Synderclock

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I think he's thinking less about the hitting environs and more about April 12, 1981.

I'd be mightily surprised if he can even spell "1981". And I'd lay 1000-1 odds against him ever hearing about Tim Leary, either the pitcher or the drug experimenter. So no, I don't think he's thinking about April 12, 1981.

Frayed Knot wrote: dgwphotography wrote: Gwreck wrote: Pitching this Tuesday at Wrigley. Gee to DL I can't be the only one who's nervous about a pitching prospect making his MLB debut in Wrigley, can I? Eh ... Wrigley's actually a much better pitching park than it's rep suggests.

Jason Isringhausen debuted against the Cubs at Wrigley Field, to much fanfare, what with Izzy comprising one third of the much heralded and anticipated Generation K. Izzy should have logically debuted against the Rockies at Shea, the Mets prior opponent, but Dallas Green specifically held Izzy back one series, confusing the Rockies for Murderer's Row and batshit reasoning that Bichette and Castilla were clearly the present day versions of Ruth and Gehrig. It was too much to expect Dallas to figure it out that the Rockies were pretty fucking tame outside of their historically absurd home stadium that, especially in those pre-humidor days, played like a pinball machine on rocket fuel --- apparently, nobody else in the Mets org back then was there to clear up Green's fuzzy thinking, either. So Izzy debuted at Wrigley, a hitter's park, on a hot Summer day, instead of at home in a pitcher's park against a mediocre road team. Despite making the playoffs that year, the Rockies were 33-39 when they weren't a mile high. Still, it worked out well for the Mets and Izzy. He was excellent in his MLB debut, giving up two hits and two walks in seven innings while striking out six.

Wrigley Field was usually a hitter's park. As a kid growing up on baseball, Wrigley had a reputation as the premier hitter's park in the NL. Some of that was, no doubt, hype attributable to the memorable high-scoring double digit slugfests that would play out a coupl'a times a year when the Chicago wind was blowing out powerfully. Still, Wrigley favored the hitter. Wrigley's dimensions haven't changed in my lifetime, so the stadium should play the same. Ballpark Factor ratings for each stadium are not calculated in a vacuum, but rather, relative to every other stadium. So a stadium like Wrigley can have its ratings change, morphing into less of a hitter's park, even without any alterations to its dimensions, if the newly constructed stadiums, overall, are smaller in dimensions than the stadiums they replaced.

[dgwphotography]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I think he's thinking less about the hitting environs and more about April 12, 1981. I'd be mightily surprised if he can even spell "1981". And I'd lay 1000-1 odds against him ever hearing about Tim Leary, either the pitcher or the drug experimenter. So no, I don't think he's thinking about April 12, 1981.

Considering that was about 2 months before my high school graduation, I'm pretty sure I can spell 1981...

[batmagadanleadoff]

dgwphotography wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I think he's thinking less about the hitting environs and more about April 12, 1981. I'd be mightily surprised if he can even spell "1981". And I'd lay 1000-1 odds against him ever hearing about Tim Leary, either the pitcher or the drug experimenter. So no, I don't think he's thinking about April 12, 1981. Considering that was about 2 months before my high school graduation, I'm pretty sure I can spell 1981...

I know you can. I have reasonable doubts whether Syndergaard can.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I think he's thinking less about the hitting environs and more about April 12, 1981. I'd be mightily surprised if he can even spell "1981". And I'd lay 1000-1 odds against him ever hearing about Tim Leary, either the pitcher or the drug experimenter. So no, I don't think he's thinking about April 12, 1981. Considering that was about 2 months before my high school graduation, I'm pretty sure I can spell 1981... I know you can. I have reasonable doubts whether Syndergaard can.

OK. Now I see what was going on and who "he" was. You're "he". My bad.

[dgwphotography]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I think he's thinking less about the hitting environs and more about April 12, 1981. I'd be mightily surprised if he can even spell "1981". And I'd lay 1000-1 odds against him ever hearing about Tim Leary, either the pitcher or the drug experimenter. So no, I don't think he's thinking about April 12, 1981. Considering that was about 2 months before my high school graduation, I'm pretty sure I can spell 1981... I know you can. I have reasonable doubts whether Syndergaard can. OK. Now I see what was going on and who "he" was. You're "he". My bad.

I think we should throw the blame on Edgy - he started a second page, and didn't quote what he was referencing, so that probably confused everyone.

[Frayed Knot]

And it's partly my fault for misinterpreting DGW's original post as to why we should fear Wrigley as a debut spot for Synderella.

Further thought on Wrigley's rep (deserved, overblown, or somewhere in between) as a hitting haven: I wonder if its slide down the ranks of ballpark rankings is due, not just to better hitters parks in Denver, Philly, and maybe Phoenix, but also as the percentage of day games has decreased? It started, of course, at zero, was originally capped at 18 per/year, is probably around and even day/night split these days and is heading higher.

[Ceetar]

Let's not forget Thor's coming from the PCL, where offense is fairly high.

[ashie62]

It is time. Blow in sweet wind.

[Edgy MD]

[Fman99]

Too bad the Mets are sucking some Syndercock tonight.

[Centerfield]

I have to say, I was disappointed in what I saw.

He has a great fastball but does not locate it well. He missed over the plate way too much, and I thought that he was fortunate to get through 5 innings scoreless. He looked afraid to come inside on hitters, and that allowed them to feel very comfortable at the plate. His secondary stuff is just ok. Maybe my thoughts were skewed by watching Arrieta's curve dominate Mets hitters all night, but I didn't see anything from his off-speed pitches to think any of them could be a weapon. What I liked was that he was not afraid to throw them when behind in the count, but if big league hitters start anticipating that, these will be hit a long way. Both his curve and change up look very flat.

In short, he looks more like Zach Wheeler than Matt Harvey. (Though I think he will be better than Wheeler.)

[Edgy MD]

I think his curve showed up nicely. I agree with you about his spottiness on his fastball though. And agree that he's more Wheeler than Harvey. And agree that he'll be better than Wheeler. His motion is closer to Harvey's.

And that's why I can't go in for this Thorgasm stuff. It sets the guy up to fail and is a dangerous distraction during an important transition.

[Lefty Specialist]

I'll put down that fastball location to nerves, he seemed to be over-throwing a bit. We'll see if it improves. But his secondary stuff was pretty damn good. There were some nasty curveballs mixed in.

He's not Harvey, but nobody is. I'll take 'better than Wheeler'.

[Ceetar]

I'm gonna reserve judgement on if he's Harvey or Wheeler (hell, I'm still reserving judgement on Wheeler) after one start, I suspect Thor is Thor.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

"This Sutton kid's okay, but not all he was made out to be. Nervous, no meanness, no punch. I mean, he's no Drysdale... no Drysdale at all."

The mechanics seem pretty consistent, and he's got a minor league history full of attacking hitters (rather than nibbling/pitching around them, a la le Zack). In a tough road start against a tricky opponent, he wasn't hopeless and was mostly very good. He'll attack hitters a bit more next time, he'll learn to pitch, and-- barring injuries or act-o'-God weirdness-- he'll likely be very good at both.

[Frayed Knot]

Y'know Harvey wasn't exactly HARVEY right off the bat either. I remember it dawning on me (and posted such here) around the 3rd start of his second season that we were onto something special with him. Prior to that there were shirley hints of it but the road wasn't without its potholes either.
I think we may need to take a few patience pills around here.



Harvey's early starts:
1st game) 5.1 IP, 0 runs, 3 hits
2) 6 / 3 / 4 + 3 BBs (L)
3) 5 / 5 / 8 (L)

[Edgy MD]

deGrom certainly took a few starts to gain traction also.

[ashie62]

Now only 4 of 42 MLB Pitchers debuting at Wrigley have won their first start.

Noah had his parents in the stands and had to be nervous.

His mechanics look solid. I believe he will dominate in time.

[Centerfield]

Centerfield wrote: I have to say, I was disappointed in what I saw. He has a great fastball but does not locate it well. He missed over the plate way too much, and I thought that he was fortunate to get through 5 innings scoreless. He looked afraid to come inside on hitters, and that allowed them to feel very comfortable at the plate. His secondary stuff is just ok. Maybe my thoughts were skewed by watching Arrieta's curve dominate Mets hitters all night, but I didn't see anything from his off-speed pitches to think any of them could be a weapon. What I liked was that he was not afraid to throw them when behind in the count, but if big league hitters start anticipating that, these will be hit a long way. Both his curve and change up look very flat. In short, he looks more like Zach Wheeler than Matt Harvey. (Though I think he will be better than Wheeler.)

I had to take my daughter to a birthday party so I missed this game, but from all accounts he addressed all of these points above. I guess it didn't take long.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, he was much more around the plate, with the exception of the unfortunate peg of Go-Go and staying consistently away from Braun after that, until Braun ended up breaking the shutout.

It took some guts for Terry to stay with him after that, but Lagares ran down a deep drive for out #3.