McGreevy

[Cardinals1964]

I think the take on McG lies between the stats and the guy's make up. He is dancing on the edge and you saw that last game. Was in trouble and got some batted ball luck that turned into DPs. If one of those goes through it is a big inning. But the guy is also a battler. He hangs tough and doesn't get rattled. There is an "it" factor. We shall see....

I watched Gibson in 1968 have a 1.12 era. Danced on the edge several games. Lost 9 games.

[Cardinals1964]

Same people here that predict McGreevy going bad also predict VS2 becoming a major league talent. Now, get back to burning my fries. Thanks.

[bccardsfan]

I think the take on McG lies between the stats and the guy's make up. He is dancing on the edge and you saw that last game. Was in trouble and got some batted ball luck that turned into DPs. If one of those goes through it is a big inning. But the guy is also a battler. He hangs tough and doesn't get rattled. There is an "it" factor. We shall see....

I watched Gibson in 1968 have a 1.12 era. Danced on the edge several games. Lost 9 games.

I too watched Gibson that season. I was 11. I would hesitate to put McG and Gibby in the same sentence, but I get your point. That is what I meant by the "it" factor. McG is a battler who doesn't get rattled. We shall see if he has the stuff to keep improving and keep it up. We will have a really good idea by the end of the season.

[2ninr]

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?

No one is complaining about what he HAS DONE.

But that is different from observing what is likely to happen in the future.

Exactly. Find a way to disparage what he has done. Bottom line is, you don’t know [shirt] about what he will do in the future. Nothing. You have no idea. Unless you tell me, you’re some sort of top baseball executive, and then still, you would know nothing.

He didn't disparage McGreevy. He told you what is likely to happen with his bapip. And that's a fact. Matt didn't make it up. McGreevy projects as a 4.

And I told him and I’ll tell you, neither of you know what’s likely to happen. You can guess and have a 50/50 chance of being right. Thanks for defending him. Cream puffs.

Thick as a brick. Nobody guessed. You don't understand that.

[Carp4Cy]

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?

McGreevey exemplifies the Old Guard Cards pitch to contact style, not Bloom's new power pitching model. And yet he's been our best pitcher ever since he came up last year. Ironic?

[2ninr]

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?

No one is complaining about what he HAS DONE.

But that is different from observing what is likely to happen in the future.

Exactly. Find a way to disparage what he has done. Bottom line is, you don’t know [shirt] about what he will do in the future. Nothing. You have no idea. Unless you tell me, you’re some sort of top baseball executive, and then still, you would know nothing.

He didn't disparage McGreevy. He told you what is likely to happen with his bapip. And that's a fact. Matt didn't make it up. McGreevy projects as a 4.

Projecting as a four is disappointing. Means we still need a real league level ace- from where? A number two, and three.

Does Libby satisfy the three slot.

Yes I believe we still need an ace and a #2 level starting pitcher if we are talking championship competitive team. I'm more disappointed in Libby at this point. 3 might be his ceiling. Afaic I watched McGreevy and Graceffo both pitch (live) in Springfield. At that time McGreevy was a higher rated prospect but I liked Graceffo better. And it still isnt out of the ? That Graceffo is stretched out at some point.

[2ninr]

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?

McGreevey exemplifies the Old Guard Cards pitch to contact style, not Bloom's new power pitching model. And yet he's been our best pitcher ever since he came up last year. Ironic?

They drafted McGreevy and Graceffo the same year. And it looks like they both can pitch. Yes they were selecting pitch to contact guys in those days. I don't really find it ironic. Our current team was drafted mostly by Mo. He did a lot of good things. But he froze in his old ways and got really frigging weird. We didn't make a mistake sending him down the road.

[sikeston bulldog2]

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?

No one is complaining about what he HAS DONE.

But that is different from observing what is likely to happen in the future.

Exactly. Find a way to disparage what he has done. Bottom line is, you don’t know [shirt] about what he will do in the future. Nothing. You have no idea. Unless you tell me, you’re some sort of top baseball executive, and then still, you would know nothing.

He didn't disparage McGreevy. He told you what is likely to happen with his bapip. And that's a fact. Matt didn't make it up. McGreevy projects as a 4.

Projecting as a four is disappointing. Means we still need a real league level ace- from where? A number two, and three.

Does Libby satisfy the three slot.

Yes I believe we still need an ace and a #2 level starting pitcher if we are talking championship competitive team. I'm more disappointed in Libby at this point. 3 might be his ceiling. Afaic I watched McGreevy and Graceffo both pitch (live) in Springfield. At that time McGreevy was a higher rated prospect but I liked Graceffo better. And it still isnt out of the ? That Graceffo is stretched out at some point.

Well your idea is good. We need currently an Ace, for sure. When we buy.

As for Libby McG May and Leahy, we have 3-5 covered.

[JohnnyMO]

He reminds me of Dakota Hudson. Hudson outperformed his peripherals for about 250 innings and I hope McGreevy can do the same. But it eventually came back to get Hudson and it will McGreevy as well. I'm not knocking McGreevy, he's a very valuable 4 or 5 starter just like Libby is a very valuable 3. But anyone counting on those guys as your top 2 are going to be let down in the long run.

[2ninr]

He reminds me of Dakota Hudson. Hudson outperformed his peripherals for about 250 innings and I hope McGreevy can do the same. But it eventually came back to get Hudson and it will McGreevy as well. I'm not knocking McGreevy, he's a very valuable 4 or 5 starter just like Libby is a very valuable 3. But anyone counting on those guys as your top 2 are going to be let down in the long run.

And I'm pretty sure Bloom and co dont see it any differently than that.

[mattmitchl44]

He reminds me of Dakota Hudson. Hudson outperformed his peripherals for about 250 innings and I hope McGreevy can do the same. But it eventually came back to get Hudson and it will McGreevy as well. I'm not knocking McGreevy, he's a very valuable 4 or 5 starter just like Libby is a very valuable 3. But anyone counting on those guys as your top 2 are going to be let down in the long run.

Yes, and there were several here who refused to hear that Dakota Hudson was very, very unlikely to remain a huge outlier over a large sample size of innings. They would swear that Hudson was going to be "unique" because of how many ground ball he got.

Since he hasn't pitched in the majors since 2024, I guess all of baseball just doesn't understand Hudson's unique skills.

[mattmitchl44]

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?

No one is complaining about what he HAS DONE.

But that is different from observing what is likely to happen in the future.

Exactly. Find a way to disparage what he has done. Bottom line is, you don’t know [shirt] about what he will do in the future. Nothing. You have no idea. Unless you tell me, you’re some sort of top baseball executive, and then still, you would know nothing.

He didn't disparage McGreevy. He told you what is likely to happen with his bapip. And that's a fact. Matt didn't make it up. McGreevy projects as a 4.

And I told him and I’ll tell you, neither of you know what’s likely to happen. You can guess and have a 50/50 chance of being right. Thanks for defending him. Cream puffs.

Barring McGreevy finding a way to strikeout like 50% more guys than he does now, we do indeed know exactly what is LIKELY to happen.

[Strummer Jones]

He reminds me of Dakota Hudson. Hudson outperformed his peripherals for about 250 innings and I hope McGreevy can do the same. But it eventually came back to get Hudson and it will McGreevy as well. I'm not knocking McGreevy, he's a very valuable 4 or 5 starter just like Libby is a very valuable 3. But anyone counting on those guys as your top 2 are going to be let down in the long run.

Yes, and there were several here who refused to hear that Dakota Hudson was very, very unlikely to remain a huge outlier over a large sample size of innings. They would swear that Hudson was going to be "unique" because of how many ground ball he got.

Since he hasn't pitched in the majors since 2024, I guess all of baseball just doesn't understand Hudson's unique skills.

Good comp, but here's the big difference I see. Hudson also walked a TON of batters. If you look at Hudson's undisputed "good" year here where he won 16 games, had an ERA well under 4, and pitched 175ish innings, he was walking about 4.5 guys per nine innings. Looks like he tied for the league lead in walks, too. That always seemed to be Hudson's undoing. Ground ball guy--but was always vulnerable to walking a guy or two, and then a seeing-eye worm burner plates two.

On the walks alone, I think McGreevy is probably the better pitcher. Hudson's fastball and slider were decent pitches. Probably better than McGreevy's equivalent...but Michael has more pitches that all profile as pretty decent.

[mattmitchl44]

He reminds me of Dakota Hudson. Hudson outperformed his peripherals for about 250 innings and I hope McGreevy can do the same. But it eventually came back to get Hudson and it will McGreevy as well. I'm not knocking McGreevy, he's a very valuable 4 or 5 starter just like Libby is a very valuable 3. But anyone counting on those guys as your top 2 are going to be let down in the long run.

Yes, and there were several here who refused to hear that Dakota Hudson was very, very unlikely to remain a huge outlier over a large sample size of innings. They would swear that Hudson was going to be "unique" because of how many ground ball he got.

Since he hasn't pitched in the majors since 2024, I guess all of baseball just doesn't understand Hudson's unique skills.

Good comp, but here's the big difference I see. Hudson also walked a TON of batters. If you look at Hudson's undisputed "good" year here where he won 16 games, had an ERA well under 4, and pitched 175ish innings, he was walking about 4.5 guys per nine innings. Looks like he tied for the league lead in walks, too. That always seemed to be Hudson's undoing. Ground ball guy--but was always vulnerable to walking a guy or two, and then a seeing-eye worm burner plates two.

On the walks alone, I think McGreevy is probably the better pitcher. Hudson's fastball and slider were decent pitches. Probably better than McGreevy's equivalent...but Michael has more pitches that all profile as pretty decent.

McGreevy is definitely different from Hudson. Again, I think McGreevy can be a solid #4 SP, Mikolas-like or maybe a bit better if he has room to improve.

My point was - some wanted to look past the peripherals and argue that Hudson could maintain the appearance of a #2/#3 SP over the long run by rationalizing it based on his GB%. Some now seem to want to look past the peripherals and argue that McGreevy can maintain the appearance of a "something a lot more than a #4 SP" because he has a jillion pitches or some other reason.

In the end, peripherals almost never lie.

[ICCFIM2]

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.

You put some work into this and these statistics are sobering. Having said that, I also think you are jumping to a conclusion in terms of what the outcome must be. I looked at Greg Maddux statistics, which you rightfully point out he also had a BABIP up near the ML average over his career. What he did, was he walked people at a very low rate. 1.8 per 9 for his career, which is around McGreevy's career rate of 1.7. But at his peak, he was in the 1-1.4 range.

The point being the future for McGreevy is not entirely based on the BABIP. That could normalize as you suggest, while his walk rate could go down as he matures as a pitcher. So your BABIP point stands. But, I think you are making a leap of logic stating that therefore we know the end result. You are assuming no other improvements to his game. Maddux started out walking people at a much higher rate than McGreevy. It was not until his age 28 season he recorded his first sub 1.5 walk rate, his 8th full ML season.

I appreciate the statistics you provide and they provide context and meaning to a lot of conversations including this one. But, I don't think any of these statistics similar to BABIP can be used to automatically jump to the conclusion that this will normalize and the outcome will be X. The statistic may normalize, but the outcome could differ a bit based on other factors. In isolation it suggests regression to X. What I am suggesting is that the regression of an ERA of 2.52 may not regress to >4 as you suggest but may normalize between 3.25-3.75 as McGreevy hones his craft. That would be less good than peak Maddux, but still a very good pitcher who probably is comfortably a #2/3 for years to come.

[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.

You put some work into this and these statistics are sobering. Having said that, I also think you are jumping to a conclusion in terms of what the outcome must be. I looked at Greg Maddux statistics, which you rightfully point out he also had a BABIP up near the ML average over his career. What he did, was he walked people at a very low rate. 1.8 per 9 for his career, which is around McGreevy's career rate of 1.7. But at his peak, he was in the 1-1.4 range.

The point being the future for McGreevy is not entirely based on the BABIP. That could normalize as you suggest, while his walk rate could go down as he matures as a pitcher. So your BABIP point stands. But, I think you are making a leap of logic stating that therefore we know the end result. You are assuming no other improvements to his game. Maddux started out walking people at a much higher rate than McGreevy. It was not until his age 28 season he recorded his first sub 1.5 walk rate, his 8th full ML season.

I appreciate the statistics you provide and they provide context and meaning to a lot of conversations including this one. But, I don't think any of these statistics similar to BABIP can be used to automatically jump to the conclusion that this will normalize and the outcome will be X. The statistic may normalize, but the outcome could differ a bit based on other factors. In isolation it suggests regression to X. What I am suggesting is that the regression of an ERA of 2.52 may not regress to >4 as you suggest but may normalize between 3.25-3.75 as McGreevy hones his craft. That would be less good than peak Maddux, but still a very good pitcher who probably is comfortably a #2/3 for years to come.

When you are dealing with statistical probabilities, there is never 100% certainty that a particular outcome will happen.

But when everybody has to go back and point to exactly one example, Greg Maddux, (or maybe two if some people want to throw in John Tudor) you get that the probability that McGreevy will be the second coming of Greg Maddux (or anything close) is vanishingly small.

And again I would point out that for his era, Maddux in his prime was a slightly above average K/9 pitcher.

If McGreevy improves - e.g., makes his K/9 significantly higher - then of course the expectation changes.