2010 Analysis: Bobby Parnell

During the spring of 2010, Robert Parnell was the backup to the backup to the backup (and possibly to the backup) setup man. The Mets had figured on Kelvim Escobar as the 8th inning guy (before learning the only object he could firmly hold in his hand was a pen to sign a $1.25M contract), but also imported flamethrower Ryota Igarashi just in case Escobar couldn’t grip a baseball, counted on Sean Green as a third alternative, and signed Kiko Calero as their “just in case” setup man – with Parnell penciled in as the “if all else fails” option.

As it was, the Mets quickly found their way to “all else fails”, and Parnell was not quite up to the task. The hard-throwing righty didn’t even make the Opening Day roster, despite showing flashes of brilliance as a late-inning reliever and late-season starter in 2009 (sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Can you say “Jenrry Mejia”?). He began the season in AAA Buffalo, posting a fat 4.14 ERA but an acceptable 1.28 WHIP and impressive 42 Ks in 41 IP through 24 games. He made his first 2010 MLB appearance in a laugher against the Tigers on June 23rd, throwing high heat but requiring 21 pitches to get 3 outs with an 8-run lead. He finished the season with a shiny 2.83 ERA and 33 Ks in 35 IP but allowed a disturbing 41 hits – a concerning issue for someone who can touch triple digits. Without doubt, Parnell was much better at finding the strike zone in his sophomore season than he was as a rookie, but he was also much more hittable. His biggest problem was that when his fastball ran into the upper 90s, it lacked movement; it was as straight as an arrow, reminiscent of the early days of Heath Bell. Unlike Heath Bell, Parnell had no secondary pitches to fall back on, other than an inconsistent slider that looked hellacious once in every ten tries, but was flat and fat in around 60 to 70% of the time.

2011 Projection

Bobby Parnell has a gift that few on this planet own: the ability to reach triple digits on the radar gun. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s also not a guarantee of success – particularly if it a) lacks movement; b) cannot be controlled; and c) has no consistent complementary pitch to keep hitters guessing.

Does that mean the Mets should give up on Parnell? Absolutely not. In the past, the Mets made egregious errors in trading away similarly gifted flamethrowers such as Bell, Matt Lindstrom, and Henry Owens. The bottom line is that young men who throw 100-MPH fastballs do not grow on trees, and if you have one who can come close to the plate the majority of the time, you hold on to him for as long as you can in the hopes that he’ll eventually “figure it out”. Parnell may never “figure it out”, but if he does, the Mets will have an electrifying reliever with dominant closer potential – a type of reliever you might compare to Brad Lidge or John Wetteland. At the very worst, he’ll be on the level of Lindstrom / Owens, which is still a valuable asset in any MLB bullpen.

Read the 2009 Analysis of Bobby Parnell

Joe Janish began MetsToday in 2005 to provide the unique perspective of a high-level player and coach -- he earned NCAA D-1 All-American honors as a catcher and coached several players who went on to play pro ball. As a result his posts often include mechanical evaluations, scout-like analysis, and opinions that go beyond the numbers. Follow Joe's baseball tips on Twitter at @onbaseball and at the On Baseball Google Plus page.
  1. CatchDog November 3, 2010 at 8:59 am
    If anyone in the pen takes a huge step forward this season, I hope it’s this kid. Right after making sure that KRod’s outrageous and ridiculous 17 million dollar option does not kick in for 2012, I’d be seriously grooming Mr. Parnell for the closer role and heir apparent to Frankie Ali.
  2. Mike November 3, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Parnell may very well be the most obvious and visible result of the new regime. Maybe he earns a spot on the 2011 roster, and maybe he ends up at AAA to work on secondary pitches, either way I can easily see him making an impact in 2011. Parnell will be a cheap option going forward. Many in baseball feel like the closer position can be a source of great value, riding a big arm until he becomes expensive and then letting him walk to the highest bidder. What is the point of having an expensive closer when your team is losing most nights? We are stuck with K-Rod, but if Parnell can develop into a good 8th inning guy then it would behoove the Mets to sit Frankie down and use Parnell in the 9th, to both avoid the option and to get Parnell experience in that role.

  3. Walnutz15 November 3, 2010 at 11:48 am
    In discussing Parnell’s situation during/at the close of 2009 — many of us were on the same page, with regard to his situation.

    Like so many others, and as I’ve alluded to in other posts, assessing the Mets’ talent evaluation skills: he was another “force-fit” as far back as 2008.

    They did it with Pelfrey.
    They did it with Joe Smith.
    They did it with Mejia.

    Pelfrey admitted in the media his rookie year, that he “was stubborn”, and “fell in love with his fastball” at the Major League level.

    Smith was thrown into the bullpen because he had a different look; and was over-used before you could even sneeze.

    Hell, Mejia was told to throw only fastballs, at the expense of developing his secondary stuff in the Minors….

    Hmm……pattern developing here?

    Thank God we have some competent people coming in.

    Parnell had nothing in terms of secondary pitches when he first came up.

    His high-octane fastball was becoming more and more predictable — not to mention, with a little less mustard on it, in each appearance.

    He got a bit better at mixing things up this past year….but he’s still got to make the adjustment, in actually becoming a Major League pitcher.

    I’m confident that they’ll make the right decision with Parnell….especially since he’s one of those cheap power-arms that can be worked with; to become highly valuable to someone’s bullpen.

    If only they had allowed him to develop, in lieu of rushing him to teams that were going nowhere.

  4. Joe Janish November 3, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    All good points here — agree 100%.

    ‘nutz, it’s funny … I just went back to the ’09 analysis of Parnell and this:

    “The Mets … inability to make a decision one way or the other regarding Parnell is a symbol of the organization as a whole. It seems no one has the chutzpah to take a stand and stay the course, in any area of the franchise.”


    If all goes as it appears, General Alderson will have that chutzpah.

    • Mike November 4, 2010 at 10:52 am
      In the words of Zapp Brannigan: “You’ll be negotiating with the aliens’ mysterious leaders, the Brain Balls.” [points to head] “They’ve got a lot of brains…” [makes cupping gesture] “and they’ve got a lot of… chutzpah.”

      Here’s hoping Alderson has big… chutzpah.