John Sickels take on Pelfrey on June 27, 2008:

Time for another look at Mike Pelfrey, who was supposed to be a big ace by now.

On the surface he's made progress this year...
But on the other hand there are still some warning signs in the numbers. His K/BB ratio hasn't improved at all, a slight reduction in the walk rate being balanced by a slight reduction in strikeouts...
I continue to root for him, but I have to admit that I am not convinced he has turned a corner, better scouting reports or not. The splits are full of red flags, and I suspect that unless those improve, his ERA is going to be rising as the summer progresses.

then a week later, Sickels had this to say about Hochevar:

In short, Hochevar is coming along. He's not a terrific pitcher yet, but he is making progress. I can see him easily developing into a solid number three, inning-eating ground ball getter. If he sharpens his command and boosts his strikeout rate, he could be a number two guy.

If Sickels had simply swapped Pelfrey's and Hochevar's names in the two columns he'd look like a genius...

Sickels' main problem, and he's come close to admitting it in the past, is a sort of anti-NY bias that particularly manifests itself when the Mets are involved. He's made it very clear that he doesn't care for organizations which rush their prospects, but it seems that his antipathy towards the Mets runs deeper than a mere disagreement about ideology.

Oh, and he's gotten a little coarse towards his own readers. I can see how that whole sock puppet fiasco might have led to it, but Sickels is far too bright a guy to let something like that get to him long term. All that having been said, MinorLeagueBall perseveres as a first class site where you can always find really intelligent conversation about any given prospect due to the outstanding breadth of knowledge of the user base about the minors.

I was at the game last night, it was incredibly fun. RBI from Pelfrey, errors by Chipper, HR by David, rally-killing DP from Our Heinous, lots of great defense ending with Tatis taking what may have been the most hilarious (yet thankfully successful) route on a fly ball I've ever seen. It was one of the better games I've seen in awhile. And the crowd loved Pelfrey, chanting his name all the way throughout the last inning. New Yorkers may turn on you in a heartbeat, but like any dysfunctional relationship, the love is just as intense.

1: Hindsight is always 20-20, but looking back it's still a bit fuzzy

Oh, and he's gotten a little coarse towards his own readers. I can see how that whole sock puppet fiasco might have led to it, but Sickels is far too bright a guy to let something like that get to him long term.

\

The problem is that while that site has some great posters, it also has some awful posters; there have been many incidents, not just the sock puppet thing.

The problem is that while that site has some great posters, it also has some awful posters; there have been many incidents, not just the sock puppet thing.

Hey! I'm pro-Braves! :)

The improvement Pelfrey has made is startling. Even as late as the end of May, he appeared to be the same pitcher he had always been, but it's really something what he has accomplished.

In his last 14 starts, he has pitched 89 innings, allowing a 3.44 ERA, with 59 strikeouts, 24 BB, 5 HR, and no unearned runs. For him to walk 2.4 batters per 9 innings after consistently being in the 4.9-5.0 range is incredible. He also has a solid 1.8:1 GB:FB ratio during that time.

Pelfrey's emergence is huge not just for this year, but going forward. The Mets have only 3 starters under contract for next year; Santana, Maine, and Pelfrey. With the injury to Maine, Pelfrey stepping forward and at the least showing he can be a solid #3 guy is huge for the Mets and in how they plan for next season.

This from a guy who was absolutely blasted in spring training by the Cardinals B-team.

I covered that game. If you'd definitively proved to me that you were from the future and showed me Pelfrey's season line, I wouldn't have believed you.

What is the sock puppet thing? Sickels is about the best there is.

I covered that game. If you'd definitively proved to me that you were from the future and showed me Pelfrey's season line, I wouldn't have believed you.

And THIS is why I'm in first place in our league, Howard. :D

Someone please enlighten me on what is so good about Sickels. I want to enjoy his site, but I don't see the good stuff that some of you do. It seems that whenever I go there all I see are Prospect Retros, or Crystal Balls, and when there are actual prospect lists they consist of the list with a grade and a one sentence blurb about the guy. Occasionally there is a profile of a current prospect, bit it's usually just a rundown of stuff I could find out by looking the guy up on the Baseball Cube or milb.com or something.

And, as mentioned here, the last few times I've gone it seems like he hates the site and/or the people who read it. So there's no kind of good vibe over there.

Are the Sickels fans just fans of the book who enjoy the little supplementation from the site?

1: Hindsight is always 20-20, but looking back it's still a bit fuzzy

The thing is though- Pelfrey had ready turned the corner by the time Sickel's article had come out- but to be fair to Sickels it was not yet readily apparent in his stats YTD at that time. His ERA had already gone down from 5.33 to 4.30- he'd had a bad start a week before Sickel's article- but even in that game he LOOKED like a different pitcher than he'd been previously.

I've only seen Hochevar pitch once- I was looking out for that because Hochevar and Pelfrey are usually paired as being similar pitchers- and based upon that one game (plus his stats) was very unimpressed- he is a ground ball pitcher- but NOT the way Pelfrey is- I don't think he's going to keep the ball in the park as well as Pelfrey does- his K/BB is similar, I think he'll likely always lag behind Pelfrey (assuming equal health histories)- but then I'm a Mets fan :-)

And, as mentioned here, the last few times I've gone it seems like he hates the site and/or the people who read it. So there's no kind of good vibe over there.

some of that kind of stuff is almost funny- he's been running updates on his pre-season lists- re-posting his pre-season list along with pre-season grades and discussing what went right or wrong- but invariably one of teh 1st or 2nd posts is from soem guy demanding to know why his team's #1 pick from this June isn't on the list. It's almost like a running joke.

He also used to work for Bill James, and perhaps some of that rubbed off on him- James can be very cranky- and has admitted he doesn't like many of his fans/readers.

Also, I think anyone who writes a blog/column/book/ whatever, tends to get a lot of abuse- I think with virtually every list someone comes out of the woodwork and claims that Sickels is biased against their team- is a fan of a team they hate- etc... That kind of stuff must get tiring.

Pelfrey's turn-around is amazing, and Exhibit A in the case that throwing strikes is what makes for successful pitching. Pelfrey has always had the pure stuff -- velocity and movement -- he's showing now. The difference is that now the movement on those pitches isn't carrying the ball out of the strike zone, hitters are forced to swing at it, and they can't hit it solidly with any degree of consistency. Because his stuff is (as it always has been) good enough -- easily good enough -- to win. But not walking himself into a world of trouble two or three innings every start, or (if he doesn't do that) getting behind most of the hitters 2-0 and 3-1.

But it's not just Pelfrey. This is what the Mets' starters have done since they were swept by Houston Aug 1-3:


Aug. 20: Pelfrey: 9 3 3 3 3 3
Aug. 19: Ollie: 6.1 7 3 3 5 3
Aug. 18: Maine: 5 2 0 0 4 3
Aug. 17: Santana: 9 3 0 0 0 7
Aug. 16: Pedro: 7 8 1 1 1 4
Aug. 15: Pelfrey: 7 7 0 0 0 1
Aug. 14: Ollie: 6.2 6 3 3 3 8
Aug. 13: Maine: 5 1 0 0 4 6
Aug. 12: Santana: 7 8 3 3 2 6
Aug. 11: Pedro: 6 3 1 1 4 3
Aug 10: Pelfrey: 4.2 7 6 6 3 3
Aug. 9: Stokes: 5.2 7 4 4 1 6
Aug. 8: Ollie: 7.0 2 0 0 3 8
Aug. 7: Santana: 7.0 4 2 2 3 7
Aug.6: Pedro: 6.1 4 3 2 3 3
Aug.5: Pelfrey: 6.2 9 2 2 1 3


Total: 105.1 81 31 30 40 74

That's a 2.56 ERA over 16 games, in which the Mets have gone 12-4.

They have done this during the time in which the media (and, to be fair, a lot of us around here) have been bemoaning their imminent doom because of the bullpen and Wagner's arm issues. They, and we, seem to forget that if you get quality starting pitching, you win. When you have bullpen problems, you will lose the odd game here and there in painful fashion, and those games will stand out because of HOW you lost them. But when you have a rotation like the Mets have right now, game in and game out you'll win a ton of games -- consistently. Starting pitching is just more important towards winning.

Not only are the starters pitching extremely well, but they're going deep into games. 105 innings in 16 games: 6.58 innings/game. They're pitching into the seventh, on average, and that's with a damaged Maine and a spot start from Stokes in the mix.

Color me happy.

Sam, other close observers of the situation, how much of this is due to the coaching changes? Any?

I recall Skip Caray made a point once upon a time in the dark days of the Braves (no, not today) when their pitching staff wouldn't/couldn't throw strikes. He said to come watch BP. Sure, there would be the occasional blast that was impressive but a whole lot of the balls hit in BP would be outs were there a defense on the field. If BP can do that, what could a guy who was trying a little harder but throwing strikes do? I've always that that was interesting point. It addresses the lack of pitching in the game today (more efficient pitchers pitch longer), game times, high run environment, etc. Just throw the ball over the friggin' plate. Especially if you have stuff like Pelfrey's but even if you're just Joe Average. You'll eventually have to throw it over the plate, why wait for a 3-1 count with two guys on?

And, as mentioned here, the last few times I've gone it seems like he hates the site and/or the people who read it. So there's no kind of good vibe over there.

If you've read some of the comments on some of his stuff over the years, it's understandable why he might seem to hate some of the people who read it. There's ALWAYS someone who thinks he's biased, that he is unfairly grading some prospect. There's ALWAYS someone who acts like Sickels owes him something, who behaves as if Sickels is charging money for the site. And these people ALWAYS are unable to express their views / disagreements courteously.

And some of the crap isn't even baseball related. To use an example, some time ago, IIRC Sickels' dog died. He posted this. So, people posted condolences etc. Then, some fundamentalist atheists tried to hijack the thread and turn it into a flame war.

And not just on his stuff, until he was forced get people to moderate the site, the amount of flaming, trollery started getting ridonkulous. The majority of threads were descending into huge flame wars, full of trolling, name calling, ad hominem attacks.

What is the sock puppet thing?

Not Sickels. Some idiot posters.

Sam, other close observers of the situation, how much of this is due to the coaching changes? Any?

No idea.

But for two of the pitchers, Warthen has been credited with helping out with specific advice. Pelfrey has resurrected one of his offspeed pitches that Peterson said to forget about - however, his overall success is due to his new pitch-to-contact style that he committed himself to while RP was still here. Perez is credited with a big turnaround simply because Warthen moved his feet on the rubber (a real "10 minutes" cure if I've ever seen one).

Other factors include Santana's customary 2nd half hot streak, and Pedro slowly but surely learning how to pitch again post-surgery.

"Other factors include Santana's customary 2nd half hot streak"

Not to mention he's gained a few ticks on his fastball. Warthen said he wasn't pushing off the rubber which is why he was often 89-91 instead of 90-92.

15. I do agree that the flaming in MinorLeagueBall got to be absurd. JTG/whoever else he said he was set off a sort of bizarre McCarthyism in his wake, too. However, it's hard not to notice Sickels' ... callousness. The site's caused him quite a bit of aggravation, and that's not something to be taken lightly. However, it's gotten to him and he's just cranky about it now. As far as I'm concerned, the worm turned in the recent Giants Top 10 when Sickels snapped on some poster for asking an innocent question.

I still visit minorleagueball, and I will continue to do so. However, it's hard not to notice that John's lost some love for the site.

Getting back to the topic on hand, I still worry that this is somehow a fluke, and that when the Mets build for next year planning around Pelfrey as the no.2/3 in the rotation, they'll get burned. I hope this isn't the case, and I become more confident it isn't every time I watch Pelfrey pitch, but it's still something I'd prefer not to even worry about. Hopefully, he's for real.

Getting back to the topic on hand, I still worry that this is somehow a fluke, and that when the Mets build for next year planning around Pelfrey as the no.2/3 in the rotation, they'll get burned. I hope this isn't the case, and I become more confident it isn't every time I watch Pelfrey pitch, but it's still something I'd prefer not to even worry about. Hopefully, he's for real.

I don't think you'll have to worry about that. The Mets will definitely need to fill Perez's spot in the rotation either be re-signing him or someone similar. The Mets will most definitely be in the market for a frontline pitcher if not two.