- This topic has 851 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So your data says that Gibson is essentially equivalent to Wainwright 2019. Lynn is maybe just a notch below.
With Lynn, his ERA is highly deceiving. He has allowed a lot of unearned runs. Some of those weren’t his fault and others really were. For instance, sometimes it was his error that made it an unearned run. And sometimes he’s given up big hits after an error that piled on more unearned runs. I just looked it up and Lynn leads all of baseball with 12 unearned runs.
Gibson has been really good though. He’s had a couple early game blips where he gave up several runs and then buckled down and still got through 6 innings. Wainwright used to be very similar. So it’s a good comparison.
Yep, if I had to keep one around for next year it would be Gibson. He’s good for his innings and usually gives the team a shot. Lynn is due for a big rise in ERA soon.
Lynn made 32 starts last season, finishing strong with LA, and turning in some quality starts right up to the end. I suspect he will have staying power. He’s always been a plow horse, not a race horse.
My overall assesment is that this rotation has been as advertised, which means good but not great, but definitely better than 2023.
Gray has been the top of rotation starter we needed, although his backloaded contract concerns me a lot.
Gibson has been a very good innings eater although not spectacular.
Lynn has been an ok innings eater but lately he has struggled to do more than 5 innings if even that.
Mikolas has been another fairly solid innings eater with the occasional 6 or 7 inning quality start.
Matz has been his typical disaster. I was against that signing from day one and still feel the same way.
Libby/Thompson/Pallante: So far no one out of that group has emerged as a consistent number 5. Libby should only be in the pen, Thompson is still regrouping in Memphis, and Pallante is up and down each start.
I think this rotation has performed almost exactly as I thought it would. Not great but much better than last year. At least they give us a chance to win.
Yeah, we are doing better than last year and it is not due to the offense and defense being better.
There is time between now and opening day 2025 for guys in our system to step up, but a lot less time until the deadline when triggers will need to be pulled or not pulled.
I find this amazing. There may be fewer different starters this season than last, but they aren’t throwing any more innings than the guys last year.
The 2024 starters ERA may be better than 2023 through 86 games, though I don’t have the time to pull the data to validate.
Pretty telling stat from the @BallySportsMW broadcast that the bullpen for the #STLCards has been used identical to last season.
Especially with 3 acquisitions of SP that we were told we’re supposed to be “inning eaters”. pic.twitter.com/xMIZy0Qrin
— Scott Mandziara (@Smandziara2) July 6, 2024
Per Fangraphs, Starters are 31-25 with a 4.16 ERA (8.27 K/9, 2.83 BB/9, 3.93 FIP, 3.83 xFIP) in 461.1 IP for the Cards in 2024. At this time last year they were 20-32 with a 4.96 ERA (7.15 K/9, 3.19 BB/9, 4.39 FIP, 4.65 xFIP) in 451.2 IP.
Thanks for looking it up, stlcard25. So the new starters really aren’t greater “innings eaters” (at least to this point in the season). They (and the relievers) are just putting up better results.
Yep, that is the case. I’m ok with the split, as long as they put up results. Certainly it would be nice to get a little more than the 5-1/3 inning average we are getting out of the rotation now.
If you go by IP, here are the results since 2013, skipping the pandemic year and extrapolating this year out to 162 games:
2013 984.1 IP
2014 969.1 IP
2015 979.2 IP
2016 934.1 IP
2017 919.1 IP
2018 889.2 IP
2019 883.0 IP
2021 832.2 IP
2022 864.1 IP
2023 848.2 IP
2024 868.1 IPFor some reference, the league leader in IP per start is Philadelphia, who is on pace for 955.2 IP from their rotation. 5 teams (the Phillies, Mariners, Royals, Orioles and Braves) are on pace for 900 IP from their rotation, a level the Cards haven’t achieved since 2018.
I do think there’s one key point here that we may be missing that is critical. Because the Cardinals are pitching better, they are facing a lot fewer batters than they did last year. Thus, both starters and relievers should be throwing far fewer pitches despite getting to the same innings totals. This may look negative and positive depending on your perspective but I like it.
The negative take (we’ll call it the Bling take – sorry Bling, I couldn’t resist) is that means that not only are our starters not throwing more innings, they’re probably also going out there and throwing a lot less pitches per game. That means naturally that they could go further into the game but their foolish manager won’t let them. Therefore, we bought starters who were more durable and now we’re using them even less than we did last year! What gives?
The positive take (we’ll call this one the Newberry take because Blake always seems to be excited about something) is this means that both our starters and relievers shouldn’t get worn down over the season because they are getting far less taxed, which means they should be better prepared for that stretch run in the 2nd half of August through the first half of September when we play elite team after elite team. This doesn’t really apply to our 3 guys at the back end of the pen who have been over-taxed because every game is so darn close.
they could go further into the game but their foolish manager won’t let them.
I have a slightly different take. First though, I will mention that I am used to my sober voice of reason being characterized as negative.
Back when our new rotation and taken shape, I added up 2023 quality starts and posted the totals. The 2024 rotation members had far more QSs in 2023 than did the Cardinals gaggle of starters in 2023. This, we assumed, would mean starters would’ve go deeper this year than last.
But that has not happened. I figure it could be old pitchers a year older and not being able to go as deep. Or pitchers throwing more balls and giving up more hits. Or, it is an analytics driven pitcher usage strategy devised by the wonks and carried over from last year, explaining the nearly identical usage numbers with a clearly better pitching staff.
But no matter. Whichever it is, any complaint should be restrained since we are above .500 even with a dreadful offense. So pitcher age or pitcher efficiency or pitcher usage are not the problem.
All of the numbers may not back it up but my sense is that the 2024 rotation is light years better than 2023. It is much more durable which is nice because using fewer starters means we don’t have to rely as much on our depth pieces in Memphis. Perhaps the IP isn’t much better than last year but we also have much more depth in our bullpen this year. This is a really deep bullpen. Much more than a big three.
The bottom line for me is that anyone would have a difficult time convincing me the the reason the 2024 Cardinals are vying for a playoff spot is not because of our pitching and defense. It sure as heck isn’t the offense.
Good points, all. The main reason I brought this up was the sales pitch given on the great “innings eaters” they signed in the off-season has not played out quite that way. But better results clearly matter more.
One other way of looking at the inning eaters is to think about whether they take the ball on their turn. So I took a look. Not sure after all the looking that this will add much.
Last year through the all-star break, 3 guys made at least 17 starts:
Mikolas 19 starts, 5.93 innings per start
Montgomery 18 starts 5.72 innings per start
Flaherty 17 starts 5.45 innings per startMatz and Waino both had 11 starts, with Matz 0-7 and never getting through the 6th, and Waino with a 7.66 ERA
Liberatore and Woodford were the other guys with starts, 14 combined by the break, and both had ERAs about 5.5
This year they have 4 guys with at least 16 starts, each of which should get at least one more before the break.
Mikolas 18 starts, 5.59 innings per start
Lynn 17 starts, 5.15 innings per start
Gibson and Gray both 16 starts, both 5.79 innings per startPerhaps a way of looking at it is that Lynn hasn’t eaten the innings they hoped, that Mikolas, a year older, isn’t going as deep, and that’s part of why the innings eaters haven’t actually eaten more innings. But having 4 guys who take regular turns means that they haven’t had to get past their 6th starter as much as last year. And as 6th starter, this year Pallante has done better as a fill-in starter than Liberatore or Woodford did last year.
Good stuff Gags. I think continuing to send Wainwright out there all season must have skewed things. Obviously it was not something related to his performance. Sending Matz out there was similar. We did win some of those games, but it was clearly a message that ownership didn’t care if we won those games, or at least, they cared about something else more. The funny thing, which isn’t funny, is that this year we have been hurt by a similar thing on the position players side.
Thanks for that perspective, Gags.
Well done, as usual.I wonder also how many “innings eaten” is affected by the 3rd time through the lineup principle, now rampant throughout baseball.
We have 13 SP wins, where the SP did not make a quality start.
We have 4 SP losses where the SP made a quality start, and took the loss.
That’s +9 wins for the lineup and bullpen, using the QS stat that we discussed this winter.
Our QS% to date is 38%, same as mlb avg. Our GmSc avg is 51 and mlb avg this morning is 52.
Our starters have taken 7 losses after being in line for a win when exiting, mlb avg is 9.
Our starters have won 15 games after being in line for a loss when exiting, mlb avg is 13.
My backwoods math thinks the bullpen and lineup are carrying this club, not the starting pitching, which I see as very weak.
It feels like the starter innings – even though virtually the same as last year so far – are distributed among fewer guys. So, in a sense the ‘innings eaters’ are pitching more innings than last year’s rotation but they are not getting much deeper into a game on average.
It also seems like we’ve had more games where the starter had gotten into the 6th and Even 7th inning than last year but that might not be true…
I think it’s also apparent that the ’24 bullpen is miles ahead of the ’23 pen and so – with the anemic offense – Marmol uses it more than he might if we had more games with bigger leads. This team rarely wins in a blow out.
ZTR said:
It feels like the starter innings – even though virtually the same as last year so far – are distributed among fewer guys.
Perceptions can be tricky. In 2024, there have been eight different starters. Last year, through July 8, they had used only seven – WW, Mikolas, Flaherty, Monty, Matz, Liberatore and Woodford.
The big changes (not for the better) didn’t occur until afterward when Hudson, Thompson and Rom all joined the rotation for the first time in 2023. Among them, they made all 29 of their starts after July 8 last year.
It also seems like we’ve had more games where the starter had gotten into the 6th and Even 7th inning than last year but that might not be true…
Since the total innings are about the same YTY, for the math to work, they would also have to be more games this year in which the starters left really early. Getting blown out early more often would seem to go against the grain of innings eating. (This is all hypothetical as I did not research the actual data.)
I think it’s also apparent that the ’24 bullpen is miles ahead of the ’23 pen and so – with the anemic offense – Marmol uses it more than he might if we had more games with bigger leads. This team rarely wins in a blow out.
The 2024 pen have thrown roughly the same number of innings as last year. So in total they are being used the same. However, it could be (haven’t checked the data) that the average relief outing this year is shorter than last (using more pitchers used to cover the same number of innings).
But yes, with a better offense, the pen might have thrown fewer innings this year compared to last, rather than being about the same in reality.
My feeling is that because we were conditioned to believe the new guys are better innings eaters and because they are performing relatively well, we accept that they ARE better innings eaters. However, the numbers from last year TO DATE indicate they were about the same in terms of innings pitched. Remember that Flaherty and Monty weren’t bad at all, which is why they brought good value in trade. Though obviously Wainwright was a liability, he was usually given the opportunity to go at least five innings in an attempt to get him a win.
However if you make the comparison to the END of the season, when Hudson, Rom and Thompson were starting, then yes, the new pitchers were really a step up – both in results and ability to pitch deeper into games.
But overall, I submit that the Cards simply restocked in the offseason to replace the three starters that were gone (Monty, Flaherty and Wainwright) with the bonus that they didn’t have to use question marks like Hudson, Rom and Thompson any more.
Bottom line for me, to date, the 2024 starters are no better innings eaters, but the results have been better, both for the starters and the relievers. And results matter most.
And if the 2024 starters continue as they have, by the end of the season, they likely will be better innings eaters over the entire year.
The rotation has gone one time thru since the 2nd half started. The GmSc’s are:
68 Gibson
51 Gray
52 Mikolas
63 Pallante
58 Lynn
That’s good pitching and a 58.4 GmSc avg. Gibson back on track would be a plus. The Lynn start caught my eye.Two clunkers have followed:
31 Liberatore
37 Gray
The bullpen start by Libby, caused by a double-header, I’ve already tossed. Grays clunker is on 2nd time thru for the rotation. It would be a good time for Gibson to take on the ace role for a month.I know Gray got a little bit late start, but the 4 starters being the same ones we started with is a stabilizing factor. It’s too bad Mo didn’t hire a 5th, instead pretending like Matz was relevant.
I guess I have high expectations for Gibson, but I was bullish on Matz too.
I think Gibson has plus trade value. That 2025 option season, relative to the FA market, I expect will be viewed as club friendly.
Gray has been pretty bad over his last 5 starts…28.1 IP, 39 hits, 21 ER’s, 5 BB, 35 K’s
and a dreadful 6.67 ERA. Is he hurting? Any reason why he has fallen off a cliff?Gray has been pretty bad over his last 5 starts…28.1 IP, 39 hits, 21 ER’s, 5 BB, 35 K’s
and a dreadful 6.67 ERA. Is he hurting? Any reason why he has fallen off a cliff?I don’t know that but I do know that he is still owed $65M after this season. Yikes! I never liked how that contract was structured. Completely kicked the can down the road and will not allow us to add as much the next two years.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.