Neftali Feliz’s Future
Courtesy of Jeff Caplan on ESPN Dallas:
“Probably the two questions were: Can [Neftali Feliz] close, and can he start?” [Jon Daniels] said. “You knew that somewhere that arm is going to play. I think we’ve definitively answered one of them. There’s no doubt in anybody’s mind he can close. We don’t know whether he can start and I don’t know if we’re going to find out. We’ve talked about it at some point that we might. We’re not going to close that door, but we’re also not going to speculate on it any more than is necessary. He’s our closer. I would expect he’ll be our closer.”
Knowing well how quickly a development like this can change makes commenting too forcefully a risky proposition. Regardless, the expected initial response here is something like, “How wasteful.” It’s not an indefensible position either. Giving a 22-year-old righty with a fastball that moves like a livid missile a life sentence to the bullpen is not entirely wise. At the same time: what else is Daniels going to say about Feliz while the season is still going on. Announcing that his best reliever with a 2.82 FIP through 100 career relief innings is moving to the rotation right now is just as foolhardy. How about the more nuanced response?
The Rangers have encountered moving pitchers to and from the bullpen before. Look at C.J. Wilson, Joaquin Benoit, and Scott Feldman for examples. Texas is experience rich in these situations and while they are fallible, that wisdom does lend credence to the folks who will defer to their expertise. Besides, their 2011 rotation as it stands today is likely to include the aforementioned Wilson, Colby Lewis, Derek Holland, and perhaps one (or more) of Feldman, Tommy Hunter, and Cliff Lee.
Therefore, there is no lacuna of rotational talent or options available to the Rangers for at least next season. The same cannot be said of their bullpen. That does not mean Feliz remaining in relief is the only option. If somehow the Rangers were afforded the opportunity to swap Chris Davis for Tim Lincecum, they surely would not decline the offer because of their abundance. Answering whether Feliz as starter is worthy of a rotation spot is a difficult task and ultimately guess work.
Before Nate Silver relocated to redder and bluer pastures, he wrote on Jonathan Papelbon and the reliever-starter conundrum. The article is worth reading if for no other reason than the chart. The takeaway point is that a pitcher moving to relief can expect his ERA to drop by 25%. Assuming the inverse is true – and that the percentage has not shifted either way since the publishing date – Feliz’s ERA would shoot up to 3.41, which translates to three-to-four wins depending on the innings amount.
Label that as the best-case scenario for Feliz – in fact, Wilson matched those numbers with far more innings pitched this season – and one without taking into account the Rule of 17’s affect on his strikeouts, home run rate, and batting average on balls in play. Nevertheless, for the Rangers to not shift Feliz at this moment suggests there is something more to their decision besides value maximization within a vacuum.
Durability could be a sticking point. Yes, he’s only 22, but he has 48 starts since the 2007 season began – or roughly 12 per season. His career high in innings pitched is 127 (from 2008) and the next highest is 108 (from 2009). Meaning expecting Feliz to exceed those totals by more than a handful or two next season is probably pushing the boundaries. That goes without mentioning that Feliz pitched multiple innings in only six of his 70 appearances this season.
Perhaps there are questions over how well his stuff translates to the rotation. Batters missed on roughly 12% of the pitches they offered at this season, but Feliz rides his fastball heavily with roughly 80% of his career pitches being heaters. Would taking a few miles per hour off that pitch hamper its effectiveness? Would his breaking pitch be as effective if used more often? Could his changeup develop into a legitimate offering? Of course, those questions are not foreign to most starting pitching prospects at similar ages to Feliz.
There are other immanent skills required to start that the Rangers could feel Feliz is lacking too. A repeatable delivery, clean arm action, and so on. Or maybe it’s just as simplistic as it sounds and the Rangers are falling victim to the availability heuristic. They know that Feliz can succeed as a reliever and therefore it’s easier to envision. That doesn’t jibe with their history of converting pitchers between the various roles depending on skill sets at all, though, and that’s why the benefit of the doubt is in their corner for now.
0
who cares, the giants just won
luck
Scoreboard
If I was Jon Daniels, I’d be very excited.
I take my shot at Cliff Lee in the offseason, and if I can’t bring him back, I turn to plan B. If I can bring him back, Feliz is a closer.
Plan B consists of using some of the money lined up for Lee on a closer. Whether it be trading for Papelbon or signing someone, etc., I need a lock-down closer with experience. He takes the role all year. Feliz is a starter now. Goes through the offseason as a starter, goes through spring on a starter’s routine, and goes into the season in the back end of my rotation. He’ll either succeed, be alright, or pull a Javy Vazquez. If he is indeed awful, I move him back to the bullpen as a relief ace.
i heard roughly the same argument with jaokim soria a while ago. why not see if he can start? he has 3 pitches (though not all plus pitches), so why not stretch him out and find out if he can do it? the problem, though, is that you know he can close, and you have established starters, so why risk injury or messing with success when you don’t need it? IMO, dropping a couple mph on feliz’ fastball will reduce its effectiveness greatly, and his slider isn’t that great, while his changeup really isn’t used that much. if he can vastly improve his offspeed stuff, which he admittedly did not need to do while in the bullpen, then maybe he could start. but again, why mess with success? just look what it did to Joba Chamberlain: relieving=FB at 101mph. starting dropped it to 95-97mph. then injury. now FB 93-95 in relief… and so much less effective. that’s the risk you run trying to force him into a starter.
the Royals have established starters?
sorry i meant that to apply to the rangers. they have some good starters, especially if they manage to keep lee. i dont know much about feliz’ injury history, but i do know that soria has had some elbow and shoulder issues, so maybe that’s why he won’t be a starter, even though he has like 3 plus pitches… i would say that, injury aside, soria has a better chance of being a dominant starter than feliz does.
Plus, if Joaquim Soria became a starter- I’d lose my most liked closer! The dude is filthy. Though, admittedly- since the Royals aren’t exactly hitting the 9th with a lot of leads… might make sense to give him a shot in the rotation if his arm could bear it…
Well, if the Royals weren’t hitting the ninth with a fair number of leads, Soria would not have had 44 saves this year…You don’t have to be a good team to get your closer plenty of save chances.
There’s also Adam Wainwright to consider.
I’ll pass on Feliz as a starter. He just had a Rookie of the Year-worthy run as a closer and is best suited in that role. He has one + pitch (his fastball) which is great for 1 inning.
If Lee cannot be resigned, Texas would be far better served to look for a deal with with someone like Tampa (Matt Garza) or Kansas City (Zack Greinke). Texas has the prospects, they now have deeper pockets and if they don’t get Cliff Lee, it’s not the end of the world. Knee jerking and putting Feliz into the rotation isn’t the answer.
His breaking ball is solid and it plays up because of his fastball. This goes for most elite pitchers in the game. Pitching is 90% fastball command. For most pitchers, everything else looks good or bad based on fastball command.
There’s no reason Feliz shouldn’t be given at least a season, if not two to see if he can start. A great starter > A great closer. If he can’t start, put him in the bullpen. Scheppers should be able to close next year anyways. His stuff could lead to 250+ks a year. He was brought up as a starter in the minors and was fairly dominant. I think it would be incredibly short sighted by the Rangers to never even give him the opportunity to prove his worth as a starter. Plus, Tommy Hunter blows.
How much of it might depend on Feliz’s wishes? He’ll see Lee’s massive contract in the offseason and know that there is a huge difference between the dollars dished out to starters than the contract given to closers.
I seriously doubt that is an issue with him, he’s under team control for a good while.
Any new information on Tommy John victim Eric Hurley? I hear he was pitching in the AFL. Hurley should be near fully recovered but has he lost what made him a well thought of prospect several years ago? I certainly wouldn’t expect him to pitch a large number of innings at any level in 2011 but does he at least look like he can be of some value in the future? At one point he rated over Edinson Volquez by Newburg and Sickels.
Haven’t heard anything, but if he is able to rehab successfully and pitch at some point in the majors again, then I think it’s gravy for the Rangers, who at this point have more options than they may know what to do with when it comes to pitching.
And by that, I refer to Martin Perez and Tanner Scheppers, who are both top prospects in the system. Perez’s ETA may be a year or more away, but he still has TOR potential. Scheppers may be better suited to the bullpen long term, so perhaps transitioning Feliz to the rotation could still be an option, or the Rangers could use a combo of Scheppers and Feliz in the set-up man and closer roles going forward, too.
And with the plethora of options for the roatation, perhaps one of Tommy Hunter or Derek Holland is trade bait for a decent catcher this offseason?
Hurley in the AFL today: 5 ip | 3 h | 0 r | 2 bb | 3 k (74 pitches/43 strikes)
The impression that I’ve been getting is that he’s at least on the right track.
Its “effect” for the noun form of the word and not “affect.” Many people (sadly) get this wrong. Aside from this, a good piece.
“and one without taking into account the Rule of 17’s affect on his strikeouts,”
Look, maybe it makes the Rule of 17 moody. You don’t know! YOU DON’T KNOW HOW THE RULE OF 17 FEELS! (Rule of 17 runs out of house and slams door behind it).
See? Now look what you did.
“Affect” is a noun. Not an appropriate one above, but it’s still a noun.
If it’s the innings workload that is a concern, the Rangers could look to the Cards’ Jaime Garcia as a reference point. Garcia had never thrown more than 104 innings in a season and hadn’t done that since 2007, having just recovered from TJ surgery. He threw 163 innings this season before succumbing to a tired arm and had a (how’s this for coincidence?) FIP of exactly 3.41. He was worth 3.2 WAR for the Cards in 2010 and the Cards anticipate Garcia being able to throw 190-200 innings in 2011. Perhaps Feliz could do that — 160+ innings in 2011 and 200 in 2012. If it’s not a question of how his stuff will translate, he figures to be worth probably 7 wins over just the next 2 seasons as a starter.
It’s ridiculous not to at least give him a shot. He should have started over Hunter, who was as close to a guarnateed fail as you will get as a starting pitcher in the world series.
Many inferior arms start for teams every single day.
Are you actually saying you think Feliz should have started in the World Series after having never pitched even 2 innings during the regular season? If so, that’s insane.
As for Hunter, while he may have not had much of a playoff run, neither did Phil Hughes or C.C. Sabathia. Sometimes things just happen…
Tommy Hunter had one heck of a good season for Texas, despite his playoff struggles. Having watched him all season, I know how hard he works and have every confidence that he’ll continue to develop and become a steady no. 3 or 4 starter in the big leagues.
As for Feliz, I would have no trouble seeing them give him a go as a starter. Just remember, they tried this very thing all during Spring Training this past season and it was a miserable failure. Until he’s more consistent with more than just his fastball, he’ll never be a starter.
If to go from starter to reliever you multiply their ERA by .75, then to go from reliever to starter you should multiply by the inverse (1.333) to make up for their ERA being 25% lower than a starter’s. So take 25% off for starter to reliever. Add 33% for reliever to starter. Assuming, of course, that the effect is the same both ways.
I ran a test with John Smoltz. Using his ERA from 97-9, 2001-4, and 2005-7 these numbers came within 30 points. Small sample size, of course.
Using 33% instead of 25% Neftali’s estimated ERA as a starter would be 3.64.
Re: Smoltz test
I initially used RA for the Smoltz conversion test. With ERA, it was off by 38 points for the first conversion and 31 points for the second. (Low and high respectively).
He’ll be a millionaire before he’s 25. Still a tragic waste of talent in the pen, but I won’t be sending him any care baskets.
I find the innings pitched / durability argument to be precarious. I understand that they are two entirely different people, and that there is an age difference, but CJ Wilson’s previous high innings count was 136…in the minors in 2002. Last year he threw 73 2/3 innings. This year he threw 204 with no apparent tiring. And he made a very sudden change to starting after many years as a reliever. Feliz has been a starter in the very recent past. I don’t know his history physically (have there been durability questions as a minor leaguer?), but he’s not exactly a beanpole and looks like a dude who can handle it to me.
Some will say “wait til next year” on Wilson’s innings increase, but I’m not a big believer in the Verducci effect. It could be a self-fulfilling prophecy that is easily explained by normal pitcher attiriton.
Agreed.
The Verducci effect only applies to starters under 26, doesn’t it?
I believe that’s true; I only used Wilson as an example. I imagine even at his age there will still be plenty of talk about the innings jump.
i get the starter being worth more than a reliever argument, but when will the article be published that mariano rivera’s career was a total waste and disappointment because of how dominant he could have been as a starter. after all, in the early days, a high 90s fastball and great control on the best cutter ever should translate to dominant starter. sometimes a great closer is worth a good bit in the comfort provided at the end of the game. as a mets fan who’s watched franco, benitez, wagner, heilman, k-rod (and i’m sure there were some other duds post-wagner injury), i would kill for a lock down reliever
Um, no. Brian Wilson would have done nothing to save the Mets season. Cliff Lee would’ve been a massive difference. When you broaden your context beyond 5 minutes ago, you might learn something about this sport.
There is no way Cliff Lee would have been a massive difference for the Mets. They were bad in more than one rotation spot and their lineup was worse than two other clubs in their same division. Unless people are competing for 3rd place, that doesn’t scream “massive difference” to me.
With that said, I think we’re all in agreement that a dominant starter beats having a dominant reliever. Well, at least those of us that can count and know 7 > 1.
Though if we wanted to test this, we could put relievers in for the first 3 innings and then put the starter in during the 4rth so they can get the save. ;)
forget this season. the mets were beat up, under manned and bad. However, in 2008, the mets were up in the division when wagner got hurt. from that point forward, their bullpen blew 23 games and they missed the playoffs by 1 game. In 2007, the mets blew 18 saves to miss the playoffs by one game. In both cases, you had teams in the top 4 in the NL in runs, with a starting pitcher ERA that was 5th in the NL both times. However, bullpen ERA of 8th and 13th in 2007 and 2008 undermined them.
Likewise, as great as all the giants starting pitchers are, if brian wilson hadn’t converted 48 of 53 saves but instead converted 30 of 53 like the mets relievers of 2008, the giants wouldn’t have been anywhere near the playoffs.
So I’m not saying that starting pitchers – especially perennial cy young candidates like cliff lee – aren’t as valuable as a great closer. I’m saying that a team with five cliff lee’s that can’t get outs in the 8th and 9th innings will lose. So when you have a known, dominant reliever who you have never seen start like feliz, why mess with something great? While wainwright worked out, joba seems to now be a failure at both.
I think a lot depends on what kind of starter the Rangers think Feliz would be. Is he a #1 or very good #2 or is he just as likely to be a #3 type starter?
It’s easy to trot out the WAR/IP argument as there is little doubt in the regular season he will have more value as a starter (assuming he’s even slightly above a league average starter) – but is this true of the postseason? Simple WAR calculations don’t often work in the postseason (see: Twins, Minnesota) and I wonder if it is better to have an elite closer than a good (but not top of the rotation) starter.
If Feliz ends up as a #3/4 starter he will get 3, maybe 4, starts in the postseason during a World Series run (max of 5). If he’s a #1 or 2 he’s probably getting at least 4 and possibly as many as 6 starts during a WS run.
So I think a lot depends on what his starter upside is. His stuff is great out of the pen, but if he loses a few mph off his fastball and has to use it a little less frequently as a starter will his secondary stuff be effective enough to be a top of the rotation starter? In my view the answer to that question is the key to whether he would be more valuable as a starter.
My understanding is that his changeup is the big issue. Can look great when it’s on, but it’s WAY too inconsistent.
Well, he would obviously work on it a lot more if he was put into the rotation and get a better feel for it.
Having seen Feliz in a starting role in Frisco, he had both a slider and a curveball, to go along with his change and fastball. In AA, he still stayed with a high percentage of fastballs, but did throw a couple offspeed pitches in 3-2 counts. It was very uncommon to see him throw more than 6 innings in a start, which is a concern. He also threw in the high 90′s consistently, which probably attributed to the fewer innings starting. Worse comes to worse, he doesn’t succeed as a starter and gets moved back to the ‘pen.