Report: Pelfrey Is Still Mediocre

PHOENIX, AZ - MAY 6:  Mike Pelfrey #34 of the ...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I read an interesting post by Peter Bendix of Beyond The Boxscore about Mike Pelfrey. Basically, the gist of it is that Pelfrey has dominated bad offensive teams but struggled against good teams. The conclusion is that he hasn’t really figured anything out or turned a corner this season. He’s just beating up on bad teams.

I hadn’t really thought about the level of competition while watching Pelfrey dominate in his starts since May 31st. He looks like he can get anyone out, regardless of their offensive stature. But I’ll certainly be keeping a closer eye on that in the second half of the season.

It looks to me like he’s taken a little bit off his fastball to improve control. He’s throwing a higher percentage of fastballs. He’s mixes in an occasional curveball and he’s throwing a lot of rising four seam fastballs at the top of the strike zone. Those are tangible changes to his strategy over the past month and a half.

Zemanta Pixie
Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in Pitching and tagged on by .

About Dave Doyle

Although I don’t have a degree in journalism, I love writing about the New York Mets. I’m the typical writer without access. My only accessibility to the Mets is sitting in the stands (often the upper tank) and watching on TV like most fans. I’m not a member of the media, just a fan expressing opinions.

2 thoughts on “Report: Pelfrey Is Still Mediocre

  1. Robin Schwartz

    I suppose that beating teams you are supposed to beat is not the start of being able to beat good teams? The writer in question should look up the term gaining confidence.

  2. Dave Doyle Post author

    Robin, Good point. The changes that Pelfrey’s made strategically have worked out great. But I will keep an eye on the level of competition that he faces in the second half. The Mets are starting to count on quality starts from Pelfrey now. So they’ll need him to do some damage against the Phillies, Marlins, etc.

Comments are closed.