McGreevy

[cosmo.kramer]

Dakota Hudson BB/9 and WHIP at various levels:
2016 College 2.8 BB/9, 1.25 WHIP
2017 Minors 2.9 BB/9, 1.28 WHIP
2018 Minors 3.1 BB/9, 1.30 WHIP
2019 Majors 4.4 BB/9, 1.41 WHIP
Career Majors 4.3 BB/9, 1.43 WHIP

Michael McGreevy
2019-21 College 1.5 BB/9, 1.11 WHIP
2022 Minors 1.9 BB/9, 1.25 WHIP
2023 Minors 2.2 BB/9, 1.40 WHIP
2024 Minors 2.6 BB/9, 1.31 WHIP
2025 Minors 1.8 BB/9, 1.24 WHIP
2026 Majors 1.8 BB/9, 0.92 WHIP
Career Majors 1.7 BB/9, 1.10 WHIP

Not sure why this became a comparison

[Ordinary Man]

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

I'm just an innocent bystander here (not getting into the McGreevy argument) and I saw and remember Gibson's 1.12 era which made him the Pitcher of the Year in the Year of the Pitcher. I also attended Game 1 and Game 7 of the 68 World Series. Game one, a record breaker, game seven, a heart breaker.

My question is, what do the 2nd and 3rd numbers above refer to? They all say 1968. Are they someone else's stats or should they be different years for Gibson's stats?

[jcgmoi]

what do the 2nd and 3rd numbers above refer to? They all say 1968. Are they someone else's stats or should they be different years for Gibson's stats?

OK, I'm embarrassed.

The numbers are all Gibson's but for different years. The table should read:

Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1969 2.18 270
1970 3.12 299

Those were all great years for Gibson, 20 wins and 300 IP annually, and I meant to show how ERA moves in concert with BABIP and how a great season doesn't rely on a great BABIP.

Instead I confused things. Thanks for catching my mistake.

[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.

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.

If we go back in time, many of the great pitchers from the 1960s and 1970s, Hunter, Marichal, Palmer etc. were low strike out pitchers. Heck, even Gibson wasn't a high strikeout pitcher by the standards pitchers are held to today. The main point being that it is an example greater than 1. Its just that Maddux was so good at it for so long, he is the one everyone remembers.

Even getting back to the Miles Mikolas comp, which probably is not too far off the mark, his statistics were quite good when he walked very few people. Mikolas was already 29 years old when he joined the Cards and he also got hurt. So he was only good a couple of seasons. He is probably an OK comp for McGreevy. But, it should be for the seasons Mikolas was good, which I think everyone would take.

The interesting thing about McGreevy is everyone views him as a soft thrower relatively speaking. Back in the 1960s and 1970s who would have been considered a very hard throwing RH pitcher. The game has changed a lot...

[Ordinary Man]

what do the 2nd and 3rd numbers above refer to? They all say 1968. Are they someone else's stats or should they be different years for Gibson's stats?

OK, I'm embarrassed.

The numbers are all Gibson's but for different years. The table should read:

Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1969 2.18 270
1970 3.12 299

Those were all great years for Gibson, 20 wins and 300 IP annually, and I meant to show how ERA moves in concert with BABIP and how a great season doesn't rely on a great BABIP.

Instead I confused things. Thanks for catching my mistake.

No problem, I watched to see if someone else would question it and no one did. I was confused but I thought maybe you had meant to put down different years. Thanks for fixing it (and posting it in the first place, very interesting.)

I was in high school when Gibson had those great seasons and I didn't know what BABIP meant back then. Like most people, I looked at ERA, w/l record and innings pitched/complete games. He had some great seasons, however they were measured.

[Cardinals1964]

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.

No you don’t.

[hugeCardfan]

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.

You are making an arbitrary comparison with Mikolas purely because he only K'd about 6/9 and doesn't throw the ball 98. I don't buy that. I believe that McGreevy is more consistent with his command and control. A better pitcher.

[Hoosier59]

You guys aught to know by now that you can’t argue with Mattmitch and ever hope to get him to change his mind. He’s just like Mo, never thinks he’s wrong.

[Cardinals1964]

what do the 2nd and 3rd numbers above refer to? They all say 1968. Are they someone else's stats or should they be different years for Gibson's stats?

OK, I'm embarrassed.

The numbers are all Gibson's but for different years. The table should read:

Year ERA BABIP
1968 1.12 230
1969 2.18 270
1970 3.12 299

Those were all great years for Gibson, 20 wins and 300 IP annually, and I meant to show how ERA moves in concert with BABIP and how a great season doesn't rely on a great BABIP.

Instead I confused things. Thanks for catching my mistake.

They raised the pitching mound in 1969 season because of the dominance by Gibson and others. That helped change the eras.

[RichieRichSTL]

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

Also McGreevy just knows the sense not to make excuses, talk sh*t, be arrogant, and malign a good team or teammate. In other words, he's more professional and a better teammate.

[11WSChamps]

You guys aught to know by now that you can’t argue with Mattmitch and ever hope to get him to change his mind. He’s just like Mo, never thinks he’s wrong.

That's the beauty of it.

CT, the gift that keeps on giving.

[hugeCardfan]

You guys aught to know by now that you can’t argue with Mattmitch and ever hope to get him to change his mind. He’s just like Mo, never thinks he’s wrong.

Not really trying to change Mattmitch's mind. Just letting him know I don't agree with him.

[LewisL]

My own memories, Hudson was usually frustrating and exhausting to watch, and Wellemeyer was also.
McGreevy's tangibles and compete level reminds me more of Jeff Suppan during his better seasons here. Getting the job done with underwhelming stuff, but with determination and competitiveness.