McGreevey showing that a low ERA and low K rate doesn’t necessarily predict a rising future ERA

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Oh yeah, I remember the magical Dakota Hudson debates. Fun times.

[An Old Friend]

This could be a correlation does not prove causation scenario.

Alternatively- McGreevey might be a well above average pitcher, which his low ERA indicates and instead of a rising ERA, his K rate will instead rise when he decides to pitch for strikeouts instead of just letting hitters create grounders and flies.

Not all pitchers trying to get a swing and miss in every pitch. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the ability. It could just be a different game plan, and. Ow today he’s going with a Strike out game plan all of a sudden and proving he can do that too.

9k’s in 6 shutout IP. Against one of the better lineups.

He has a .200 BABIP against and an 87% strand rate. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those aren’t sustainable

Your inference of bad news means that you’re expecting that his ERA goes up, but the number of base runners allowed stays the same. It could be the inverse that his ERA normalizes to a near elite 3.0 while his base runners allowed stays very healthy/ drops and his strikeout rate goes up. Correlation means something, but causation is not always what you expect.

He has a .200 BABIP allowed and an 87% strand rate.

Those aren’t sustainable.

Your scenario relies on his strikeout rate to increase enough to offset a normalized BABIP.

Fortunately we’re not having a Dakota Hudson conversation because McGreevy can actually command the ball. But eventually he’s giving up more hits, the strand rate goes down, and the ERA rises unless he offsets all of that with bat missing stuff. It’s unlikely

Ironically, you are having exactly the "Dakota Hudson conversation" because some people said the same about him - that his early FIP would eventually come down to early ERA instead of his ERA normalizing to his FIP.

You're misremembering it - they're argument was that FIP was dumb and that Hudson had the ability to outperform his FIP because of his destructo-sinker ("magic" sinker" as at least poster coined it). My position was always that unless he markedly improved his command and/or found a way to strike people out, his ERA would head towards his FIP. That is what they disputed, not that his FIP would come down... because they denied the efficacy of FIP itself.

And this is different, because McGreevy CAN command the ball. My position was that Hudson stunk and that people didn't realize it because they scouted by his ERA. I don't think McGreevy stinks - he's viable as an innings eating back of the rotation arm as-is.

[mattmitchl44]

This could be a correlation does not prove causation scenario.

Alternatively- McGreevey might be a well above average pitcher, which his low ERA indicates and instead of a rising ERA, his K rate will instead rise when he decides to pitch for strikeouts instead of just letting hitters create grounders and flies.

Not all pitchers trying to get a swing and miss in every pitch. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the ability. It could just be a different game plan, and. Ow today he’s going with a Strike out game plan all of a sudden and proving he can do that too.

9k’s in 6 shutout IP. Against one of the better lineups.

He has a .200 BABIP against and an 87% strand rate. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those aren’t sustainable

Your inference of bad news means that you’re expecting that his ERA goes up, but the number of base runners allowed stays the same. It could be the inverse that his ERA normalizes to a near elite 3.0 while his base runners allowed stays very healthy/ drops and his strikeout rate goes up. Correlation means something, but causation is not always what you expect.

He has a .200 BABIP allowed and an 87% strand rate.

Those aren’t sustainable.

Your scenario relies on his strikeout rate to increase enough to offset a normalized BABIP.

Fortunately we’re not having a Dakota Hudson conversation because McGreevy can actually command the ball. But eventually he’s giving up more hits, the strand rate goes down, and the ERA rises unless he offsets all of that with bat missing stuff. It’s unlikely

Ironically, you are having exactly the "Dakota Hudson conversation" because some people said the same about him - that his early FIP would eventually come down to early ERA instead of his ERA normalizing to his FIP.

You're misremembering it - they're argument was that FIP was dumb and that Hudson had the ability to outperform his FIP because of his destructo-sinker ("magic" sinker" as at least poster coined it). My position was always that unless he markedly improved his command and/or found a way to strike people out, his ERA would head towards his FIP. That is what they disputed, not that his FIP would come down... because they denied the efficacy of FIP itself.

And this is different, because McGreevy CAN command the ball. My position was that Hudson stunk and that people didn't realize it because they scouted by his ERA. I don't think McGreevy stinks - he's viable as an innings eating back of the rotation arm as-is.

I agree that McGreevy is much different from Hudson.

Whether over the long run he is closer to Mikolas, Lohse, Hendricks, Tudor, Maddux, etc. - we'll see.

I'm going with - solid #4 SP with maybe the potential to make it to low end #3 SP.