McGreevy

[Strummer Jones]

Slow day at work today--state testing in my district for high school social studies--so I've got nothing but time today.

Wanted to talk about McGreevy.

The good:
-ERA well under 3. Career ERA around 3.5ish.
-WHIP under 1. Career WHIP just over 1.
-Doesn't walk guys. Walking a hair under two guys per 9 this season so far. At a similar number for his career to date.
-Averaging about 5.5 innings per start. Has four QS in seven outings. And another two starts that could've been QS if he'd have gone another inning or two. Pitched 6+ innings in over half of his starts last year.
-Doesn't give up a lot of home runs. He's right at one home run per 9 innings over his whole career.

The bad:
-He's not a strikeout pitcher. Striking out 5.5 hitters per nine, and slightly more (still under six) for his career.

What is he? Is there still room in the modern game for a guy who gets a lot of ground balls and doesn't strike guys out? Or is this just Miles Mikolas on a heater?

[Ozziesfan41]

I don’t think mikolas is a good comparison mikolas had to have all of his pitches working perfectly in order to give you 6 innings and 2 runs or so if anything was off just a little bit he was a disaster. McGreevy had several games where one or two of his pitches was off and he was able to work around it and turn in a decent performance. I don’t know how good he can be but as long as he limits walks and keeps getting ahead of hitters and getting ground balls he will continue to be pretty good

[Talkin' Baseball]

I don’t think mikolas is a good comparison mikolas had to have all of his pitches working perfectly in order to give you 6 innings and 2 runs or so if anything was off just a little bit he was a disaster. McGreevy had several games where one or two of his pitches was off and he was able to work around it and turn in a decent performance. I don’t know how good he can be but as long as he limits walks and keeps getting ahead of hitters and getting ground balls he will continue to be pretty good

Always a place for someone who gives innings and gets outs.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Slow day at work today--state testing in my district for high school social studies--so I've got nothing but time today.

Wanted to talk about McGreevy.

The good:
-ERA well under 3. Career ERA around 3.5ish.
-WHIP under 1. Career WHIP just over 1.
-Doesn't walk guys. Walking a hair under two guys per 9 this season so far. At a similar number for his career to date.
-Averaging about 5.5 innings per start. Has four QS in seven outings. And another two starts that could've been QS if he'd have gone another inning or two. Pitched 6+ innings in over half of his starts last year.
-Doesn't give up a lot of home runs. He's right at one home run per 9 innings over his whole career.

The bad:
-He's not a strikeout pitcher. Striking out 5.5 hitters per nine, and slightly more (still under six) for his career.

What is he? Is there still room in the modern game for a guy who gets a lot of ground balls and doesn't strike guys out? Or is this just Miles Mikolas on a heater?

I would think he’s defensive oriented. He has great defense behind him so I think that plays a roll.

Doesn’t pitch behind in count.

Limits baserunners, hence no stretch, hence no holding runners close.

[mattmitchl44]

Or is this just Miles Mikolas on a heater?

This - until he proves differently over a really long time. He might be marginally better than Mikolas over the long run, but likely only marginally better.

Mikolas demonstrated that a low K pitcher who also doesn't beat themselves by walking very few batters can go for an entire season with an unusually good run by either a low BABIP (2022, Mikolas' ERA 3.29 with a .249 BABIP), or giving up few HRs (2018, Mikolas' ERA 2.83 with 0.72 HR/9), or both.

McGreevy right now has a microscopic .209 BABIP. That isn't going to last. And he's giving up HRs at a pretty average rate (1.14 HR/9),

[jcgmoi]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

[rockondlouie]

All McG does is take the ball very five days and give the Cardinals a shot at winning most of the time.

Valuable commodity.

[mattmitchl44]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

And MLB average BABIP has been around .290.

So, yeah, BABIP .209 ---> ERA 2.52. But BABIP .287 ---> ERA 4.42.

There is, with near 100% certainty, a lot of "regression to the mean" coming in McGreevy's future.

[jcgmoi]

Last two years, starting pitchers, minimum 100 innings, K/9 < 7, BB/9 < 3.

The pitcher with the lowest K-rate is McGreevy. Second lowest is Mikolas. There are other names you'll recognize.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/split ... &sort=5,-1

[Cardinals4Life]

Or is this just Miles Mikolas on a heater?

This - until he proves differently over a really long time. He might be marginally better than Mikolas over the long run, but likely only marginally better.

Mikolas demonstrated that a low K pitcher who also doesn't beat themselves by walking very few batters can go for an entire season with an unusually good run by either a low BABIP (2022, Mikolas' ERA 3.29 with a .249 BABIP), or giving up few HRs (2018, Mikolas' ERA 2.83 with 0.72 HR/9), or both.

McGreevy right now has a microscopic .209 BABIP. That isn't going to last. And he's giving up HRs at a pretty average rate (1.14 HR/9),

Okay, make believe stat boy.

[Cardinals4Life]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

And MLB average BABIP has been around .290.

So, yeah, BABIP .209 ---> ERA 2.52. But BABIP .287 ---> ERA 4.42.

There is, with near 100% certainty, a lot of "regression to the mean" coming in McGreevy's future.

Right, because everyone has to be average. Nobody can actually be good.

[WaltsSuccessor]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

And MLB average BABIP has been around .290.

So, yeah, BABIP .209 ---> ERA 2.52. But BABIP .287 ---> ERA 4.42.

There is, with near 100% certainty, a lot of "regression to the mean" coming in McGreevy's future.

Right, because everyone has to be average. Nobody can actually be good.

That...is not remotely what that means.

[mattmitchl44]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

And MLB average BABIP has been around .290.

So, yeah, BABIP .209 ---> ERA 2.52. But BABIP .287 ---> ERA 4.42.

There is, with near 100% certainty, a lot of "regression to the mean" coming in McGreevy's future.

Right, because everyone has to be average. Nobody can actually be good.

No one, over a large sample size, is .209 BABIP good. Nobody.

Over the last 50 years (1975-2025), 1,251 pitchers have thrown at least 500 innings. Of those, only nine (0.7%) had a BABIP below .250. And only 122 (9.8%) even had a BABIP below .270.

[3dender]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

And MLB average BABIP has been around .290.

So, yeah, BABIP .209 ---> ERA 2.52. But BABIP .287 ---> ERA 4.42.

There is, with near 100% certainty, a lot of "regression to the mean" coming in McGreevy's future.

Right, because everyone has to be average. Nobody can actually be good.

It makes me sad that you'll never know how stupid you are.

[Cardinals4Life]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

And MLB average BABIP has been around .290.

So, yeah, BABIP .209 ---> ERA 2.52. But BABIP .287 ---> ERA 4.42.

There is, with near 100% certainty, a lot of "regression to the mean" coming in McGreevy's future.

Right, because everyone has to be average. Nobody can actually be good.

That...is not remotely what that means.

Walt,

I know what he means. My point being that MattMitch never values on field production - things that are actually happening/happened. Instead, he ALWAYS geeks out and tries to predict everything.

McGreevy is a special player. He may not blow you away with raw power, but he knows how to pitch, throws multiple pitches (7, if I am counting correctly) for strikes, pitches ahead, rarely walks guys, and is very smart. He is also a competitor.

I'll take my chances with Michael McGreevy any day of the week.

[Cardinals4Life]

K/9 BB/9 HR/9
5.46 1.88 1.13
5.49 1.83 1.14

Those are McGreevy's numbers from last year and this. I can't tell the difference.

mattmitchell mentioned his BABIP. Last year it was 287.

And MLB average BABIP has been around .290.

So, yeah, BABIP .209 ---> ERA 2.52. But BABIP .287 ---> ERA 4.42.

There is, with near 100% certainty, a lot of "regression to the mean" coming in McGreevy's future.

Right, because everyone has to be average. Nobody can actually be good.

No one, over a large sample size, is .209 BABIP good. Nobody.

Over the last 50 years (1975-2025), 1,251 pitchers have thrown at least 500 innings. Of those, only nine (0.7%) had a BABIP below .250. And only 122 (9.8%) even had a BABIP below .270.

I understand. But all you do is dog guys for putting up ACTUAL numbers. Quit living in fantasy land, guy. McGreevy is a smart, competitive PITCHER. Nothing wrong with that at all!