card hunt and playing the Cardinals. You have a 1 run elad in the 7th inning with Berkman, Pujols and Holliday due up.
Do you save Rodriguez for the 9th inning, when right now has all the trappings of a big inning that would make him a non-factor? Or do you use him now when their best hitters are up and you need them shut down?
You missed the point. This argument isn’t about stats. This is about how imporatant closers are, it’s not about their stats.
The Phillies and Giants don’t make the playoffs without Lidge and wilson. They only won the division by a few games, so if you take out how good they pitched for their teams, they miss the playoffs.
And I’m not talking about the other problems the Mets had in 2008 because this isn’t what this topic is about. I’m only talking about the problem that is relevant to this discussion, and that is, the fact that the Mets didn’t have a good closer.
As for your question, what if Berkman, Pujols, and Holiday are up again the 9th inning and with the tying or winnning run on base? wouldn’t you rather have saved your best guy for that situation? you would then have a worse guy pitching then, and probably lose the game. and your closer is more use to pitching in big spots with the game on the line, so he wouldn’t fold under the pressure of pitching in a big spot, as would a less experienced pitcher who never pitches under that type of situation before.
“You missed the point. This argument isn’t about stats. This is about how imporatant closers are, it’s not about their stats. ”
First of all how can you determine how important a player is without knowing his numbers?
Second, you keep referring to guys that rack up saves, which is a useless stat.
Third, I am asking you precisely and directly what makes those closers so important.
“The Phillies and Giants don’t make the playoffs without Lidge and wilson. They only won the division by a few games, so if you take out how good they pitched for their teams, they miss the playoffs.”
And I say that isn’t so. I say taking any good pitcher and putting him there helps them.
In fact, relying on one inning closers seems to be hurting teams.
“And I’m not talking about the other problems the Mets had in 2008 because this isn’t what this topic is about. I’m only talking about the problem that is relevant to this discussion, and that is, the fact that the Mets didn’t have a good closer.”
They are relevant because they were the actual problems, not the mistaken belief in one inning closers.
“As for your question, what if Berkman, Pujols, and Holiday are up again the 9th inning and with the tying or winnning run on base? wouldn’t you rather have saved your best guy for that situation? you would then have a worse guy pitching then, and probably lose the game. and your closer is more use to pitching in big spots with the game on the line, so he wouldn’t fold under the pressure of pitching in a big spot, as would a less experienced pitcher who never pitches under that type of situation before.”
Are you going to answer my question with a yes or no? Because that’s all it warranted.
In your specific scenario, yes, that is the big spot of the game, assuming that mine didn’t already happen.
But you assume that the 9th inning is always the biggest spot in the game. That is demonstrably false. the outcome is usually all but determined by the 9th inning, so, why are always reserving our supposed best relievers for something that is more or less inconsequential?
I’d rather 4 or 5 reliable guys that I can bring in at any time than one guy with nifty theme music that gets treated like fine China and paid like a #1 starter.
Wilson and Lidge had great numbers those years, in every stat. Pick whatever number you like, they had good ones, and you know that too. Your just trying to make a point that saves as a stat isn’t good, which has nothing to do with my argument.
What makes those guys so important? Well they had ERA’s under two. They were unhittable and didn’t blow many games for the team(or in Lidge’s case none).
It’s a great advantage to have a guy come in with the game on the line that nobody can hit.
Also why are outs in the 9th inning less valuable than outs earlier in the game. true, not all of the biggest points in the game come in the 9th, but a lot of them do.
your really arguing about nothing. I mean is it really that a big of a deal if a manager decides not to use his best pitcher in a big spot in the 7th, and waits to use him in a possibly BIGGER spot in the 9th?
“Wilson and Lidge had great numbers those years, in every stat. Pick whatever number you like, they had good ones, and you know that too. Your just trying to make a point that saves as a stat isn’t good, which has nothing to do with my argument.”
In a very limited sample size often against guys who are bench players. Any decent pitcher could do the same.
“What makes those guys so important? Well they had ERA’s under two. They were unhittable and didn’t blow many games for the team(or in Lidge’s case none).”
In a very limited capacity.
“It’s a great advantage to have a guy come in with the game on the line that nobody can hit.”
Yes, but the game is rarely on the line in the 9th inning.
“Also why are outs in the 9th inning less valuable than outs earlier in the game. true, not all of the biggest points in the game come in the 9th, but a lot of them do.”
between 1900 and 2004, the team with a 1 run lead in the 9th inning won 84% of the time. About 95% with a 2 run lead and almost 98% with a 3 run lead.
1 inning closers didn’t become trendy until the mid 90s (LaRussa started the concept around 1990)
“your really arguing about nothing. I mean is it really that a big of a deal if a manager decides not to use his best pitcher in a big spot in the 7th, and waits to use him in a possibly BIGGER spot in the 9th?”
I’m arguing about the best use of players. And if a manager puts in an inferior pitcher because he’s worried about might happen 2 innings later, he probably shouldn’t be managing. But hat’s not the case. Most teams cling to 1 inning closers for 2 reasons:
1) Contract clauses related to saves, so the team is obligated to give their closer save opportunities
2) talking heads in the media would crucify them if they didn’t have a designated closer and lost a single 9th inning lead. And knowledgeable fans would take their lead.
That’s just ridiculous, if you think any decent pitcher could have a 1.81 ERA, and 93K’s in 74 innings, then you really don’t know what your talking about.
And I guess every team now uses their bench players in the 9th inning now? That’s demonstrably false.
You want to know why teams have a high winning percenatge going in with a lead into the 9th? The answer is simple. The 9th inning is the teams last shot to tie or win the game. If they fail to score, it’s over. You only have one shot to score then, but earlier in the game, like in the 7th, you have a few more shots – More chances to score.
But that doesn’t mean the 7th is more important….because I bet if you looked at it, teams would tie the game about 84% of the time in a one run game that inning. So it’s the same thing.
Your point about putting the “inferior pitcher” in the game in the 7th, makes no sense becuase if you use your closer there instead, your STILL going to have to use the “inferior pitcher” later in the game! There’s no difference at all.
Phillies are sitting in first in the NL east having used no less than 4 guys in that closer roll this year.
they’re starting pitching is really good.. with halladay completing the games and lee and hamels, you basically don’t need a closer. remember 1986? gooden, ojeda, darling and sid fernandez? combined 27 CG and 7 SO. they had aguilera and orozco closing games, although ultimately it was orozco closing and aguilera setting up.
Unless all 5 starters are consistently pitching complete games, you need someone for the 9th inning to close it out if they’re ahead. And this year their offense hasn’t been all that great, many close games.
So saying ‘they basically don’t need a closer’ is not accurate.
they do.. don’t get me wrong. but for now, the guys stepping in are doing a good job. great job by ruiz who imo don’t get enough credit as he should for handling their pitching staff as well.
And hey, I want to see someone take over this role and be as effective as KRod was for us these past few years. I just don’t want to see them pay 17.5 MIL for the privilege.
Hope they pay like 3 million for a closer. We all know how well closers do under NYC Mets spotlight.
so alex are you saying you want Beato to be the closer, yet in the same sentence mocking Sandy Alderson’s techniques in building a team when he brought Beato to New York?
i love beato because he’s dominican?? are you defending alderson when he’s wasted a rule 5 pick in eamus? or hu?? shut up and like i said, you’re man enough, august 6th, front gate, mets vs braves, me and you at city field.. i won’t be hard to find, i am 6’2 so you can find me, also, i will be holding a sign for you that says “i <3 jesseP" while waiting anxiosly for you to come..
Beato was a Rule 5 pick. Hu was not.
eamus was.. hu was a trade with the dodgers.
i am not mocking alderson, i am just saying his method’s suck.. and by the way, beato has been ok and he’s a met, of course i want him and parnell to do good, but i am not a fake fan like you who pretend to like the team and root for atlanta and the oakland A’s
Dang, didn’t realize Parnell was close to 27 years old already. Time flies…..
I don’t believe the job of closer going forward is likely to be decided this year. Could be Parnell or Beato. Could be either or both is a place holder for either the next guy we acquire for this roll in the off season or an arm from the minors – such as Mejia in a year or so.
yes it does, speciall if the guy spends time between the majors and the minors!!!