This off-season hasn’t gone quite as most Mets fans had hoped, obviously. Many had hoped for an outfielder like Yoenis Cespedes or Jason Heyward, though they knew in their hearts that wouldn’t happen. They assumed someone like Denard Span was in the cards. It was an internal compromise of sorts, aiming high yet expecting a lesser upgrade with which they were just fine. Instead, they got Alejandro De Aza. Even when Mets fans have learned to accept shooting for the moon but expecting less, the Mets managed to find a way to fall short of even those expectations. They’ve made it an art, really.
It would appear that the team is taking a similar approach to the bullpen as they look to add depth to it. It’s an obvious need, as it is every year, particularly the bridge to Jeurys Familia. The key here is that they are looking to add depth rather than making it a strength, something they could have done with a reliever like Darren O’Day. To be sure, O’Day was the Heyward of relievers as far as the Mets and their fans were concerned. It would surely strengthen the team in a significant way, but it wasn’t going to happen. Perhaps they would add someone like a Ryan Madson instead. Well, no. Tony Sipp? No. Steve Cishek? You get the point.
The Mets are, again, looking to add from the fringes to strengthen a part of the team they deemed so in need that they unloaded several pitching prospects at the 2015 deadline to improve it (to be fair, they held on to Addison Reed after trading for him). It’s maddening, really, and a tactic that generally hasn’t worked all that well in recent years. The bright side here is that the team may actually already have a player in their bullpen that may be poised to make the leap into a dominant reliever in 2016: Hansel Robles.
The 25-year-old Robles made his major league debut in 2015 after Jerry Blevins went down with an injury in April. Now, there’s nothing about his basic stat line in 2015 that makes you think “shutdown reliever.” His ERA of 3.67 and 3.91 FIP are nothing special and, in fact, sit near the back of the league. While his 10.17 K/9 rate was great to see, his 3.00 BB/9 was not. In short, and taken as a whole, his debut was a positive one albeit nothing to write home about.
However, his second half was much better than his first half. His second half ERA was 3.16, while his K/9 was 12.06, which is simply phenomenal. He had 23 more strikeouts in just 8.9 more innings. His second half BB/9 of 2.59 was more palatable, though you’d still like to see that come down a bit, and his WHIP of 0.89 was fantastic.
His FIP was worse at 4.41, though his xFIP was much better in the second half at 3.25 vs 4.54 in the first half. This suggests that the spike in FIP was associated with an increase in home runs in the second half. Indeed, he gave up six more home runs while his SLG against is more than 100 points higher. Given that his HR/9 was below one throughout his minor league career and how unstable home run rates are, it’s probably safe to assume a home run rate closer to average going forward and an improved FIP. Still, it’s something to keep an eye on.
For the sake of argument, let’s compare his overall numbers with the numbers of a reliever that received the second largest contract so far this off-season behind O’Day: Joakim Soria.
• Robles: ERA 3.67, FIP 3.91, xFIP 3.79, WAR 0.2, K/9 10.17, BB/9 3.00
• Soria: ERA 2.53, FIP 3.71, xFIP 3.57, WAR 0.4, K/9 8.51, BB/9 2.53
Now, that isn’t to suggest that Robles is on the same level as Soria right now as a reliever. Soria has established himself as a dominant, late-inning reliever and closer for almost a decade. However, these two pitchers had very similar seasons in 2015 and one was just given a three-year contract for $25 million while the other will cost league minimum in 2016. Had the Mets inked Soria to a similar deal, they’d be hailed as finally looking to build a dominant bullpen. Robles has a very good chance to put up similar, and perhaps better, numbers than Soria next year and moving forward.
The fact of the matter is that Robles has the tools to be great, though he has issues he needs to rectify (namely his walk rate and his ability to leave men on base). He has a fastball that sits in the mid-to-high nineties and touched 100mph in 2015 that he complements with a change and a slider that was viewed as above average in the minors. These are the makings of a very good late-inning reliever. The type that Mets fans wished they would go out and sign, in fact. It remains to be seen if that is ultimately what he turns into, but he’s got the tools to get there.
I like Robles…. they have a few nice arms that may emerge.
I don’t have a big problem with leaving some space for their own guys to Perk…and saving some money and prospects to complete the team as needed, in-season.
Very good analysis.
+1
Thanks!
Rob, I love your last sentence (“They’ve made it an art, really.”) at the end of the opening paragraph. Hits the nail on the head!
In comparing Robles and Soria it would be helpful to compare their work in high stress situations. That’s where it really counts.
I do think Robles has a lot of upside to his game.
Everything I saw in the second half of
Last season from Robles said that he is a strong candidate to break out as a dominant late inning guy. In addition to elite stuff, he’s got some moxie, which helps a lot. That said, there is absolutely no reason (well, except that our owners are in debt) not to leverage Robles’ possible emergence to sign one additional dependable bullpen arm and make this a strength. With a potentially weak division in ’16, it looks like they’re banking (see what I did there?) on having *enough* to compete seriously for the postseason, when really, they should be thinking (and spending) bigger than that.
There’s no mystery here.
It’s widely known they’re seeking another reliable reliever with good stuff and track record.
I like Hansel Robles because he throws hard.
But if you’re counting on him to be more than the 6th guy out of your pen, I think you’re asking for trouble.
I’m more concerned about the HR allowed than you are and while we might see some regression, we’re still talking about a guy who allows a ton of fly balls, so homers are going to be part of the bargain. And his hard hit% was up among the team leaders, too. Also, while not showing up in his ERA or the estimators, Robles allowed a high percentage of inherited runners to score.
League average was 29% and Robles allowed 41% of his to score. Ideally, you’d like to be able to bring in the guy who throws 97 with a runner on third and feel like you can get out of it with a K but that wasn’t necessarily so, at least last year.
I’m happy to have him be part of the pen at minimum wage. But he needs to pitch better than he did last year if he wants to be part of the solution once he hits his arb years.
Brian, I agree.
Robles has huge upside, and an edge, perhaps potential closer someday, but for now, really needs to improve and prove reliable under tough conditions and be situationally adept.
In 2015, we just never know which Robles would be showing up that day.
I’m not overly concerned with the home run rate at this point since the sample size is so small and I do expect regression. I don’t believe his 54 innings is enough to come to any conclusions at this point. Even with his high number of fly balls, his 12% HR/FB ratio was still within the normal range for pitchers (with 10% being about league average).
His inability to hold inherited runners is definitely a big concern, though.
The sample size is small but I’m not sure why you would expect regression. Last year the MLB HR/FB rate was 11.4 and Robles had a 12.1 rate. Over the 66 FB that Robles allowed, that difference is about half a homer.
The need for another reliever has nothing to do with performance of Robles – good, bad, ugly, or great.
Even if he’s Mariano Rivera, there’s need for additional depth. Pure common sense no matter how well Robles, Familia, Reed and Blevins pitch. The goal is quality of quantity.
Beyond these 4, are question marks in every current candidate – Goeddel, Montero, Torres, Gilmartin, Edgin, Carlye, Mejia (after suspension) , Alvarez and potential call-ups such as Walters, Smoker and others.
So the pursuit of another go-to guy is what Mets are doing for everyday depth and in case of injury. They’re apparently wanting a solid 5, then fill remaining two in spring training competition.
I really don’t get the criticism in this article. Sipp went back to the Astros. O’Day was over-priced, expensive, 33 and injury risk with that arm motion over the duration.
Mets made three smart moves –
Blevins
Will tender Reed who was already making a nice sum and will cost even more.
And then Bartolo who will shift to the pen when Wheeler returns.
They’re pursuing at least one more whose contract demands are appropriate for the health, age, mechanics, history and current performance projection.
The article didn’t suggest that the team doesn’t need to add another reliever because of Robles. It’s saying that the team, which has issues bridging the gap to Familia, might already have that high-quality late-inning reliever waiting to break out in Robles. If Reed isn’t the answer, and the team is obviously only looking to add that depth via lower end free agents, Robles might be the strongest candidate to fill that role.
I like the approach the mets are taking on may levels.
Right off the bat we are fielding a better team beginning 2016 than we did beginning 2015.
We will also have full seasons of Harvey, deGrom, Thor and Matz.
Players we’ve added improve the team and give our younger players a chance to show they belong (Ie. De Aza doesn’t totally block a Lagares rebound)
As far as Bullpen, we can potentially have a great one already, especially if Robles takes the next step to improve and if Montero is healthy. It also has depth. In a perfect world of heath this would be my bullpen
Familia
Reed
Robles
Montero
Colon (after wheeler returns) / Mejia (after suspension if Colon still starts)
Blevins
Edjin
Depth: Goedell, Verrett, Mejia (after suspension), Torres, Gilmartin (L)
Dan, I like what you are saying, but Edgin won’t be ready until mid-season and Colon won’t be moved to the pen until Wheeler is ready. I think Montero will be allowed to start at AAA to open the season, unless they really need him to round out the pen. That would leave 3 openings in your bull pen in April.
Goeddel was extremely effective out of the pen last year. (2.43 ERA, 2.47 FIP, 0.990 WHIP, 9.2 K/9, 2.4 BB/9) Give him one spot.
Gilmarttin was a true find in the Rule 5. (2.67 ERA, 2.75 FIP, 1.186 WHIP, 8.5 K/9, 2.8 BB/9) You can’t deny him a spot in the pen, unless the Mets want him to return to starting in the minors, since he was a starter throughout his minor league career.
Last spot should go to a new signee.
Robles has the potential to be an outstanding late inning reliever. I think the reason he has given up too many homers and allowed inherited runners to score is that he feels he has something to prove since he was converted to a reliever, and so he challenges hitters in high pressure situations. When he accepts his role and embraces it, he will pitch smarter and his HR/9 rate will return to something like what it was in his minor league career – 0.4.
That said, I don’t think the Mets are ready to count on him to carry the 7th or 8th inning. He will be allowed to mature in lower pressure situations, except where he is needed because the regular late inning guys are not available. Meanwhile, they will go out and get (sign or trade) a legit late inning guy or two later in the off season, as they come available at the price Sandy is comfortable with, perhaps even bringing some in on minor league deals.
There were 108 NL relievers that pitched at least 30 innings in 2015. Robles was ranked 19th in WHIP and 31st in k/9. Those are strong enough numbers to be considered the 7th inning man especially if Blevins is used as a LOOGY. Robles improvement in the second half is a positive sign. Robles main competition should come from Goeddel who was ranked 14th in WHIP and 41st in K/9. If Montero or Verrett are also considered candidates for the 7th inning job (although I prefer they remain starters) and if they pitch better than Robles then they should get the job. It is a minority opinion but I think the Mets are presently strong enough in the bullpen and don’t need to spend any more money there unless they can find a bargain.
That WHIP was produced with a .227 BABIP. I don’t think he comes within 50 points of that BABIP in 2016. Now, that should still leave him with a solid WHIP but it’s going to cut into his margin for error and as it was he was below average in allowing runs, both his own and those runners that he inherited.
Brian, you know that the HR rate that you don’t like, is what lowered his BABIP. If those HRs were merely hits, his BABIP would have been a much more sustainable .291.
How does a High HR Rate lower the BABIP?… maybe not enough blood to my Brain, but I’m missing on this.
HR are not included in the BABIP calculation.
Herb is saying that if we turned Robles’ homers into doubles that he would have a .291 BABIP. While that may be theoretically true, no one who allows a FB rate near 50 is going to go through an entire year without allowing a homer.
It doesn’t work that way, though.
The premise of the article is flawed in that the Mets did “sign” a high overpaid relief pitcher. That guy is Addison Reed.
Reed’s projected salary next year is going to be greater than Sipp, Madson, and Cishek. In fact, Reed’s projected 6 million salary places him 16th among relievers. 16th! Is Reed a top 16 reliever? Is he a top 50 reliever? Considering he was out-righted off the roster earlier this season, I think a case can be made that he’s not even a top 100 reliever.
It seems odd that Mets fans are so up and arms against paying a guy 5.5 million who has been good enough in the last 3 years to be a borderline starting OF, and yet are happy (or indifferent) to pay a guy 6 million who probably should be the 3rd or 4th arm in a bullpen.
I too was surprised that the cost conscious Mets tendered Addison Reed based on two months of work. He had a 1.04 WHIP and 10.13 k/9 in his time as a Met. Robles had a 1.02 WHIP and 10.17 k/9. Reed has proven he is a closer and Robles is learning. Reed received the money because of the timing of the decision and he was controlled. The Mets must see alot in Reed and possibly a similar skill set in Robles. Good point Name. I also see your strong arguement supporting De Aza. I am dissappointed in the signing but it isn’t that De Aza is a bad player. The troubleing sign is that the Mets are paying $11m on these two players that have struggled at times last year. Risky expenditures similar to the Chris Young signing
The premise of the article is only flawed if you think that Reed being tendered a contract meant that the team didn’t need another high-end, late-inning reliever. If you do, and think Reed is that guy, then simply adding some depth would make sense. I don’t think Reed has shown he is that guy, though. Also, they “signed” Reed in the same way they “signed” De Aza and how they’re looking to add another reliever: one year deals with low risk. You weren’t getting a Madson, Sipp, etc. for one year deals.
To be fair, only a small part of the article was flawed, and that was the idea the Mets are skimping on the bullpen to which i pointed out Addison Reed.
Spending 6 million for a reliever is big bucks, even on a one year deal. For non-closers, that’s an insane amount and definitely not low risk.
Edit: Actually, im not sure what point i was trying to prove other than the fact that tendering Reed was a terrible decision.
Always good to have another strikeout arm in the pen. Don’t have enough faith to call him out third guy.