Between whatever Harvey has going on, and now deGrom saying hes having mechanical issues, is this normal? For pitchers who have been in the league for several years to be having mechanical problems.
Harvey doesnt feel comfortable, Thor feels out of whack and too slow to the plate, deGrom having problems with his release point. The excuses havent stopped rolling in. I know its early, but I would just once like to see our whole rotation pitch well at the same time. Hasn't happened yet 30 games into the season.
Two pitchers throw gems against the Mets in 3 days
This past week. I know they won the Braves series, but thats not saying much. Started with Thor last Sunday and this team hasnt felt right, aside from the blowout on Monday.
This past week. I know they won the Braves series, but thats not saying much. Started with Thor last Sunday and this team hasnt felt right, aside from the blowout on Monday.
Eh. We've won every series. Hard to call that a rut. There has been a couple weird things happen but Syndergaard and deGrom really only each had their worst performance of the year their last turn through. They've been good for the most part. Obviously, Harvey is a concern.
Looks like the "Ut-Oh Squad" is warming up in the wings.
what I said could happen yesterday ended up happening. Good pitching performance from the Padres, a HR from Myers here, couple hits there... and boom we come away with a L. Im confident we'll beat those bastards tonight though.
be concerned about the offense. It's a long season and the lineup is deep and full of power.
I'm concerned about Harvey and DeGrom. How can you not be? However, the concern isn't panic or anything. Both of these guys are unusual situations considering what happened last year and we're going to have to just sit back and see if they can get it together. Its MUCH more important how these guys look in late August/September than in early May.
Between whatever Harvey has going on, and now deGrom saying hes having mechanical issues, is this normal? For pitchers who have been in the league for several years to be having mechanical problems.
Harvey doesnt feel comfortable, Thor feels out of whack and too slow to the plate, deGrom having problems with his release point. The excuses havent stopped rolling in. I know its early, but I would just once like to see our whole rotation pitch well at the same time. Hasn't happened yet 30 games into the season.
It's EXTREMELY common. The difference between being a good major leaguer and a great major leaguer is often just a tweak. It's pretty remarkable.
and especially about deGrom, he had a bit of a stinker, but his ERA is still sub-2. Harvey is a bulldog who probably just needs rest, which he'll get, I'm sure. Verret is there, Bart is there ... so if Harvey is toast (worst-case scenario, not happening), the Mets are in a solid place, especially with the anticipated return of Wheeler later.
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Their velocity, while they may TOUCH 95-96 once or twice a game, is generally down by a significant amount. Now, im not genius, but is that mechanics related? Or something like a tired arm from all of the innings they threw last year? Only time will tell I guess.
Rea was good last night. He had control and his curve was on point.
However, and not to minimize his performance too much, but he was definitely getting the benefit of a larger strikezone. From what I could see, the HP ump was giving Rea strikes on the inside to leftys that were clearly balls. That can change a game when many of your best hitters are leftys.
However, that may not have mattered since the Padres seemed to luckily be in the perfect defensive position for nearly the entire night. Just one of those games, I guess.
I will say, I thought that the Mets could have benefited from being a bit more aggressive last night. I saw a lot of bats remain on their shoulders on good pitches early in the count only to have them swing at garbage. Sometimes you need to adjust to the game. At least the Nats lost. The Cubs are a juggernaut.
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure. Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: We must be watching different telecasts because
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure. Link - ( New Window )
I love when players say "no excuses" then list an excuse for their sub par performance. He had a bad game who cares it happens.
RE: RE: We must be watching different telecasts because
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure. Link - ( New Window )
Got it. That article is a bit deceptive though. It's more like DeGrom ranged from 92-94, and touched 95 once. And I watched all of DeGrom's pitches.
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure. Link - ( New Window )
I love when players say "no excuses" then list an excuse for their sub par performance. He had a bad game who cares it happens.
Hey, we all know that I hate excuses. But if it's a legitimate explanation (ie, a specific mechanical issue that anyone can see) for why he pitched differently than all the rest of his starts, then I'm okay with it. That's a bit different that dropping general excuses for your poor performance.
The author of that article was going off of Brooks Baseball's readings from last night. According to them, deGrom did throw one pitch at 96.4. Ive attached the link.
Seems like the consensus is that he started off throwing hard innings 1-3 and then it died down after about the third and he was throwing more 92/93. I dont know. I had a business meeting picked on Cinco de Mayo of all nights that turned into Margaritas and then shots of tequila. Im feeling it at work today. lol Link - ( New Window )
The author of that article was going off of Brooks Baseball's readings from last night. According to them, deGrom did throw one pitch at 96.4. Ive attached the link.
Seems like the consensus is that he started off throwing hard innings 1-3 and then it died down after about the third and he was throwing more 92/93. I dont know. I had a business meeting picked on Cinco de Mayo of all nights that turned into Margaritas and then shots of tequila. Im feeling it at work today. lol Link - ( New Window )
I assume you are talking about the comments from that article you posted. Actually, there was one person who stated that his velocity was 94/95 for the first 2, maybe 3 innings...but the consensus was actually that it was more like 92-94.
Someone in those comments also posted the Brooksbaseball.net site that you are using but this was also questioned since that site has their velocities higher than any other site that tracks velocity (their words, not mine). For example, that sight claims that DeGrom had a range of 94-96 but Fangraphs sites his average fastball at 92.7 mph. Those don't match. Mostly everyone commenting in that article disagrees with BrooksBaseball.
it was accurate. I was just stating where the author likely got his info from. Also the commentators dont know what they are talking about in regards to Fangraphs on MMO. The Fangraphs Pitch/FX readings say his max is 95.4. They are reading his average.
it was accurate. I was just stating where the author likely got his info from. Also the commentators dont know what they are talking about in regards to Fangraphs on MMO. The Fangraphs Pitch/FX readings say his max is 95.4. They are reading his average.
I know they are reading his average, where 92.7 mph was the average for his fastball. The point is that you can't have a range of 94-96 if his average FB was only 92.7. Thats all.
After a winning streak, you look to play .500 ball over the next few series. That way you consolidate the winning streak. It's a myth that good teams consistently win series. Good teams get on big hot streaks (7 in a row or 12 of 14) then play .500 ball and then get another hot streak and so on. Baseball is a game of streaks.
So far, since the winning steak, Mets are 2-2. If they go 6-4 the remainder of the trip that will be very good. If they go 7-3 or better, that will be terrific.
RE: Two pitchers throw gems against the Mets in 3 days
I think just bad luck, Wisler & Rea both came with some nasty stuff and completely shut down our lineup.
It's both.
San Diego is an extreme shift team and Rea was pitching to the shift. Mets LH hitters pulled several hard ground balls that would have been singles with a normal defensive alignment but they were outs with the shift.
All the HRs have made the Mets pull happy, David Wright was the only one who had good ABs against Rea because David's a savvy veteran and looked to go the other way when he realized what REa was doing.
So, it was a combination of good pitching and Mets hitters not adjusting.
The only thing that did bother me is Walker swinging ahead in the count 2-0 in the ninth. He needs to get on base to bring the tying run to the plate. He also has not had a hit in four games. He has to work the count in that AB.I think it's a case of his letting all the HR go to his head. He is not a 30+ HR hitter. He has to play his game and draw the walk there, especially since Rodney often has control problems and was throwing the ball nowhere near where the catcher was setting up.
he sat 92-93 and I only remember him touching 94 a few times. Cohen talked about it, but Darling was pointing out that all of his pitches were up in the zone whereas he normally lives at the knees when he is dominating.
So a friend of mine just texted me and says his buddy shot him a message that he heard on ESPN radio "unconfirmed reports" that Cespedes is about to get nailed with a suspension for PED's.
Has to be bullshit, right? I don't see ANYTHING about this anywhere.
Didn't hear it myself, no idea who my friends friend is.. obviously it just scared the crap out of me because it's something that would happen to us.
So a friend of mine just texted me and says his buddy shot him a message that he heard on ESPN radio "unconfirmed reports" that Cespedes is about to get nailed with a suspension for PED's.
Has to be bullshit, right? I don't see ANYTHING about this anywhere.
Didn't hear it myself, no idea who my friends friend is.. obviously it just scared the crap out of me because it's something that would happen to us.
It has to be BS, I literally can't find one single thing about it anywhere. I just wanted someone like Dan or Shecky to shoot it down so I knew for sure.
Yeah, I think we can safely put it to bed. Didn't mean to sound any alarms... I just figured this would be the easiest way to debunk it. My heart just stopped for a second when I got his text like "you can't be serious..." but after a quick look around I realized it had no legs at all and was almost certainly BS.
haven't heard a whiff of this from any of the people I speak to though I will say Shecky actually knows people close to them team so he would know more than me.
to the so-called rumor but who here has looked at Cespedes, watched his play and thought there's no way in hell he's gassed to the gills with some Cuban high test?
Scherzer off to a pretty crappy start also this season
Agree, when the Mets need him to be bad he won't be.
But I saw his contract tweeted about today. Holy crap, if he doesn't straighten himself out:
Year Age Salary
2016: 31 22.1M
2017: 32 22.1M
2018: 33 22.1M
2019: 34 42.1M
2020: 35 42.1M
2012: 36 42.1M
Those 34 - 36 year seasons could be killers.
RE: RE: Scherzer off to a pretty crappy start also this season
Agree, when the Mets need him to be bad he won't be.
But I saw his contract tweeted about today. Holy crap, if he doesn't straighten himself out:
Year Age Salary
2016: 31 22.1M
2017: 32 22.1M
2018: 33 22.1M
2019: 34 42.1M
2020: 35 42.1M
2012: 36 42.1M
Harvey doesnt feel comfortable, Thor feels out of whack and too slow to the plate, deGrom having problems with his release point. The excuses havent stopped rolling in. I know its early, but I would just once like to see our whole rotation pitch well at the same time. Hasn't happened yet 30 games into the season.
I think just bad luck, Wisler & Rea both came with some nasty stuff and completely shut down our lineup.
Eh. We've won every series. Hard to call that a rut. There has been a couple weird things happen but Syndergaard and deGrom really only each had their worst performance of the year their last turn through. They've been good for the most part. Obviously, Harvey is a concern.
Last seen when the Mets weren't hitting home runs early.
Now they've set a franchise record for HR in games to this point.
Please sit down, folks. 162 is a LOT of games.
they're fine.
Today they're 17-10.
Let's not get too concerned. This point on last year they went 20-27 en route to an 8-game losing streak in June that put them at 37-37.
Things worked out, and I think we're in as good, and probably better shape - all things considered - than a year ago.
I'm concerned about Harvey and DeGrom. How can you not be? However, the concern isn't panic or anything. Both of these guys are unusual situations considering what happened last year and we're going to have to just sit back and see if they can get it together. Its MUCH more important how these guys look in late August/September than in early May.
Harvey doesnt feel comfortable, Thor feels out of whack and too slow to the plate, deGrom having problems with his release point. The excuses havent stopped rolling in. I know its early, but I would just once like to see our whole rotation pitch well at the same time. Hasn't happened yet 30 games into the season.
It's EXTREMELY common. The difference between being a good major leaguer and a great major leaguer is often just a tweak. It's pretty remarkable.
Today they're 17-10.
Let's not get too concerned. This point on last year they went 20-27 en route to an 8-game losing streak in June that put them at 37-37.
Things worked out, and I think we're in as good, and probably better shape - all things considered - than a year ago.
And thats the thing... this team isn't going to get decimated by injuries and go 20-27 again. We might seriously win 100 games.
However, that may not have mattered since the Padres seemed to luckily be in the perfect defensive position for nearly the entire night. Just one of those games, I guess.
I will say, I thought that the Mets could have benefited from being a bit more aggressive last night. I saw a lot of bats remain on their shoulders on good pitches early in the count only to have them swing at garbage. Sometimes you need to adjust to the game. At least the Nats lost. The Cubs are a juggernaut.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure. Link - ( New Window )
I love when players say "no excuses" then list an excuse for their sub par performance. He had a bad game who cares it happens.
Quote:
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure. Link - ( New Window )
Got it. That article is a bit deceptive though. It's more like DeGrom ranged from 92-94, and touched 95 once. And I watched all of DeGrom's pitches.
Quote:
In comment 12947949 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:
I did not see DeGrom touch 96 at all. In fact, I only saw him touch 95 once and then 94 a handful of times. DeGrom, from the SNY broadcast, was mostly around 92/93 all night long.
Was going off this article. To be honest I didn't even watch the whole game. I did see him 95 though for sure. Link - ( New Window )
I love when players say "no excuses" then list an excuse for their sub par performance. He had a bad game who cares it happens.
Hey, we all know that I hate excuses. But if it's a legitimate explanation (ie, a specific mechanical issue that anyone can see) for why he pitched differently than all the rest of his starts, then I'm okay with it. That's a bit different that dropping general excuses for your poor performance.
Seems like the consensus is that he started off throwing hard innings 1-3 and then it died down after about the third and he was throwing more 92/93. I dont know. I had a business meeting picked on Cinco de Mayo of all nights that turned into Margaritas and then shots of tequila. Im feeling it at work today. lol
Link - ( New Window )
Seems like the consensus is that he started off throwing hard innings 1-3 and then it died down after about the third and he was throwing more 92/93. I dont know. I had a business meeting picked on Cinco de Mayo of all nights that turned into Margaritas and then shots of tequila. Im feeling it at work today. lol Link - ( New Window )
I assume you are talking about the comments from that article you posted. Actually, there was one person who stated that his velocity was 94/95 for the first 2, maybe 3 innings...but the consensus was actually that it was more like 92-94.
Someone in those comments also posted the Brooksbaseball.net site that you are using but this was also questioned since that site has their velocities higher than any other site that tracks velocity (their words, not mine). For example, that sight claims that DeGrom had a range of 94-96 but Fangraphs sites his average fastball at 92.7 mph. Those don't match. Mostly everyone commenting in that article disagrees with BrooksBaseball.
they're fine.
Disagree. If we lose the series, might as well start making moves for 2017 and beyond.
I know they are reading his average, where 92.7 mph was the average for his fastball. The point is that you can't have a range of 94-96 if his average FB was only 92.7. Thats all.
So far, since the winning steak, Mets are 2-2. If they go 6-4 the remainder of the trip that will be very good. If they go 7-3 or better, that will be terrific.
I think just bad luck, Wisler & Rea both came with some nasty stuff and completely shut down our lineup.
It's both.
San Diego is an extreme shift team and Rea was pitching to the shift. Mets LH hitters pulled several hard ground balls that would have been singles with a normal defensive alignment but they were outs with the shift.
All the HRs have made the Mets pull happy, David Wright was the only one who had good ABs against Rea because David's a savvy veteran and looked to go the other way when he realized what REa was doing.
So, it was a combination of good pitching and Mets hitters not adjusting.
The only thing that did bother me is Walker swinging ahead in the count 2-0 in the ninth. He needs to get on base to bring the tying run to the plate. He also has not had a hit in four games. He has to work the count in that AB.I think it's a case of his letting all the HR go to his head. He is not a 30+ HR hitter. He has to play his game and draw the walk there, especially since Rodney often has control problems and was throwing the ball nowhere near where the catcher was setting up.
Has to be bullshit, right? I don't see ANYTHING about this anywhere.
Didn't hear it myself, no idea who my friends friend is.. obviously it just scared the crap out of me because it's something that would happen to us.
Has to be bullshit, right? I don't see ANYTHING about this anywhere.
Didn't hear it myself, no idea who my friends friend is.. obviously it just scared the crap out of me because it's something that would happen to us.
If true, that would just be so Mets-like.
Ugh.
Sandy has a long history of being associated with PEDs, beginning in Oakland. He also signs guys with a history, such as Bartolo and Bastardo.
So, let's hope this is not true.
We need to take advantage
Agree, when the Mets need him to be bad he won't be.
But I saw his contract tweeted about today. Holy crap, if he doesn't straighten himself out:
Year Age Salary
2016: 31 22.1M
2017: 32 22.1M
2018: 33 22.1M
2019: 34 42.1M
2020: 35 42.1M
2012: 36 42.1M
Those 34 - 36 year seasons could be killers.
Quote:
That is...until he faces the Mets. Book it.
Agree, when the Mets need him to be bad he won't be.
But I saw his contract tweeted about today. Holy crap, if he doesn't straighten himself out:
Year Age Salary
2016: 31 22.1M
2017: 32 22.1M
2018: 33 22.1M
2019: 34 42.1M
2020: 35 42.1M
2012: 36 42.1M
Those 34 - 36 year seasons could be killers.
should be 2021 the last year