McGreevy

[ScotchMIrish]

In the "swing for the fences/exit velocity/launch angle" era with ABS monitoring the umpires perhaps a pitch to contact pitcher with excellent control is more valuable than the hard throwers.

Bloom might want to rethink his strategy of hard throwers with high walks.

What about hard throwers with low walks.

Which pitchers did he acquire who fit that description?

[3dender]

In the "swing for the fences/exit velocity/launch angle" era with ABS monitoring the umpires perhaps a pitch to contact pitcher with excellent control is more valuable than the hard throwers.

Bloom might want to rethink his strategy of hard throwers with high walks.

What about hard throwers with low walks.

Which pitchers did he acquire who fit that description?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/regi ... jard000yho

[NYCardsFan]

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.

And I've noted that I think McGreevy can be marginally better than Mikolas over the long run.

Over his seven seasons in St. Louis, Mikolas had a 4.16 ERA, he was a solid #4 SP on average. If McGreevy is a 4.00-4.15 ERA SP over a 7-10 year run with the Cardinals, IMO, that will be a success for him and the team.

IMO, with his current peripherals, it's just unrealistic to think he's going to be a 3.00-3.50 ERA pitcher over a large sample size of innings.

And I don't think anyone has tried to say he pitches like Hudson did. The comparison was that CT has latched onto what McGreevy had done over ~40 IP this season the way it latched onto what Hudson did over a couple of hundred innings - get performance (ERA) significantly out of line with supporting metrics - and has started to believe that outlier performance is sustainable.

I've not mentioned Hudson with you. He had poor control and that was a detriment. Maddux had impecable control and that's why i'm inviting a different comparison to your one of Mikolas. I think McGreevy is more like Maddux than Mikolas. He is smart like Maddux and commands his arsenal like Maddux. McGreevy has a wider repetoir than Mikolas and does, IMO, a better job mixing them. I'm sure that McGreevy will struggle at times and that will define his success potential. I could live with McGreevy as a 4, but, I believe he's a 3.2-3.5 and a #3.

Maddux:
ERA: 3.16
FIP: 3.26
FIP-: 78

2025 McGreevy:
ERA: 4.42
FIP: 4.27
FIP-: 105

2026 McGreevy
ERA: 2.52
FIP: 4.18
FIP-: 104

Miles Mikolas:
ERA: 4.32
FIP: 4.24
FIP-: 104

The comparison to Maddux is inapt. Hard for any reasonably objective analysis to miss the outlier in the numbers, driven mainly by an unsustainably low .209 BABIP-against in a small sample.

Congrats, you know how to use stats to prove whatever point you want to. So let's look at the first 3 years of each pitcher for a more reasonable comparison:

1st year: Maddux:
ERA: 5.52
FIP: 3.90
ERA+: 74

2d year: Maddux
ERA: 5.61
FIP: 4.5
ERA+: 76

3d year: Maddux
ERA: 3.18
FIP: 3.41
ERA+: 114
**************************************************************************

1st year: McGreevy
ERA: 1.96
FIP: 2.56
ERA+: 213

2d year: McGreevy
ERA: 4.42
FIP: 4.27
ERA+: 91

3d year (this year): McGreevy
ERA: 2.52
FIP: 4.18
ERA+: 157
****************************************************************************
1st year: Mikolas
ERA: 3.62
FIP: 4.86
ERA+: 101

2d year: Mikolas injured all year

3d year: Mikolas
ERA: 6.44
FIP: 5.45
ERA+: 62

So far the comp works just fine; sometimes in favor of McGreevy. But, let's see how the years bear up. I still think that Maddux is a much better comp.

By shifting to smaller one-year samples, you’re basically conceding Matt’s (and others’) central point: this large deviation in McGreevy’s 2026 ERA vs. FIP—driven by an unsustainably low BABIP-against—is an outlier/anomaly in a very small statistical sample, and likely isn’t sustainable over larger sample sizes—i.e., it isn’t really a “skill”: McGreevy doesn’t possess some magic “at ‘em” ball in his repertoire that he suddenly discovered at Driveline this past offseason.

To be clear, absolutely NO ONE on the “unsustainable” side of this discussion denies that a pitcher’s ERA can deviate significantly from FIP in a smaller single-season sample. But that’s exactly the point: it takes larger samples to separate signal from noise, skill from “luck,” etc. And as a basic empirical matter, over larger samples, ERA and FIP tend to converge, as the Maddux and Mikolas numbers illustrate.

You are the one who claimed Maddux and McGreevy are similar as an “explanation” (read: narrative fallacy), so why was Maddux unable to get his ERA meaningfully below his FIP over a larger sample? You’ve claimed McGreevy’s (ERA - FIP) is due to skill, so why didn’t the “comparable” Maddux have that skill over his career, instead of the reality that he was his FIP (which was objectively great: 22% below league average). Or why didn’t McGreevy exhibit that “skill” last year?

[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.

And I've noted that I think McGreevy can be marginally better than Mikolas over the long run.

Over his seven seasons in St. Louis, Mikolas had a 4.16 ERA, he was a solid #4 SP on average. If McGreevy is a 4.00-4.15 ERA SP over a 7-10 year run with the Cardinals, IMO, that will be a success for him and the team.

IMO, with his current peripherals, it's just unrealistic to think he's going to be a 3.00-3.50 ERA pitcher over a large sample size of innings.

And I don't think anyone has tried to say he pitches like Hudson did. The comparison was that CT has latched onto what McGreevy had done over ~40 IP this season the way it latched onto what Hudson did over a couple of hundred innings - get performance (ERA) significantly out of line with supporting metrics - and has started to believe that outlier performance is sustainable.

I've not mentioned Hudson with you. He had poor control and that was a detriment. Maddux had impecable control and that's why i'm inviting a different comparison to your one of Mikolas. I think McGreevy is more like Maddux than Mikolas. He is smart like Maddux and commands his arsenal like Maddux. McGreevy has a wider repetoir than Mikolas and does, IMO, a better job mixing them. I'm sure that McGreevy will struggle at times and that will define his success potential. I could live with McGreevy as a 4, but, I believe he's a 3.2-3.5 and a #3.

Maddux:
ERA: 3.16
FIP: 3.26
FIP-: 78

2025 McGreevy:
ERA: 4.42
FIP: 4.27
FIP-: 105

2026 McGreevy
ERA: 2.52
FIP: 4.18
FIP-: 104

Miles Mikolas:
ERA: 4.32
FIP: 4.24
FIP-: 104

The comparison to Maddux is inapt. Hard for any reasonably objective analysis to miss the outlier in the numbers, driven mainly by an unsustainably low .209 BABIP-against in a small sample.

Congrats, you know how to use stats to prove whatever point you want to. So let's look at the first 3 years of each pitcher for a more reasonable comparison:

1st year: Maddux:
ERA: 5.52
FIP: 3.90
ERA+: 74

2d year: Maddux
ERA: 5.61
FIP: 4.5
ERA+: 76

3d year: Maddux
ERA: 3.18
FIP: 3.41
ERA+: 114
**************************************************************************

1st year: McGreevy
ERA: 1.96
FIP: 2.56
ERA+: 213

2d year: McGreevy
ERA: 4.42
FIP: 4.27
ERA+: 91

3d year (this year): McGreevy
ERA: 2.52
FIP: 4.18
ERA+: 157
****************************************************************************
1st year: Mikolas
ERA: 3.62
FIP: 4.86
ERA+: 101

2d year: Mikolas injured all year

3d year: Mikolas
ERA: 6.44
FIP: 5.45
ERA+: 62

So far the comp works just fine; sometimes in favor of McGreevy. But, let's see how the years bear up. I still think that Maddux is a much better comp.

By shifting to smaller one-year samples, you’re basically conceding Matt’s (and others’) central point: this large deviation in McGreevy’s 2026 ERA vs. FIP—driven by an unsustainably low BABIP-against—is an outlier/anomaly in a very small statistical sample, and likely isn’t sustainable over larger sample sizes—i.e., it isn’t really a “skill”: McGreevy doesn’t possess some magic “at ‘em” ball in his repertoire that he suddenly discovered at Driveline this past offseason.

To be clear, absolutely NO ONE on the “unsustainable” side of this discussion denies that a pitcher’s ERA can deviate significantly from FIP in a smaller single-season sample. But that’s exactly the point: it takes larger samples to separate signal from noise, skill from “luck,” etc. And as a basic empirical matter, over larger samples, ERA and FIP tend to converge, as the Maddux and Mikolas numbers illustrate.

You are the one who claimed Maddux and McGreevy are similar as an “explanation” (read: narrative fallacy), so why was Maddux unable to get his ERA meaningfully below his FIP over a larger sample? You’ve claimed McGreevy’s (ERA - FIP) is due to skill, so why didn’t the “comparable” Maddux have that skill over his career, instead of the reality that he was his FIP (which was objectively great: 22% below league average). Or why didn’t McGreevy exhibit that “skill” last year?

First, I think comp by it's very nature is useless. Everybody's different. You can't even comp twins. You can't comp the Maddux brothers... On and on. So, I took mattmitch to task with his flippant comp with Mikolas. They aren't that similar with the exception that neither strikes out more than about 6 guys per nine innings. Neither did Maddux. All of that comp stuff is pretty ridiculous when you get right down to it.

I'm not conceding anything to mattmitch with small statistical sample; that's all McGreevy has. Apparently you think FIP is locked in stone and McGreevy is destined to a large one forever. I don't know, unlike mattmitch, but I don't think so. Looking at Maddux career is easy. He has a long one, thus a large sample size. I'll wait for it to play out with McGreevy. Frankly, I think McGreevy could go in a lot of directions. Kudos to him that he is a major leaguer and has pitched quite well so far. If he does become a 4 + FIP and a 4 ERA pitcher then so be it. If he does better than that, I hope mattmitch will be man enough to say he was wrong...and not everything is 100% because he says so. That's all.

[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

Now checkout their FIP.

McGreevy - long term - is going to be a 4+ era guy. Again, no issue with McGreevy. I want him on my team. Very very few pitchers outperform their FIP for more than a season or so.

McGreevy career numbers:
AAA FIP 3.91
Majors FIP 4.00

Hudson career numbers:
AAA FIP 4.76
Majors FIP 4.77

So yet again, not sure why this became a comparison

I don’t think those posters were attempting to make a direct comparison between the players themselves—the comparison was between their respective (FIP - ERA) metrics / tracking errors over single-season or smaller samples. In other words, (FIP - ERA) vs. (FIP - ERA), not FIP vs. FIP or ERA vs. ERA.

Thanks for applying a little common sense. This is correct

And I'm saying not all pitchers will perform against their peripherals in the same way. Hudson isn't a good comp to use

[jcgmoi]

neither strikes out more than about 6 guys per nine innings. Neither did Maddux.

OK, I gotta jump in here. You're using 6K/9 like it's an unchanging standard but Maddux pitched more than 30 years ago.

Maddux won CYA from 92-95 and averaged 7K/9. Over that time other SPs averaged fewer than 6K/9.

In Mikolas' two good years as a Cardinal he struck out 6.5/9 while all other SPs were averaging more than 8.

You can use different years for Maddux or a different modern pitcher but any time you compare stats from different eras you have to adjust for context. In this example Maddux got more than his share of strikeouts and Mikolas didn't.

[NYCardsFan]

neither strikes out more than about 6 guys per nine innings. Neither did Maddux.

OK, I gotta jump in here. You're using 6K/9 like it's an unchanging standard but Maddux pitched more than 30 years ago.

Maddux won CYA from 92-95 and averaged 7K/9. Over that time other SPs averaged fewer than 6K/9.

In Mikolas' two good years as a Cardinal he struck out 6.5/9 while all other SPs were averaging more than 8.

You can use different years for Maddux or a different modern pitcher but any time you compare stats from different eras you have to adjust for context. In this example Maddux got more than his share of strikeouts and Mikolas didn't.

Pitcher / K/9 / NL SP avg. K/9 / % diff
Maddux (1986-2008): 6.06; 6.16; -1.7%
Mikolas (2018-2026): 6.45; 8.42; -23.4%
McGreevy (2024-2026): 5.70; 8.26; -31.0%
McGreevy (2026): 5.49; 8.25; -33.5%

[Cardinals1964]

Has anybody looked at these on McG?
5.7 career K per 9. Greg Maddux was only 6.1.
He also has 3.33 K per walk. That would put him at 56 all time.
Nice stats.

I just saw the above post . Oops.

[hugeCardfan]

neither strikes out more than about 6 guys per nine innings. Neither did Maddux.

OK, I gotta jump in here. You're using 6K/9 like it's an unchanging standard but Maddux pitched more than 30 years ago.

Maddux won CYA from 92-95 and averaged 7K/9. Over that time other SPs averaged fewer than 6K/9.

In Mikolas' two good years as a Cardinal he struck out 6.5/9 while all other SPs were averaging more than 8.

You can use different years for Maddux or a different modern pitcher but any time you compare stats from different eras you have to adjust for context. In this example Maddux got more than his share of strikeouts and Mikolas didn't.

Pitcher / K/9 / NL SP avg. K/9 / % diff
Maddux (1986-2008): 6.06; 6.16; -1.7%
Mikolas (2018-2026): 6.45; 8.42; -23.4%
McGreevy (2024-2026): 5.70; 8.26; -31.0%
McGreevy (2026): 5.49; 8.25; -33.5%

What was Maddux K/9 / % diff his first 3 years?

Interesting that McGreevy has 5 K's in 3 innings so far.

[Ozziesfan41]

Matt’s convinced me mcgreevy sucks lol

[ICCFIM2]

Matt’s convinced me mcgreevy sucks lol

Hmmm. Watching the game tonight, I thought the conversation should start and stop with, he is really good.

[hugeCardfan]

Matt’s convinced me mcgreevy sucks lol

Hmmm. Watching the game tonight, I thought the conversation should start and stop with, he is really good.

Yes. A lot better than Mikolas. How about those 9 K's in 6 innings.

[Cardinals1964]

Matt’s convinced me mcgreevy sucks lol

Hmmm. Watching the game tonight, I thought the conversation should start and stop with, he is really good.

Yes. A lot better than Mikolas. How about those 9 K's in 6 innings.

He must read CT and decided to prove some nitwits wrong.

[ICCFIM2]

Matt’s convinced me mcgreevy sucks lol

Hmmm. Watching the game tonight, I thought the conversation should start and stop with, he is really good.

Yes. A lot better than Mikolas. How about those 9 K's in 6 innings.

Yep. ML SPs tend to not mature and hit their stride until they are 27-28 years old. This kid has room to continue to improve. Lets enjoy the ride.

[Melville]

Matt’s convinced me mcgreevy sucks lol

Hmmm. Watching the game tonight, I thought the conversation should start and stop with, he is really good.

Yes. A lot better than Mikolas. How about those 9 K's in 6 innings.

He must read CT and decided to prove some nitwits wrong.

And one other person brilliantly right.

[hugeCardfan]

Matt’s convinced me mcgreevy sucks lol

Hmmm. Watching the game tonight, I thought the conversation should start and stop with, he is really good.

Yes. A lot better than Mikolas. How about those 9 K's in 6 innings.

He must read CT and decided to prove some nitwits wrong.

And one other person brilliantly right.

Oh. Thank you.