poppers@aecom.UUCP (Michael Poppers) (12/18/84)
[]
OK, guys, here are some subjective observations on Mr. Terrell. He has
performed at a .500 level for the Mets over the last few years, which isn't
bad. However, some good coaching of the Craig variety could make him a top
pitcher. He specializes in the slider, and a good game will see him using
excellent control to force hitters to swing at low pitches and ground out.
He isn't overpowering, and thus cannot survive too long if his control is off
and he can't get his pitches down in the strike zone. The addition of a split-
finger to his repetoire could be very interesting, and I hope he succeeds in
CarLand and does some damage to the Yanks. As for "Hojo," bye bye doghouse,
hello platooning!
[][][][][][][][][]
% PERITUS CLAVIS % Michael Poppers
% MACHINAE VIVIT % {philabs,cucard,pegasus,rocky2}!aecom!poppers
[][][][][][][][][]david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (12/20/84)
I doubt whether a split-fingered fastball will add much to Terrell's effectiveness, as he throws a sinker. Terrell is already an effective pitcher; what would improve him is not the acquisition of a new pitch with many of the attributes of the ones he throws now, but rather somehow reducing the frequency of the days he doesn't have control. The sinker is set up by the slider; if he gets the slider over, he doesn't need any more pitches, and if he doesn't, the split-fingered fastball isn't going to help. David Rubin
eliovson@aecom.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (12/27/84)
> > I doubt whether a split-fingered fastball will add much to > Terrell's effectiveness, as he throws a sinker. Terrell is > already an effective pitcher; what would improve him is not the > acquisition of a new pitch with many of the attributes of the ones he > throws now, but rather somehow reducing the frequency of the days he > doesn't have control. The sinker is set up by the slider; if he gets > the slider over, he doesn't need any more pitches, and if he doesn't, > the split-fingered fastball isn't going to help. > > David Rubin As David rightly says, Terrell's control is extremely important to his success, and he only repeats what I already stated. However, control is very much a function of the mind rather than the arm, and a pitching coach plays an important part in both his physical and mental states. Craig may succeed in raising Terrell from the plain of .500 mediocrity both by convincing him of the need to throw strikes, which Stottlemyre couldn't do on a consistent basis, and by either adding the split-finger or *replacing* the slider, a pitch which minor-league coaches in the Mets organization, in my opinion, emphasize too much (witness what happened to young Tim Leary's arm), with the split-finger. If Terrell can't handle the split-finger, Craig can work on the mental aspects with him. Like others on this net, I think that Walt will do better in CarLand, and Roger Craig will be a factor. Michael Poppers {cucard, philabs, allegra}!aecom!poppers
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/03/85)
A .500 pitcher is not mediocre, but rather solid major league material. Moreover, Terrell's 3.5 ERA indicates that his pitching is good enough for a winning record almost any year (the Mets were the least productive NL team in 1983 and just failed to produce runs for Terrell in 1984). Finally, whatever "mind" play is important to pitchers, it comes from within, not from gurus in the bullpen. To summarize, anyone who judges pitching performance based upon won-loss records is just ASKING for trouble. Almost any other statistic (e.g. ERA, innings pitched, or some intelligent composite such as earned runs prevented) is better than which depends more on the other eight players than on the pitcher himself. David Rubin
poppers@aecom.UUCP (Michael Poppers) (01/07/85)
It is quite true that pitchers cannot be judged by W-L records alone,
especially if they usually work in relief. I must repeat that the short bio
I originally gave on Walt was off the top of my head. His .500 record stood
out in my mind because, as often as not, he gave up just enough runs to lose
the ballgame. It is also true that the Mets were not at the top of the list
when it came to run production, but they were getting better, for obvious
reasons, and W.T. could have had a few more wins if he had pitched well when
he did get the runs in.
As to the pitching coaches, I heard a few weeks ago that Craig would
retire and then I thought I read a report that he'd changed his mind. Thanks
for the clarification on his status. However, the point remains that pitching
is 50% arm and 90% mental (misquote of Yogi!). A good pitching coach can
prevent a Ron Darling from slumping in the second half just because he didn't
get selected to the All-Star team ( and a good hitting coach can take a
Darrel Strawberry's mind off L.A. and back onto his hitting -- for an excellent
example, vide Frey ).
[][][][][][][][][]
% PERITUS CLAVIS % Michael Poppers
% MACHINAE VIVIT % {philabs,cucard,pegasus,rocky2}!aecom!poppers
[][][][][][][][][]douglas@noscvax.UUCP (Douglas S. Dickerson) (01/10/85)
I couldn't agree more on the mental aspects of baseball, which is one reason I was so dismayed to hear that both Roger Craig and Gates Brown are not returning to the Tigers. Besides teaching the split-fingered fastball, Craig exerted a fatherly, steadying influence on the mood swings of immature Jack Morris or the paranoid fantasies of Juan Berenguer. (For the interested, see "Inside Pitch", Roger Craig's diary on the Tiger's 1984 season.) Also, Alan Trammell and other Tigers have credited their emergence as batters to the unorthodox hitting method taught by Gates Brown. Furthermore, ballplayers (like the rest of us) can remain distracted for long periods for seemingly unprofessional reasons. Quiet Larry Herndon's subpar year in '84 (.280, 7HR, 43RBI vs. .302 20HR, 92RBI in '83 and .292, 23HR, 88RBI in '82) has been blamed on loneliness caused by the absence (ala free-agency) of his good buddy Enos Cabell. Now that Kirk Gibson has finally actualized a portion of his storied potential, I'm fearful the absence (ala free-agency) of his partner-in-crime Dave Rozema will have a similar effect on Gibson's performance. -- Doug Dickerson UUCP !sdcsvax!noscvax!douglas MILNET douglas@nosc
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/10/85)
Darling did not slump as badly after the All-Star game as his W-L record suggests. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, he lost the first game after it, and then went about seven games without a decision, having left the game with the Mets leading in six of them. The Mets still had the fourth or so LOWEST run production in the league in 1984. That they won as often as they did is a tribute to all their pitchers (with certain exceptions, who are now generally "gone"). I think that the 1984 principle starters (Gooden, Darling, Terrell, Berenyi, and Fernandez) all pitched well, and in fact were the prinicple reason for the Mets' success. David Rubin