Even if he is Mikolas, being cost controlled, he fits really well. Mikolas first contract @2/15 worked out well, if was the horrific extension that's a budget killer.
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!
The original question was "what is he?' I use all available information to answer the question.
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.
Horse chit. Maddux had a career 6.1 K/9, a career .286 babip and a career ERA of 3.16.
In the last five full seasons, the guys with 250+ IP, K/9 < 7 and an ERA less than 4.00 - Wade Miley, Tyler Rogers, and Tim Hill. Three guys out of 265 with 250+ IP.
jcgmoi wrote: ↑06 May 2026 14:46 pm
Ah, the trusty Bob Gibson defense. Did you know Gibson had a 1.12 ERA once?
Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1968 2.18 270
1968 3.12 299
But MattMitch would discount his great seasons as unsustainable. Who the flip cares if someone's stats are unsustainable? The stats still count regardless of how long one can sustain them.
jcgmoi wrote: ↑06 May 2026 14:46 pm
Ah, the trusty Bob Gibson defense. Did you know Gibson had a 1.12 ERA once?
Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1968 2.18 270
1968 3.12 299
But MattMitch would discount his great seasons as unsustainable. Who the flip cares if someone's stats are unsustainable? The stats still count regardless of how long one can sustain them.
Because the stat for McGreevy which is unsustainable (BABIP), when he stops being able to sustain it, is going to directly lead to his other stats - ERA, WHIP, etc. - increasing markedly.
Again - the question was "what is he?" And to reference the OP, he's a Mikolas-like pitcher who is on a heater through 40 IP because of an unsustainable BABIP.
jcgmoi wrote: ↑06 May 2026 14:46 pm
Ah, the trusty Bob Gibson defense. Did you know Gibson had a 1.12 ERA once?
Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1968 2.18 270
1968 3.12 299
But MattMitch would discount his great seasons as unsustainable. Who the flip cares if someone's stats are unsustainable? The stats still count regardless of how long one can sustain them.
Because the stat for McGreevy which is unsustainable (BABIP), when he stops being able to sustain it, is going to directly lead to his other stats - ERA, WHIP, etc. - increasing markedly.
Again - the question was "what is he?" And to reference the OP, he's a Mikolas-like pitcher who is on a heater through 40 IP because of an unsustainable BABIP.
Batters are 23 for 110 on balls in play against McGreevy this year (.209)
Give batters 7 more hits. That would be 30 for 110 (.273). 7 more hits over 7 games started is 1 extra hit per game
His current WHIP is 36/39.1=0.92, so with 7 extra hits, that would be 43/39.1=1.09
I think there's room for regression while still being a quality pitcher
McGreevy is an old school workhorse who could average 200+ innings if they let him
Plenty of pitchers have succeeded without strikeout stuff. Buehrle won 10+ games a year and averaged 200+ innings over a 15 year span while only striking out 5 batters per 9 and walking 2 batters per 9
jcgmoi wrote: ↑06 May 2026 14:46 pm
Ah, the trusty Bob Gibson defense. Did you know Gibson had a 1.12 ERA once?
Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1968 2.18 270
1968 3.12 299
But MattMitch would discount his great seasons as unsustainable. Who the flip cares if someone's stats are unsustainable? The stats still count regardless of how long one can sustain them.
Because the stat for McGreevy which is unsustainable (BABIP), when he stops being able to sustain it, is going to directly lead to his other stats - ERA, WHIP, etc. - increasing markedly.
Again - the question was "what is he?" And to reference the OP, he's a Mikolas-like pitcher who is on a heater through 40 IP because of an unsustainable BABIP.
Batters are 23 for 110 on balls in play against McGreevy this year (.209)
Give batters 7 more hits. That would be 30 for 110 (.273). 7 more hits over 7 games started is 1 extra hit per game
His current WHIP is 36/39.1=0.92, so with 7 extra hits, that would be 43/39.1=1.09
I think there's room for regression while still being a quality pitcher
I think he can still be a productive #4 SP over the long run.
But as jcgmoi posted earlier, I think his stats from last year are instructive:
jcgmoi wrote: ↑06 May 2026 14:46 pm
Ah, the trusty Bob Gibson defense. Did you know Gibson had a 1.12 ERA once?
Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1968 2.18 270
1968 3.12 299
But MattMitch would discount his great seasons as unsustainable. Who the flip cares if someone's stats are unsustainable? The stats still count regardless of how long one can sustain them.
Because the stat for McGreevy which is unsustainable (BABIP), when he stops being able to sustain it, is going to directly lead to his other stats - ERA, WHIP, etc. - increasing markedly.
Again - the question was "what is he?" And to reference the OP, he's a Mikolas-like pitcher who is on a heater through 40 IP because of an unsustainable BABIP.
Disagree, but that's okay. I think he is a really smart pitcher, who attacks hitters with numerous pitches that he commands well, and is ultra-competitive. Not saying he is a #1 ace level, but he is going to have a very nice career for the Cardinals.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑07 May 2026 06:07 am
McGreevy is an old school workhorse who could average 200+ innings if they let him
Plenty of pitchers have succeeded without strikeout stuff. Buehrle won 10+ games a year and averaged 200+ innings over a 15 year span while only striking out 5 batters per 9 and walking 2 batters per 9
This is a good take on him, along with your other post on what his babip looks like when it normalizes. 7 more hits. I still count immeasurables, which you mentioned. I think he's a good 4 or really good 5, which is high value if consistent. I haven't heard anyone in this thread claim he's more than that?
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑07 May 2026 06:07 am
McGreevy is an old school workhorse who could average 200+ innings if they let him
Plenty of pitchers have succeeded without strikeout stuff. Buehrle won 10+ games a year and averaged 200+ innings over a 15 year span while only striking out 5 batters per 9 and walking 2 batters per 9
This is a good take on him, along with your other post on what his babip looks like when it normalizes. 7 more hits. I still count immeasurables, which you mentioned. I think he's a good 4 or really good 5, which is high value if consistent. I haven't heard anyone in this thread claim he's more than that?
Say what you want. The key is walks. The key is defense.
The other teams don’t hit him enough to score multiple runs based on his arsenal.
Let’s argue that a guy that gets outs and has a good ERA, in this day and age, sucks.
How can we make a pitcher that’s getting the job done look bad? How can we complain about him?
