The Case for Noah Syndergaard as Baseball’s Best Pitcher
Any half-decent statistical analysis will tell you that Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher in baseball. This is just about inarguable. Kershaw has pitched at an unbelievable level, and he’s been able to do it for an unbelievable amount of time. He has the peak and the track record, so while there have been other great pitchers, there aren’t any Kershaws, by the numbers. This is why Kershaw gets the best projections. Projections are our statistical measures of true talent, and Kershaw’s talent is alone by itself.
I know, I know, Jake Arrieta. And, yeah, I know, Chris Sale, and Jacob deGrom, and so on. I mean no disrespect to anyone else. Kershaw has just had the strongest argument, so I’m using him here as the point of comparison. Because, you see, we have a new potential contender. We’ve all noticed Noah Syndergaard, and people are starting to ask questions. I see it on Twitter. I saw it in Dave’s most recent FanGraphs chat. I heard it on the Effectively Wild podcast. The big question, which seems absurd but improbably isn’t: is Syndergaard now better than Kershaw? Is Syndergaard suddenly the best?
Let me be straight with you: I haven’t decided. Part of me thinks it’s stupid to even consider. The rest of me thinks we could be on to something. At least, Syndergaard does have a real argument. I’m going to lay it out below as I try to talk myself through the issue.
The argument against Syndergaard boils down to: sample size. Statistically, 2016 isn’t yet enough of a sample. As you go further backward to increase the sample, Kershaw has a clear advantage. Kershaw was the better pitcher in 2015. He was the better pitcher in all seasons before that — Syndergaard wasn’t even in the majors. So it would be too soon to anoint Syndergaard as anything, because the track record just isn’t there. There’s nothing wrong with this side of things. This is always a smart position, even when it’s a boring position.
So to argue for Syndergaard, we have to try something else. We have to argue with points that don’t require big giant sample sizes of information. I can think of one. Here’s a recent and very ordinary second-inning fastball:
Look at how smooth; look at how easy. It makes this image all the more terrifying:
We definitely do not need a large sample of data to be able to say that Noah Syndergaard can throw his fastball 100 miles per hour. He can do it seemingly with ease, and he can do it seemingly more often than he could do it a season ago. So Syndergaard has a crazy fastball, and it blows every other heater away. Using Baseball Savant, I ran a search for pitchers with pitches thrown with a perceived velocity of at least 100. Syndergaard has thrown 44 of those. The rest of baseball combined has thrown 12. I forgot to mention that Syndergaard gets a lot of extension as he throws to his catcher. His pitches, then, appear even faster. All right, big velocity, you know this. It’s great, but it’s not everything.
It gets more frightening still. Syndergaard has huge velocity. He’s thrown more than two-thirds of his pitches for strikes. And he has a broad five-pitch repertoire. Brooks Baseball gives Syndergaard a four-seam fastball, a two-seam fastball, a changeup, a curveball, and a slider. Syndergaard throws all of them more than 10% of the time. Despite all the velocity, just about half his pitches are heaters, which tells you how much he trusts the other stuff. It’s insane, and the new pitch you know about is the low-90s slider. Maybe it’s a cutter. It doesn’t matter. It’s reached the mid-90s, and Syndergaard has used it a quarter of the time. If it sounds like it’s unfair, no hitter would disagree with you. Syndergaard has power, control, and diversity.
Obviously, I can’t not cite the numbers. This is where small sample sizes are a factor, but the early returns suggest that Syndergaard has leveled up, just like you’d think. He leads baseball in pitcher WAR. He leads baseball in fastball velocity. He leads baseball in swinging-strike rate. He leads baseball in out-of-zone swing rate. Three of his five pitches have allowed contact on less than half of all swing attempts. Syndergaard has yet to allow a home run. Of the limited balls in play, 61% have been grounders, and he’s yielded more soft contact than hard.
The current profile of Syndergaard makes him seem like an actual god. He’s human, like the rest of us, but if he were a divine being, it stands to reason he’d have numbers much like the numbers he presently has. It’s too soon to pretend like the numbers have stabilized, but they have most assuredly backed up the impression you get from watching Syndergaard with your eyes. The numbers say he’s been as unfair as he looks.
Here’s a quick little cluttered glimpse, comparing Syndergaard and Kershaw. Right now, in 2016, Syndergaard has a 23 ERA- and a 22 FIP-, through three starts. This shows how Kershaw has done over successive three-start runs since breaking in (regular season only):
Believe it or not, Kershaw has 37 three-start stretches with an ERA- no higher than 23. He has just seven three-start stretches with an FIP- no higher than 22. What Syndergaard is doing, Kershaw has done several times. But it’s not like this is Kershaw’s resting level. And Syndergaard is just as much about the scouting as he is about the stats.
This might be the simplest way to put it — coming into the year, Kershaw looked like the best pitcher in baseball, maybe a couple wins in front of Syndergaard. Kershaw, to this point, has looked a lot like himself, so nothing weird is happening there. But Syndergaard sure seems to have gotten a lot better. He’s throwing harder, and more importantly, now he has this cutter or slider at 92 he likes so much he throws it once every four pitches. Syndergaard has seemingly made himself virtually unhittable. So while the projections will take their time to catch on to this, as is their nature, this could be one of those times where we’ve just had a break in reality. Noah Syndergaard’s true-talent level might resemble a step function, and there’s reason to believe he’s stepped in front of everybody else.
Of course things could turn. Of course, down the road, this post could look like an overreaction. A week ago, Vincent Velasquez looked totally unhittable. Then he gave up five runs in 4.1 innings against the Mets. I’m not saying that Syndergaard is definitely anything, but you wouldn’t have been wrong if you thought Corey Kluber was breaking out in 2014. You wouldn’t have been wrong if you thought Jake Arrieta was breaking out in 2014. Arrieta rode a hard cutter to Cy Young contention. Syndergaard has a harder cutter. Syndergaard has a harder everything, and he seems to know where they’re going.
From a scouting perspective, there’s a real argument that Noah Syndergaard is now baseball’s best pitcher. It’s not an argument you can’t argue against, and it’s not an argument that’ll convince everybody, but, think about what it means for the argument to even be able to exist. Noah Syndergaard is just something unreal.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
He’s certainly a lot of fun to watch right now.
As an incredibly pointless aside – I was just listening to this EW as well. This post might be, in some weird domino effect way that every action has a reaction, because of Vincent Velasquez.
1. Vincent Velasquez is awesome for two straight starts, so people tune into his most recent start.
2. One of the Phillies broadcasters belligerently clings onto the claim that Syndergaard is the best starter in baseball.
3. This bold claim gets discussed on EW.
4. The EW discussion creates incentive to further investigate Syndergaard’s recent greatness.
One thing we can all agree on… RIP Prince!!!
Last year after Noah destroyed the Reds, Todd Frazier and Joey Votto both gave quotes saying he was the toughest pitcher they’d seen in the league. So I think there are a few of his victims who would be in the ‘yes’ camp for this question.
The big guy’s almost there right now. Just needs to warm up with the bat.
I am God. Thank you.
There’s no doubt in my mind that he’s poised for a monster year(s). yes, he may be better than Kershaw this year. However, I’m always hesitant to put a label on a pitcher whose nexus is his velocity. We’ll see how he holds up in 5 years time.
My Lexus is my velocity.
Sure. You’re absolutely right. At the same time, he’s also a guy who throws 3 average to elite off-speed pitches and has impeccable control. He’s not just a flamethrower, and seems like the type of pitcher who will learn to ease off when he needs to and ramp up when he needs to, like prime Verlander. Verlander could hit 101 with ease but would stay in the 93-96 range until he needed that extra velo to get the K.
Maybe to this point, but people really love to find the next big thing when the current best is still doing incredible things. Let’s see how Thor vs Kershaw looks in a couple of months.
The thing about scouting is that, while it’s all obsevations, those obsevations s have to be balanced by my other observations and reason. I am watching Thor today. And I watched him a year ago. Both observation s give me insight into the future. Same with Kershaw. My observations of Kershaw give me one picture that, my observations of Thor, two. Thor is noisy. Even scouting is noisy.we have to account for the noise.
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/chris-archer-is-the-games-best-pitcher/
patience.
It’s a good thing he immediately brought up sample size then. Did you even read the article before your usual whining?
So he didn’t say the following?
“The big question, which seems absurd but improbably isn’t: is Syndergaard now better than Kershaw? Is Syndergaard suddenly the best?
Let me be straight with you: I haven’t decided.”
He hasn’t decided; meaning he can not clearly state that Kershaw is better than Syndergaard. That is absolutely hilarious.
How’s that hilarious? Can you definitively say Kershaw is better than Syndergaard? Everybody knows he hasn’t proved himself over enough games, but that doesn’t mean Syndergaard isn’t the better pitcher. It just means we need to see him do it longer to change our minds.
Think of it this way, if at the end of the year Syndergaard kept up this performance, he would be the best pitcher in the game. You would look back at April and say that’s when he became the best pitcher in the game, the only difference is you would have the full season to back it up.
I think in terms of pure stuff Syndergaard is clearly the best. He just needs to prove that he can maintain and control it.
There is a lot more to pitching than stuff.
If this article had said “Syndergaard has the best stuff in baseball” I would not have argued.
Yes, I can definitively say that Clayton Kershaw is better than Noah Syndergaard. Kershaw, as the article points out, has had 27 stretches in his career already like Noah is having right now. 27. Kershaw might be one of the three greatest pitchers baseball has ever seen. It’s absurd to even compare the two.
Come on man, Kershaw isn’t even one three best pitchers of the last 25 years, much less ever. Pedro, Unit, and Clemens were putting up Kershaw numbers in greatest offensive environment of the modern era. Some guy named Maddux is waving hello as well.
Pedro is the only one I would say was “better.”
At 28 years old Randy had accumulated 7.6 bWAR.
At 28 years old Kershaw has accumulated 47.9 bWAR
Randy clearly went on to do dominant things late in his career – I would argue it’s very possible Randy was assisted late in his career, but ignoring that even, at this point in their careers there is no argument who was a better player.
Clemens I’m not even going to give the time of day to argue. Before Clemens starting taking steroids at 33, he had 4 straight years with FIPS of 3.69, 3.62, 4.2, 3.43. Clemens was every bit as good as Kershaw up until 28 – he was arguably even a little better – and in theory Kershaw could fall off in a similar fashion, but I refuse to give Clemens credit for years in which he clearly cheated.
Pedro is >> Kershaw, but for me Pedro is already a top 3 SP in the history of the game.
It’s funny, I was just talking about this. Both Clemens and Johnson haven’t really, by straight performance rate, been significantly better than Kershaw, but both have much better WARs because they threw more innings each season. Could Kershaw throw that many innings if his manager let him? Is it fair to hold that against him. In any case, neither have been significantly more effective.
Pedro and Maddux I think you could say sustained performance above what Kershaw is doing now. But like RF says, both are probably top-5 pitchers overall in all of baseball history.
The Johnson-Maddux-Pedro-Clemens era was actually pretty unusual. All of those guys are legit top-10 all-time pitchers easily, and probably more like top-7 or so. Go back from them and you can find long stretches where there is 1 or 0 pitchers comparable to those guys.
Yes, you absolutely can say that Kershaw is a better pitcher than Thor, lol. Give me more than 4 starts that are better than Kershaw’s and you might be able to make an effective point.
I did a quick study of pitchers who had the most seasons with 150+ ERA+. Maddux had 9 (out of 11 seasons between his 26 and 36-year old seasons); Clemens had 9 (between 23 and 42 year old seasons*); Randy had 8 between 30-40 year old seasons; Pedro had 6 between 26-35 YO seasons; Kershaw has 5 between 23-27 YO seasons and is showing no signs of slowing down.
Pedro’s AVERAGE ERA+ in his great seasons was 221.5. Maddux’s average was 190.8.
The next highest after Pedro in MLB history for anyone with more than 3 great seasons is Walter Johnson at 205.3 (8 great seasons).
It seems safe to guess that Kershaw might have four more 150+ seasons in him before he retires. You can argue whether Pedro’s great 6 seasons make him the best ever because he was so much better than anyone else at that time. Maddux’ 9 great seasons give him a lot of ammo. Big Train’s 8 too. Lest you think I skipped him, Lefty Grove comes in with 10 such seasons, most all-time.
@Bip – you make a great point about Kershaw and his innings pitched. With the emergence of deeper bullpens and awareness of the TTO penalty, I don’t know if starters will ever pitch as many innings per start as in the Clemens/Johnson era. But if the mindset today were like it was 20-30 years ago, I’d imagine Kershaw would get 25-50 more IP per year, and have a positive WAR even allowing for a TTO penalty.
Also, I just marvel at Randy Johnson’s incredible durability, considering his height and how much extra maintenance that must have meant for his mechanics. Here’s how his age 30+ performance stacks up all-time:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=1871&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=30,58&filter=&players=0
@Rational Fan In one reply, you stated “Kershaw might be one of the three greatest pitchers baseball has ever seen.” Kershaw is a phenomenal pitcher, no doubt about it. But probably not (yet) one of the three greatest pitchers of all time.
Here are some lists of pitchers who are in my mind ahead of Kershaw – i.e., to whom Kershaw’s body of work has yet to catch up and surpass.
Top 5
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1714168-the-5-all-time-greatest-mlb-pitchers/page/6
1. Tom Seaver
2. Bob Gibson
3. Randy Johnson
4. Steve Carlton
5. Bob Feller
Top 30
http://fansided.com/2014/12/28/mlbs-top-30-starting-pitchers-time/
To his credit, Kershaw is one of 5 honorable mentions before the above article goes on to their top 30.
Top 100
http://www.freewebs.com/stlcards2/
Kershaw is #74 on that list, one spot short of that writer’s “Personal HOF Cutoff”
Again, I am not saying Kershaw is not destined for top 10 all time and maybe top 5 or top 3 all time. But to say that now is hyperbole.
Ironic that you allude to small sample size by citing a single example of a previous prediction that failed.
Hint: you’re not the smartest guy in the room. Stop trying to be. You’re not impressing or fooling anybody. Keep the worthless spew you call an opinion contained within your putrid maw.
As a recent fangraphs article noted, basically Thor is Aroldis Chapman over 6-9 innings, with a greater repertoire and sans the dv charge. He’s my favorite player to watch right now.
Yup. Aroldis with a curve and a two-seamer. For 7 innings. Let’s just enjoy it folks.
He actually has 5 ridiculous pitches. The 4-seam fastball. The insane cutter/2-seam fastball. The “hammer” (curveball). The low 90s changeup (lol). And the Warthen slider, which he learned last September and throws in the low to mid 90s.
Cutters and two-seamers are pretty different.
Yeah they break in opposite directions. A cutter to a lefty hitter would obviously break inside. A 2-seamer to a lefty hitter would tail down and away. If anything, Thor’s slider, because it’s thrown so hard, would probably get mislabeled as a cutter by tracking systems.
I’m a Cubs fan who’s watched Arrieta close up the past couple of years. I’ve also drafted Kershaw and Syndergaard in my Strat League (which means nothing other than I’ve followed them closely). It’s clear to me that Kershaw has been and still is baseball’s best pitcher. It’s pleasant to see that Arrieta’s workload from last year hasn’t effected him… I’m now comfortable in saying his peak is as good as Kershaw’s peak… but Kershaw has been pitching at this current level for twice as long, and was still an ace before he reached this level a couple of years ago. Thor could very well match both, but he hasn’t yet. I’ll admit I have health concerns for both Arrieta and Thor. And there’s a few other great pitchers that I haven’t mentioned but I’m sure other people are thinking about.
Should you be? Kershaw’s last two seasons had FIP- of 49 and 52, Arrieta’s career best is 60. Arrieta’s career best SIERA was 2.75 last year, something Kershaw has blown away each of the last two year. The only place Arrieta looks close is ERA-, and one season of that doesn’t imply that was ever his true performance level.
Don’t take my Cubs fandom as an indicator of any homerism. I’d rather have Kershaw on my team. I’m always arguing with my fellow Cubs fans that Kershaw is better… but it certainly feels that Arrieta has matched or is very close “right now”. Or let me say it this way… he stepped things up in the middle of the season, and it feels like it’s carried into this season… the streak he’s on is pretty close to Kershaw. But yes, I think Kershaw is better.
I’m not, I just don’t think there is much case to be made that Arrieta has matched Kershaw’s peak.
I’m not taking your Cubs fandom as an indicator of any homerism. I’m taking your statement as incorrect. And yes, I just watched Arrieta throw a no-hitter.
Arrietta last 24 starts he has a .87 e.r.a. now fip might not appreciate it but rwar certainly would. And remember syndergaards argument only comes from stuff and an even smaller sample.
It will be a fun year watching Sale go 24-4 with a Sub 2 ERA in the AL while everyone salivates over Thor and Arrieta.
It must be nice to pitch in an inferior league. Somehow that is never taken into consideration in these debates.
Wow! Seriously, what makes you Sox fans so bitter?
Bitter?
I just think it’s funny that a guy who k’ed 12 per 9 in the AL last year, almost struck out 300, and has had a great start to the year is overlooked because someone had a great 3 game stretch. Syndergaard is not Chris sale.
Great start to year =/= Noah Syndergaard’s start to the year.
Sale hasn’t had the privilege of facing the Phillies and Marlins.
Sale has pitched one more game than Syndergaard, and the emphasis on the league he plays in seems pretty important.
Sale K’ed nearly 12 per 9 and didn’t get 2 free strike outs a game from pitchers. I am not sure how much more dominant your stuff can be than that. But because he does not throw 100, his stuff isn’t as dominant? I just don’t understand the argument. Sale has, by design, varied his velocities and doesn’t reach back as much as he used to; he “pitches” now, as opposed to throwing. The adjustment he made this year was that he wanted to go deep into games, not into counts, so he has attacked more early in the count trying to induce weak contact while not trying to strike everyone out. He has learned how to pitch. He could still reach back and throw 97-99 MPH, he just doesn’t need to. He’d rather put heavy sink on his fastball and movement than straight velocity.
Velocity matters, and it is fun to watch, but it does not dictate who is a better pitcher and it doesn’t dictate who has more dominant stuff.
Almost 300? He had 274 and had a 4.33 era in the second half.
For the season Sale had a 1.09 whip and 3.41 ERA, Thor had 1.04/3.24…
And that was Thor’s rookie year. He stuck as a starter right away. Sale bounced in and out of the bullpen his first two seasons and wasn’t a fulltime starter until his third year.
Nobody has said Sale isn’t good or isn’t elite. This same site has said that Sale is probably the best pitcher in the AL… when he’s on, I can’t argue with that.
But this article is about a guy who can throw 100 with a 95mph slider with a couple of other elite pitches and can command them all. Instead of taking this article as a slight towards Sale, why don’t you take it for what it is… a guy who can pitch like a reliever, but do it as a starter?
And for their career, Syndergaard has the higher K/9 rate…
Yes Curious George, Sale pitched in front of the worst defense in baseball, in a very hitter friendly ballpark, and he pitched in the AL.
He also had a 2.58 FIP to Thor’s 3.25. He also had double Thor’s WAR. To compare their seasons last year does not make sense.
Sale didn’t bounce in and out of anything. For starters, Sale spent about 3 weeks in the minor leagues – not years. When he was called up his rookie year, just a few months removed from college baseball, he pitched out of the bullpen. His first full season he was in the bullpen – never made one start. He was then put in the rotation and has made one single relief appearance since his first full year so I don’t know how he “bounced” around.
Also, what third elite pitch does Syndergaard have? He throws his slider 92, which is filthy, but he’s certainly not averaging 95 MPH.
As I said, this isn’t a slight at Syndergaard at all, it’s just funny that a site predicated on sample size and advanced metrics would salivate over a guy after 3 starts in April; two of which vs shit offenses…. so much so that the author says he can not decide who is the better pitcher between Kershaw (one of the greatest of all-time and he’s in his prime) or Thor who was the third best arm in his own rotation just one year ago.
Yes George, playing in the NL sure helps K/9. I would guess when adjusted for league, Sale’s is higher.
You’re right. Chris Sale has been better than Syndergaard. But he’s also never been as good as Kershaw… which is what this article is about. I don’t think Sale can match Kershaw’s level until Kershaw declines, and I pointed out his second half as a reason why. I am one of the 75% of voters who chose Kershaw as the best pitcher. I don’t think Syndergaard is as good as Kershaw, but I believe if he stays healthy he could be. So yeah, give Sale a higher floor than Thor because he’s already a proven ace. Nobody can argue that. But I do believe that Syndergaard with his ability to throw as hard as anybody, with his command, and is willing to throw his secondary pitches half of the time, has a chance to top Kershaw. That’s what this article is about. Basically, yeah Sale is probably/most likely better than Syndergaard right now, but I don’t think Sale can match Kershaw, and Syndergaard has a chance. And notice I’m a Cubs fan and haven’t brought up Arrieta’s name once.
Sale gets plenty of love. He’s probably a Top 5 pitcher in the sport. However, he’s older, throws slower, has a less diverse repertoire, and hasn’t struck out nearly as many this year as Syndergaard. If a GM had to build an organization around either Sale or Syndergaard, 30 GMs out of 30 would pick Syndergaard over Sale.
Sale is 27 years old.
How does he have a less diverse repertoire? Sale has an elite fastball, slider and change-up.
Syndergaard has two elite pitches, and a functional change-up.
Lol if you have actually read the article you would know that syndergaard has 5 above average pitches. As for that change up. IT IS A 92 mph CHANGE UP
How dare we enjoy thing when we should be enjoying other thing
I love Syndergaard and I certainly enjoy watching him pitch…. but making comments like:
“The big question, which seems absurd but improbably isn’t: is Syndergaard now better than Kershaw? Is Syndergaard suddenly the best?
Let me be straight with you: I haven’t decided.”
Is laughable. The guy has made 3 starts, 1 against the Phillies and another against the Marlins at that, and he has looked great. It is THREE starts. Asking if he is better than Kershaw is even more absurd than the dismissal of someone like Sale or Arrieta from the conversation. Syndergaard hasn’t made it into the 8th inning in a single start, and made it into the 7th once.
Great young talent. Great stuff. Fun to watch, but not deserving or worthy of “the best pitcher in baseball label” because of 3 starts in April. Sorry if that offends someone.
I’m not arguing on whether he is the best of not but it’s not just three starts. He pitched half the year last year and into the playoffs. He also faced the Royals this year and struck out 9 through six.
The marlins are not a nothing team. And besides aren’t dominant pitchers supposed to dominate weak opponents. I’m not sure how that fits into your argument.
He pitched a little more than half of last year, and he was very good, but he wasn’t even the best arm in his own rotation last year; let alone all of baseball. He was very good, but if we are using last year in the argument, it sets Syndergaard even further behind the other elite pitchers in the game. The entire basis of the argument that he is the best in baseball is predicated around the first three starts of this year; to me, that is crazy.
You can write positive things about the guys dominance, and how much fun he is to watch, without clickbaiting and exaggerating his greatness by proclaiming him as, potentially, the best pitcher in baseball already.
Thor is not Kershaw. Thor is not Chris Sale. Thor is not Arrieta. That is not a knock on him at all.
Yeah Miami’s offense is actually pretty good. And it was a cold and extremely windy.
Nonsense. Harper’s clearly a better hitter than Miguel Cabrera and Joey Votto, even though those guys have been doing it for years. You don’t need a giant sample size in certain cases to appreciate budding greatness. Has Kershaw had the better career? Unquestionably. Will Kershaw definitely have the better 2016? Maybe. Maybe not. And nobody would actually be surprised if Thor outpitches him this season. So it’s not “laughable” at all.
If you go back to Syndergaard’s rookie year, you can seem him get better over time and it shows up in the stats. Counting his 3 starts this year, in his last 19 starts, 125.1 innings, he has a 2.59 ERA, a 0.93 WHIP and 10.5 K/9.
In his last 10 starts (7 last year), his ERA is 1.29, WHIP is 0.86 and K/9 is 10.4.
Obviously he needs to keep doing this (on some level) to be considered great. But he only has 27 big league starts to his name. 19 of them have been very good and the last 10 have been phenomenal. Let’s see what the next 30 look like.
Absolutely Dave, but before Rodon’s embarrassment of a last start, in his previous 10 starts he had a 1.29 ERA (somewhere around there).
Every good pitcher in baseball is capable of a dominating 10 start stretch.
Greatness – or the greatest – to me is dictated by consistently being great.
Being the best pitcher in the world DOES NOT mean you are guaranteed to be the best pitcher every single season… a lot of things can happen, variance can sneak up on you etc etc. What it means is you are the most likely to have the best season; there are a lot of great pitchers in the game. Kershaw is more likely to have a Cy Young season this year, just as I feel he is next year. I think the innings alone this year – Thor lucky to get to 200, and Kershaw around 230+ – makes Kershaw much more likely, on it’s own, to have a better season. That isn’t even delving into the other aspects of the argument either.
100% agree! My only point was to say that Thor’s still small sample size is larger than 3 starts, and as a percent of his Major League career, he looks like he could be special. Add in his stuff (I saw that in his last start something like 13 of his first 14 fastballs were over 100mph) and it’s something to get excited about.
My argument quite a bit above is that Kershaw is closing in on being included in the argument for best ever. Give him 4-5 more seasons like his last 5 and he’ll be up there with Pedro, Big Train, Maddux et al. Putting Syndergaard on that level is silly. But I still want to watch every start he has.
After commenting all day on this, it seems that we’re all actually pretty close in judgement. I think some of us are looking at it as a more “grey” argument, and some are more “black and white”… like it’s more semantics than anything else. Obviously it’s too soon to drop the “best pitcher” label on Thor… but at the same time he could actually be pitching better than anybody right now… we just won’t know for several months if this is a hot streak or his new level. At one time it was silly to call Kershaw the best… and then he was… then it was silly to call him an all time great… and now potentially he is… This very well could be the beginning of Thor’s ascension… or he’s dominated some shitty teams. If you look at his last couple of starts, he’s been unhittable through 5 and then bunches a few baserunners… so in my eyes, there’s still room to grow… but if he does something like Scherzer did last year and throw a no hitter followed up by a one hitter, that’s not a total shocker either.
“And, yeah, I know, Chris Sale, and Jacob deGrom, and so on. I mean no disrespect to anyone else. Kershaw has just had the strongest argument, so I’m using him here as the point of comparison.”
Read the article before complaining.
I read the entire article. I even quoted the article. Nice try though.
He said he has not decided who is better between Kershaw and Syndergaard… you can not hide behind small sample size later on in the article, but state early on that you think Syndergaard may be better.
I am not complaining either; I am generating discussion.
The only discussion coming out of this is that you should pull the stick out of your ass. Go write an article about Sale if you want. It was clearly prefaced why a comparison was made with Kershaw for a simpler analysis.
Thanks for the discussion… it has been good 🙂
I have pointed to the absurdity of him being better than Kershaw over and over again in this same discussion.
Maybe you are the one who should try reading. Enjoy the rest of your Thursday.
We have to pass the time at work somehow George ha.
Have a good one.
I’m responding to a post complaining about lack of Sale inclusion in the discussion. This is what you brought up specifically in your opening post.
Yeah, since I was the original replier, what CM52 is pointing out is the reason why I said anything to begin with. The original post came off as whiny, even if that was unintended. A couple more good starts by Sale, and there will be a lot more talk about him, too. But what you predicted for Sale isn’t something he’s done before, neither the record, nor the ERA… so one could say that’s just as absurd as saying Thor is better than Kershaw. Anyway, reading the rest of your comments, Rational Fan, I can see where you’re coming from, but you’re original post did sound like a typical whiny Sox fan wondering why his guy isn’t getting attention. Good discussion 🙂
It’s like resting bitch face Brian; us White Sox fans have been slighted so much in our own city and by the National Media we just naturally sound whiney haha.
You’re whining. Not generating discussion. You’re also missing the point of the article. The article pretty clearly states that Kershaw has had the better career but Thor might have the better 2016. That’s not actually surprising to anyone.
Lol, “we White Sox fans have been slighted.” Are you so upset that no one has written an article saying how Sale is the second coming? This article is about Syndergaard plain and simple. Why is it such a bad thing to postulate how good he can be. It was very clearly stated that SSS are in affect and that there are other pitchers that may be better in the long run. You come across as petty, like your feelings are hurt.
I wish this was a gambling site.
I’d take Kershaw at 1-1 to win the Cy Young over Syndergaard this year for any amount of money.
Thor will be lucky to pitch 200 innings this year, Kershaw will throw 230-240.
Kershaw will have a better 2016, just like he had a better 2015 and just like he’ll probably have a better 2017.
I’ve got to say something about feeling slighted… this isn’t directed at you, just Sox fans in general. Sox fans don’t want to hear it when people give them crap for not showing up to the park… but then Sox fans get whiny when they feel their team isn’t getting the attention they think it deserves. I live in the city, so for years I’ve heard all the excuses about the blue seats, the upper deck, the neighborhood, transportation, Frank doesn’t smile, etc. I’ve listened on the radio when hosts have tried to give them time to discuss the team, but all they do is bitch. I kinda feel like Sox fans bring this upon themselves. They never seem happy about anything. I’m 40. My parents moved to IL from WI when I was 2. My dad is a huge baseball fan and took us as kids to both Old Comiskey and Wrigley. Something in the air about that team. I naturally became a Cubs fan. Just a happier place. Sometimes I wonder why Sox fans spend more time hating the Cubs than they do liking their own team. I wish you guys well. It’s a joyful game. I hope you guys can enjoy the season ahead.
I’ve often found that individuals who use the word “absurdity” to describe another’s position have limited ability to empathize or see other viewpoints. Discussions with those individuals rarely bear fruit.
In regards to the attendance thing; I’ve never really cared much about attendance. I like my team because it was something I always enjoyed with my family; whether my parents, uncles or etc. They were all south-siders. Billy Pierce was my dad’s little league coach in Evergreen Park – Jerry Crowley, Pierce’s son in Law, was my dad’s best friend before he tragically passed. I grew up around the team and I am definitely one of the optimistic ones. I agree, that in general, they are a pessimistic bunch, but I don’t like the Sox because of others, I like them because of my life experiences.
That said, I work a lot, but I have still been to 3 games this year – I was at both Monday and Tuesday games this week. The best part of being a Sox fan is sitting front behind the Angels on-deck circle for $70. I take advantage of the lack of attendance by acquiring great tickets for cheap. I root against the Cubs because it is fun, but my focus is mainly on the White Sox success. Rivalries are an enjoyable part of athletics.
League has nothing to do with Syndergaard throwing 95 mile-per-hour sliders. It has nothing to do with the quality of Syndergaard’s overall stuff. Yes, of course, the league factors into the statistical results, but you’ll notice this article mostly is *not* about said results. It’s the stuff that’s important. The stuff is why this is even a conversation.
I agree that Syndergaard has the best stuff in baseball.
I do not agree that Syndergaard has an argument for the best pitcher in baseball.
There is a lot more to pitching than raw stuff. Kershaw’s greatness is tied as much into his ability to pitch as it is to his overall stuff. There is an art to pitching.
I appreciate the response and clarification to your point.
“Clarification” would imply it was unclear to anyone but you.
There is a very big difference between “best stuff in baseball” and the “best pitcher in baseball.”
Syndergaard’s clearly better than Kershaw in his 2nd season, fwiw, and his rookie numbers crush Kershaw’s, in addition to his better stuff. Apples to apples, Syndergaard has been better so far, relative to time in baseball and age.
And what do you think was used throughout the entire article? This really wasn’t that difficult.
“So to argue for Syndergaard, we have to try something else. We have to argue with points that don’t require big giant sample sizes of information. I can think of one. Here’s a recent and very ordinary second-inning fastball”
“From a scouting perspective, there’s a real argument that Noah Syndergaard is now baseball’s best pitcher.”
There’s nothing “apples to apples” about that. Syndergaard was between ages 22 and 23 in his rookie season, Kershaw was 20. Kershaw’s age-21 and age-22 seasons were worth more fWAR and fWAR/IP that Syndergaard’s rookie season, in which he was older. 2015 was Syndergaard’s 6th professional season, and Kershaw’s rookie season was his 3rd. Syndergaard has had 3 starts in his second season, hardly enough to say exactly what he is right now.
So, no, Syndergaard has not been better than Kershaw at either the same real age or the same baseball age.
Paqza- Kershaw was in the majors at 20. Noah debuted just before turning 23. Kershaws first 2 yrs were more impressive simply because he was so young and finishing his development in the bigs.
Incidentally, his first 95 MPH slider this year was thrown to an American League hitter – a DH, in fact – playing in an American League park.
So, back in the old days, when you posted silly comments like this, another comment would appear with the name “Rational Fan” saying that lol how have we not figured out that there are multiple people posting with that name? Implying someone was taking your name to troll you.
What is your excuse this time?
I don’t need an excuse. People seem to take this comment section pretty seriously.
This is good banter for me; nothing more. A nice way to pass sometime at the office that doesn’t consist of staring at excel sheets all day.
It’s just a little strange that you have felt the need to disown your own comments in the past. I like this comments section, since the quality of discussion is generally very high. You’ve done things in the past the make we want not to take you seriously. It’s just kind of a shame, that’s all.
You could make a real point about Sale being underrated without doing it in a way that feels like trolling. It makes me wonder if you care about the topic at all or if you just like the theater. I like the content of the discussions, and if you don’t, I’ll just make a note not to engage with you.
Rash – please stop by my office when you get a chance.
Thanks.
I don’t know what you mean by disown. There were people using my name to mock me – no big deal – so I was just setting the record straight.
Sometimes my posts are much more analytically based than others; sometimes, I make a comment in jest, other times I dig a bit deeper into the issue. I wouldn’t consider it intentional trolling, but I do understand that the simpleton comments – the rash generalizations – are certainly received with less respectability than the ones in which I go a bit more in depth.
I think we have had good discussions in the past – quite a few of them. They will not always go that way, but at the same time I do not take responses personally and hold no hard feelings with those who disagree with me when I am less thorough.
That gif is my favorite thing on the INternet right now. I know this isn’t on the Rotographs side but I picked up Syndergaard for my fantasy team last year after watching 1 inning in his debut start against the Cubs. Anyone that can sit 97-98 that easily (then, obviously he’s more like 99-100 now) is just going to be unhittable. Now he has better control and a new pitch giving him 5? Stop it, just. . . .stop it.
My other favorite thing recently was a recent column somewhere where the writer asked for predictions for Syndergaard and somebody chimed in that he will elevate Thor above just being a nickname and will bring down actual rain, thunder and lightning. . . . .
Gonna be sad when he needs TJS and we’ll always recall his early dominant years like Stras, Harvey and others
That thought has occurred to me as well – hard to think a guy that throws harder than anyone not named Chapman isn’t going to blow up his arm at some point.
I didn’t think a link between TJS and throwing hard was actually found– my impression was that it was more mechanics [inverted w]… can you link to a study that found a link between throwing hard and TJS?
No, there is certainly a link. There’s also a link between youth and needing TJS. Jeff Zimmerman has done cool work on this. I actually think a lot of the mechanical stuff is spurious, and that the “inverted W” was kind of a pseudoscientific thing to begin with.
@Bip Just did a quick review. Velocity may be a factor, but it’s far from clear that there’s a strong link between velocity and TJS. Multiple studies have been done, and the ones with larger samples (BIS data), the link is even more unclear.
Intuitively, it makes a lot of sense that more velocity = more force transferred through the arm = more injuries.
Objectively, it is far from clear.
I mean, no one has claimed that if you throw hard you’re going to need it for sure, but sure, there is a correlation.
As a Mets fan, I’m giddy that we can even have this conversation right now. I’ve been watching baseball for decades and he looks like a right-handed Randy Johnson with a plus change and curve. The thing that really stands out is that his delivery from the wind-up is almost identical to his delivery from the stretch. He’s overwhelming hitters without having to generate power or momentum from a full wind-up. It’s unreal.
It’s also been hard for me not to think the same thing. His last start was fine, but the one before that, I saw some things that boggled the mind. He got 26 whiffs in 7 innings. 26. According to Brooks, his four-seam was rising 13.3 inches. I have never seen a reading like that. (I feel like some old sage-like character in some sci-fi movie who will eventually die to further the MC’s story arc.) His slider had like 9 inches less rise than that, but still came in over 92. That mix alone can make a career.
So, what can we tell from this? There are some things in there I have never seen Kershaw do. However, we know there are pitchers with more velocity and crazier movement than him, and we know that is not enough to label a guy the best pitcher in baseball. Now, a counter to that is that Syndergaard might have the best stuff we have ever seen, like ever, or at least in the pitchfx era. So, the stuff itself is not enough evidence, but perhaps the best stuff we’ve ever seen carries some more weight.
Beyond stuff, we can look at single-game performance to see what can be taken from that. Kershaw had that one game last year where he set the record for whiffs in a game in the pitchfx era, but that was over 9 innings, 132 pitches. Kershaw has also gotten 30 whiffs in 101 pitches before. Syndergaard’s second start had 26 whiffs, over 99 pitches, the most he’s ever had. That is not a fluke, obviously, but is it enough to put Syndergaard over him? We know stuff doesn’t always translate, but here obviously Thor’s stuff is translating. It’s worth noting though, last year, Rubby De La Rosa also whiffed 26 in 99 pitches in a game. Rubby throws real hard too, but he can’t command it for crap, and so he’s barely worth a rotation spot, not in the “best pitcher” conversation.
I think it’s clear even single-game displays of extreme stuff or extreme effectiveness aren’t good enough. There are things that vary enough game-to-game that allow a pitcher to have games or stretches like this and still be bad.
Obviously I don’t expect Syndergaard to be bad, but I think we certainly have not seen all we need to see. He has had great command so far, but how much can we tell about a pitcher’s true-talent command in a few games? It seems like not much. The nature of poor command is that it is inconsistent, meaning it can show up in some games, but then run away at other times. If we see a great game on the boxscore, it’s easy to say it was a fluke. If we watch a guy pitch a game where he is nailing his spots and batters look helpless, we can’t help but think this guy has reached a new level. We forget that it’s possible for a pitcher to be a superstar for one start, to legitimately pitch like the best there is, and then next week simply be bad.
I’ve watched Kershaw for a long time, and there are games where his command looks terrible. In those games, he legitimately looks like a bad pitcher, and if he always pitched like that, he would be. The sample size is not just a way of making us feel better about a hot take, it legitimately is needed to tell what a guy’s, to invent a term, “resting command” is like. The days will come when Syndergaard can’t get anything over, or where no one is biting, and both of those show up in FIP. The question is how often that will happen, and how badly it happens.
It’s legitimate to ask if Syndergaard is the best pitcher in baseball right now. He’s done enough to show that it might be true. It’s an interesting question how often that happens, how often a guy shows something that can’t be faked or fluked that at least makes it possible to ask the question at all. However, I think we should conclude strongly that we don’t have enough information to annoint Thor quite yet.
Gotta love the results of the poll so far, only 71% for CK, haha.
Q. What kept the fire from spreading out of the fireplace and burning down the whole ark?
A. Noah’s Cinder Guard™
#KeepNotGraphs
If I was a major league hitter right now, I would rather face Kershaw than Syndergaard. I vote Syndergaard right now.
That might illustrative, actually. I would rather face Kershaw right now than Andrew Miller or Dellin Betances. Are Miller and Betances better pitchers than Kershaw? Yes, in a sense they are. When asked to get outs, they do it more effectively. However, for a lot of reasons we may say they are not better.
Obviously, Thor is a starter not a reliever. However, I think my example shows the impact of not just things like sample size, but the value of holding up over a long season, facing the same batter multiple times a game, facing the same team multiple times per season, bouncing back from bad starts, etc. My point isn’t that Thor hasn’t shown he can be a starter, obviously he can, but my point is more that there are aspects to being a starter that you don’t see right away on a per-batter basis. We need more time to know if he will surpass Kershaw in those areas.
As a Mets fan basically I just love this article and this whole thread (even the weirdly grouchy parts) and the very idea that this discussion is possible, but anyone who didn’t vote for Kershaw in the poll is probably not someone I trust to make objective baseball judgements — or at least whose reasoning I’d want to inspect pretty closely before trusting it.
Also, the TV radar gun for that start in Philly seemed a little hot to me. Maybe it was Syndergaard who was hot, I guess, but IIRC it was looking 2-3 ticks higher than expected for the opposition and the relievers as well.
If this discussion makes you feel good, I’ll even add to it. I know so far Schwarber has gotten all the attention, but I think there’s a case to be made for Conforto being better… even before the knee injury. I’m looking forward to the Cubs kicking the shit out you in the playoffs this year, but I mean that in the most respectful way possible. You guys have a good thing going on over there!
Yeah, I’m very much expecting to see a few pieces like this start surfacing about Conforto within a couple of weeks. He’s another youngster who seems to be off to the kind of hot start that makes you think it’s not actually a hot start, just his natural talent level. Ron Darling was just pointing out during the last Phillies series that pitchers are already starting to treat him like a veteran.
FWIW there are like three or four young Cubs players I feel basically the same way about, or would if they played for my team; exciting young talent to dream on like that is basically the best thing a fan can have. Very happy my team is not in the Cubs’ division this year.
Syndergaard is scary right now, moving from young rising ace to Bo Jackson Tecmo Bowl ridiculous levels of raw stuff.
But then, there’s also something to be said about having the highest WAR of any pitcher this decade. By over 10 wins.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0
And, especially after yesterday’s performance, can’t leave out the Bob Gibson of the post-2015 All-Star break era:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=4153&position=P&type=&gds=2015-07-19&gde=2016-04-21&season=
I saw him pitch against the Dodgers in the playoffs last season in person, and I would easily believe he could hit 101 no problem and look good doing it. He may not be better than Kershaw (no one is, lol), but he’s certainly rising quickly.
Interesting that the Philly gun seemed hot to you, because his previous start at Citi had some of the most insane PitchFX readings I’ve ever seen. It made me wonder if something was miscalibrated, except Jose Fernandez was pitching that game too, and his numbers looked totally normal.
That was the start where he looked the most like a bizarre superhuman or video game character to my eye. I’d believe virtually any numbers based on that start. The Philly one was maybe one notch less impressive (on the scale of pitching/stuff impressiveness less “superhuman” than merely “outstanding”).
This is just entirely absurd. Let Syndergaard actually pitch an entire season as the best pitcher in the league before you try to come up with excuses to call him that.
I think Jeff was just asking the question we were all thinking.
I think what it all comes down to is how you understand the phrase best pitcher. If it means which pitcher has done the most then it is obviously Kershaw. If it means, which would a GM take to start a franchise with, it would be syndergaard because he’s so much younger. If it means, which guy would you take to start for you in the near future (next game or season or whatever else your requirements might be) then it comes down to a question of: about which pitcher do we feel more confident in our knowledge of their current level of stuff, command, pitching smarts, (and whatever else goes into being a good pitcher) that we would pick that one. If I had to choose, I would pick Kershaw, just because I would like to see Syndergaard keep this up for a while longer to prove to me that this is completely sustainable (or at least as sustainable as it needs to be in order to be better than Kershaw).
However, I wouldn’t think somebody is crazy if they picked Syndergaard, just because his stuff (which it seems like everyone agrees is better than Kershaw) and recent performance gives him realistic (if improbable) upside that is higher than even Kershaw’s lofty heights.
I’m not so sure GMs would favor Syndergaard. Youth is obviously a big deal, but I could see a GMs preferring Kershaw if they thought he had demonstrated durability and worried that Syndergaard had a higher injury risk. After all, some real GM supposedly said he would take Bumgarner over Kershaw for that reason.
I think there is little chance 1.50 xFIP Syndergaard is sustainable. Sustainable can mean a lot of things. We know he can be this brilliant? Will this be his median performance with the occasional stinker? That would make him the best in the game, probably. Will this be his occasional hot streak, but with a lower median, making him an ace–a Cy Young contender but not the favorite? Will he have a long slump that brings his overall numbers down to the level of a relatively “disappointing” #2/3? All these things are possible, but none of them are quite “sustaining” what he is doing now.
I have to say, I am so glad you wrote this article. As a huge Kershaw fan who is also a huge pitching nerd freaking out about Syndergaard, this question has occupied my thoughts far more too often lately.
remove the “more” in that last line
Thanks for your comments in the thread, too, I always look forward to them in discussions like this. Pitching nerdery FTW
While we are all geeking out over SSS pitching performances, can you guys do an article on the Yankee’s bullpen having a negative FIP?
Top vid looks like a hot gun.
Well, damn. I can’t seem to find Sullivan’s companion piece to this, “The Case for Trevor Story as Baseball’s Best Hitter”. Can someone link?
Here you go:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/three-counterpoints-to-trevor-storys-first-three-games/#comment-5113921
With Arietta’s no-no last night, we may have all missed the boat entirely, much like Leslie Nielson: “What was for dinner tonight?” “Well there was a choice, steak or fish.” “Ah yes I remember. I had the lasagna.”
This is just too stupid. After this little time such claims are being made about Syndergaard? The guy was 9-7 in 150 innings with an ERA of 3.24 and an FIP of 3.25 last year. He was the #3 starter on his own team. He’s added a new pitch and pitched in 4 games this year and it’s suddenly reasonable to claim that he’s the best pitcher in baseball?? This is what comes from a site where the writers feel they have to churn out articles making outrageous claims every day or two and many of the fans feel they have to show how up-to-date they are by saying that they agree. A few days ago Arrieta was a god. Now Syndergaard is a god. Quality analysis should keep some perspective instead of going for sensationalism.