Joe Musgrove Thread

[thxfrthmmrs]

33 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

Im not sure its a "trick".  Its a trick to just look at a single number and say "truth".  I dug into his individual starts and his last two starts in late September were stellar...but before that and through all of his non-April stats in 2019 he was bad.  Thats 32 consecutive starts...and smart people on here are always saying beware of end of season anomalies. And while you cant ignore the great April of 2019 or the great late September of 2020...shouldnt the bad in between  be a point of interest?  

He was injured before then and finally got healthy and got on a roll before the end of the season. But sure ignore those 2 dominant starts, and the fact that it was against two playoff teams in a playoff hunt.

All the posts the last 2 pages are you manipulating stats to fit an argument on a subject you already made up your mind on and refuse to see the other side of the coin. So why bother.

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

He was injured before then and finally got healthy and got on a roll before the end of the season. But sure ignore those 2 dominant starts, and the fact that it was against two playoff teams in a playoff hunt.

All the posts the last 2 pages are you manipulating stats to fit an argument on a subject you already made up your mind on and refuse to see the other side of the coin. So why bother.

Was he hurt from May 1 of 2019 on? Because I'm trying to figure this out - he was equally dominant in April of 2019, and then had an ERA over 5 the rest of the year. Is his problem not one of performance but of pitching through a lot of lingering injuries? 

[michelangelosmonkey]

14 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

He was injured before then and finally got healthy and got on a roll before the end of the season. But sure ignore those 2 dominant starts, and the fact that it was against two playoff teams in a playoff hunt.

All the posts the last 2 pages are you manipulating stats to fit an argument on a subject you already made up your mind on and refuse to see the other side of the coin. So why bother.

How is looking at game logs manipulating stats?  Reylo had an AMAZING game against a much better Cleveland team in late September of 2019.  Maybe we should trade for him.  

[thxfrthmmrs]

33 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Was he hurt from May 1 of 2019 on? Because I'm trying to figure this out - he was equally dominant in April of 2019, and then had an ERA over 5 the rest of the year. Is his problem not one of performance but of pitching through a lot of lingering injuries? 

He was hurt in August this year. and came back for a few starts late in the year, and looked much better after that.

If you look at his overall body of work (and ignore the improvement he's made in 2020, which I will get to) the last 2 years, 3.74 FIP and 4.10 xFIP. That's good for 23rd and 26th out of 60 pitchers who pitched at least 200 innings over that span, respectively.

24 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

How is looking at game logs manipulating stats?  Reylo had an AMAZING game against a much better Cleveland team in late September of 2019.  Maybe we should trade for him.  

If ReyLo has made improvement that carried over from 2019 to 2020, he deserves a spot. Such is not the case, he got even worse, he's literally one of the worst pitchers in 2020. The only hope for him is Katz can fix him, but Sox are not a rebuilding team, they don't have the luxury of experimenting.

Musgrove on the other hand has made real improvements in 2020, which is fairly common for a pitcher entering his prime. Namely, his sliders was filthy in 2020, he was able to improve the spin rate, active spin, and h and x movement on that pitch, improved his whiff % on that pitch from 39 to over 50%. Opponents are expected to hit .120 against on that pitch.

So you can quote 2 year stats all you want, the more important numbers to look at in a pandemic shorten season is to look at underlying skills of the pitcher and look for trends and improvements. Musgrove has took a sizable step forward from 2019 to 2020, Lopez has regressed significantly.

As I have said from the very first page of this thread, Musgrove is a decent #3 with 2 years of control that Sox should target if the cost is reasonable.

Edit: I didn't even look at this curveball. It's even more filthy. He's throwing it twice as often in 2020, active spin jumped from 60% to 80%, a ton more movement, expected BA on that pitch is .080

Edited December 29, 2020 by thxfrthmmrs

[chitownsportsfan]

His stats are similar to Q's in his prime, sign me up.  But as noted, what's the cost?  It's too bad they already fired the Dunning bullet.

[thxfrthmmrs]

12 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

His stats are similar to Q's in his prime, sign me up.  But as noted, what's the cost?  It's too bad they already fired the Dunning bullet.

I don't know if he is at that level, prime Q was a strong #2, borderline 1 by fWAR measures, but he's a solid #3 from what I can see. I wouldn't deal from top 5, but if it's Stiever as the headliner, I think it makes sense for both sides. Let's just hope the reasonably low cost of Snell and Darvish helped drive Musgrove's price down also.

[chitownsportsfan]

2 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I don't know if he is at that level, prime Q was a strong #2, borderline 1 by fWAR measures, but he's a solid #3 from what I can see. I wouldn't deal from top 5, but if it's Stiever as the headliner, I think it makes sense for both sides. Let's just hope the reasonably low cost of Snell and Darvish helped drive Musgrove's price down also.

Stiever is not going to get it done, but yea, I agree with your assessment of Musgrove.

[Chicago White Sox]

2 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I don't know if he is at that level, prime Q was a strong #2, borderline 1 by fWAR measures, but he's a solid #3 from what I can see. I wouldn't deal from top 5, but if it's Stiever as the headliner, I think it makes sense for both sides. Let's just hope the reasonably low cost of Snell and Darvish helped drive Musgrove's price down also.

I don’t see how Snell’s cost was “reasonably low”, looks like a pretty big return to me.

[thxfrthmmrs]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I don’t see how Snell’s cost was “reasonably low”, looks like a pretty big return to me.

It all depends on how you see Patino. There are many who didn’t see him as an SP in that frame. And between the Snell deal and Darvish deal, I think Snell deal was reasonable for both sides, and Darvish definitely went for less than expected.

[bmags]

23 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

His stats are similar to Q's in his prime, sign me up.  But as noted, what's the cost?  It's too bad they already fired the Dunning bullet.

I honestly have no idea how to value musgrove but am hoping it’s relatively depressed.

[chitownsportsfan]

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

I honestly have no idea how to value musgrove but am hoping it’s relatively depressed.

Don't know much about him other than his Fangraphs but the lack of innings might be a good thing for his price and his health.

[michelangelosmonkey]

37 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

He was hurt in August this year. and came back for a few starts late in the year, and looked much better after that.

If you look at his overall body of work (and ignore the improvement he's made in 2020, which I will get to) the last 2 years, 3.74 FIP and 4.10 xFIP. That's good for 23rd and 26th out of 60 pitchers who pitched at least 200 innings over that span, respectively.

If ReyLo has made improvement that carried over from 2019 to 2020, he deserves a spot. Such is not the case, he got even worse, he's literally one of the worst pitchers in 2020. The only hope for him is Katz can fix him, but Sox are not a rebuilding team, they don't have the luxury of experimenting.

Musgrove on the other hand has made real improvements in 2020, which is fairly common for a pitcher entering his prime. Namely, his sliders was filthy in 2020, he was able to improve the spin rate, active spin, and h and x movement on that pitch, improved his whiff % on that pitch from 39 to over 50%. Opponents are expected to hit .120 against on that pitch.

So you can quote 2 year stats all you want, the more important numbers to look at in a pandemic shorten season is to look at underlying skills of the pitcher and look for trends and improvements. Musgrove has took a sizable step forward from 2019 to 2020, Lopez has regressed significantly.

As I have said from the very first page of this thread, Musgrove is a decent #3 with 2 years of control that Sox should target if the cost is reasonable.

Edit: I didn't even look at this curveball. It's even more filthy. He's throwing it twice as often in 2020, active spin jumped from 60% to 80%, a ton more movement, expected BA on that pitch is .080

Honestly...32 of last 34 starts his ERA was 5.50...thats not cherry picked its 32 of last 34...and the two good starts were against Clevelands anemic offense and an exhasted St Louis team after all those double headers at the very end of 2020.  5.50    Real improvement and fip and zip and filthy stuff all you want...it should be concerning to give up Stievers.  

[Soxbadger]

21 minutes ago, bmags said:

I honestly have no idea how to value musgrove but am hoping it’s relatively depressed.

Unfortunately since his salary is relatively reasonable and he has 1 year of arb left it probably wont be depressed too much. No real incentive for the Pirates to just give him away. 

[thxfrthmmrs]

28 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

Honestly...32 of last 34 starts his ERA was 5.50...thats not cherry picked its 32 of last 34...and the two good starts were against Clevelands anemic offense and an exhasted St Louis team after all those double headers at the very end of 2020.  5.50    Real improvement and fip and zip and filthy stuff all you want...it should be concerning to give up Stievers.  

Got it, so ignore the 1st month of 2019 and last 25% of 2020 where he was dominant to fit your argument so he looks like a shitty pitcher. That is the definition of cherry picking stats. But let me try this, if I take Musgrove's April of 2019 an September of 2020, his ERA was 1.80 over 60 innings, looks like an ace to me. The point is, you either use the full 2 years, or 2020 alone, cherry picking stats like you're doing makes for a faulty argument.

And if you want to use 2 years stats, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that pitchers could make improvement during off seasons (especially with modern day data and technology), Musgrove has shown he's drastically improved his secondary pitches in 2020, but you're still stuck in the 90s with your ERA argument.

Edit - I decided to look at this all so important 32 game sample myself. He had not 5.50, but 5.28 ERA, 4.26 4,30 xFIP. Still pretty solid underlying numbers in this arbitrary date range where we conveniently ignored his best stretches. What's influencing the 5.28 ERA? a 63.4% LOB rate, literally the worst out of all the 80 qualifying pitchers over that period. In other words, he has the shitty Pitt bullpen to thank.

Edited December 29, 2020 by thxfrthmmrs

[bmags]

In 2020, Musgrove threw his least dominant pitch (4 seam fastball) 10% less, and threw his unhittable curveball 10% more. It came at cost of a higher walk percentage, but much higher k rate, and better everything else.

He has a great slider, a great curve, and a good sinker. I’d like to see a not pirates team play with him. 
 

Stiever can certainly grow but without his 2019 velo pop up, he’s much less interesting than the above with the weak stuff he showed.

 

[Soxbadger]

19 minutes ago, bmags said:

In 2020, Musgrove threw his least dominant pitch (4 seam fastball) 10% less, and threw his unhittable curveball 10% more. It came at cost of a higher walk percentage, but much higher k rate, and better everything else.

He has a great slider, a great curve, and a good sinker. I’d like to see a not pirates team play with him. 
 

Stiever can certainly grow but without his 2019 velo pop up, he’s much less interesting than the above with the weak stuff he showed.

 

I think from the Sox point of view it really is a question of whether they feel guys like Dalquist and Thompson project as more better players 2-3 years from now. If they do, then Musgrove will likely outperform Stiever for the next 2 seasons and give the Sox a reliable 4th/5th starter. 

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I think from the Sox point of view it really is a question of whether they feel guys like Dalquist and Thompson project as more better players 2-3 years from now. If they do, then Musgrove will likely outperform Stiever for the next 2 seasons and give the Sox a reliable 4th/5th starter. 

Yeah, especially with cherington. Those would likely be the interest group, along with Our AZ position players like Ramos, Ramirez, bailey

[michelangelosmonkey]

36 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Got it, so ignore the 1st month of 2019 and last 25% of 2020 where he was dominant to fit your argument so he looks like a shitty pitcher. That is the definition of cherry picking stats. But let me try this, if I take Musgrove's April of 2019 an September of 2020, his ERA was 1.80 over 60 innings, looks like an ace to me. The point is, you either use the full 2 years, or 2020 alone, cherry picking stats like you're doing makes for a faulty argument.

And if you want to use 2 years stats, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that pitchers could make improvement during off seasons (especially with modern day data and technology), Musgrove has shown he's drastically improved his secondary pitches in 2020, but you're still stuck in the 90s with your ERA argument.

Edit - I decided to look at this all so important 32 game sample myself. He had not 5.50, but 5.28 ERA, 4.26 4,30 xFIP. Still pretty solid underlying numbers in this arbitrary date range where we conveniently ignored his best stretches. What's influencing the 5.28 ERA? a 63.4% LOB rate, literally the worst out of all the 80 qualifying pitchers over that period. In other words, he has the shitty Pitt bullpen to thank.

Cherry picking is taking two games in May and two games in July and a game in August and September and excluding them...which is wholly unfair.  But Im looking at 32 consecutive starts over two seasons and OK....I used shorthand...Ill accept 5.28.  You know who had 33 starts with a 5.38 ERA in 2019 but against the DH league...yup Reylo.  Im fine with trading assets but Musgrove had no success before 2019 and his success in 2020 was not some build to a crescendo...Im not excluding 25% of the year...he had two good starts at the very end of the year and four good starts at the very beginning of the previous year and for the next year and a half he was Reylo and if that doesnt give you pause nothing will.

[thxfrthmmrs]

2 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

Cherry picking is taking two games in May and two games in July and a game in August and September and excluding them...which is wholly unfair.  But Im looking at 32 consecutive starts over two seasons and OK....I used shorthand...Ill accept 5.28.  You know who had 33 starts with a 5.38 ERA in 2019 but against the DH league...yup Reylo.  Im fine with trading assets but Musgrove had no success before 2019 and his success in 2020 was not some build to a crescendo...Im not excluding 25% of the year...he had two good starts at the very end of the year and four good starts at the very beginning of the previous year and for the next year and a half he was Reylo and if that doesnt give you pause nothing will.

So why ignore the 60 innings before and after the 32 starts, within the same years, where he was pitching at ace level? Is it that just to fit your narrative? If you truly want to be unbiased, why ignore that? And did you recognize that the 5.28 ERA is inflated by pitching behind a shitty bullpen and literally having the worst LOB% out of everyone in the league over that period of time? Reylo sucks and the underlying stats support it.

Likely I said you keep quoting ERA, but you fail to understand the context behind it, and a raw ERA alone is a bad indicator to project future performance, but you keep preaching it like gospel and ignoring everything else everyone is posting on here that are much better indicators for future performance. You keep that up. No point of debating with you.

[bmags]

4 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

So why ignore the 60 innings before and after the 32 starts, within the same years, where he was pitching at ace level? Is it that just to fit your narrative? If you truly want to be unbiased, why ignore that? And did you recognize that the 5.28 ERA is inflated by pitching behind a shitty bullpen and literally having the worst LOB% out of everyone in the league over that period of time? Reylo sucks and the underlying stats support it.

Likely I said you keep quoting ERA, but you fail to understand the context behind it, and a raw ERA alone is a bad indicator to project future performance, but you keep preaching it like gospel and ignoring everything else everyone is posting on here that are much better indicators for future performance. You keep that up. No point of debating with you.

You have done nice work but I stopped caring when he was posting bWAR and comparing him to lopez for some reason.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

So why ignore the 60 innings before and after the 32 starts, within the same years, where he was pitching at ace level? Is it that just to fit your narrative? If you truly want to be unbiased, why ignore that? And did you recognize that the 5.28 ERA is inflated by pitching behind a shitty bullpen and literally having the worst LOB% out of everyone in the league over that period of time? Reylo sucks and the underlying stats support it.

Likely I said you keep quoting ERA, but you fail to understand the context behind it, and a raw ERA alone is a bad indicator to project future performance, but you keep preaching it like gospel and ignoring everything else everyone is posting on here that are much better indicators for future performance. You keep that up. No point of debating with you.

So here’s one issue..every year of his career, his ERA has been worse than his FIP, by half a run or so. This is actually pretty consistent, across both his time with the Astros and Pirates. This is the case consistently across 496.2 innings and with 2 teams. Is that predictive or not? If not, how is it happening?

Again, I feel like I’m describing Javy Vazquez here.

[thxfrthmmrs]

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So here’s one issue..every year of his career, his ERA has been worse than his FIP, by half a run or so. This is actually pretty consistent, across both his time with the Astros and Pirates. This is the case consistently across 496.2 innings and with 2 teams. Is that predictive or not? If not, how is it happening?

Again, I feel like I’m describing Javy Vazquez here.

Pitching behind a bad defense and bad bullpen has a lot to do with that. In an environment where those areas are league average or better, I think his stats should look a lot better. Since arriving to Pittsburgh, he has the 2nd worst LOB % of all pitchers over 300 IP, and the Pitt defense has been in the bottom 3rd during that stretch as well.

[Chicago White Sox]

So what would Musgrove theoretically cost?  The Pirates are going to be targeting younger, high risk / high reward type prospects, so not sure Stiever would be of much interest to then.  I worry they would want Kelley and to me that would be a no go.  If not him, Matthew Thompson is probably the most attractive centerpiece that we might be open to trading.  Does him, James Beard, and say Jose Rodriguez get it done?  Is that really a better play than just signing Garrett Richards to fill the #4 spot?  I’ll admit Musgrove is fairly intriguing, just not sure I want to trade more assets for a short-term rotation piece, even ones multiple years away.

[Springfield Soxfan]

42 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So what would Musgrove theoretically cost?  The Pirates are going to be targeting younger, high risk / high reward type prospects, so not sure Stiever would be of much interest to then.  I worry they would want Kelley and to me that would be a no go.  If not him, Matthew Thompson is probably the most attractive centerpiece that we might be open to trading.  Does him, James Beard, and say Jose Rodriguez get it done?  Is that really a better play than just signing Garrett Richards to fill the #4 spot?  I’ll admit Musgrove is fairly intriguing, just not sure I want to trade more assets for a short-term rotation piece, even ones multiple years away.

Agreed. Sign Richards and save assets.  

[Capital G]

41 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So what would Musgrove theoretically cost?  The Pirates are going to be targeting younger, high risk / high reward type prospects, so not sure Stiever would be of much interest to then.  I worry they would want Kelley and to me that would be a no go.  If not him, Matthew Thompson is probably the most attractive centerpiece that we might be open to trading.  Does him, James Beard, and say Jose Rodriguez get it done?  Is that really a better play than just signing Garrett Richards to fill the #4 spot?  I’ll admit Musgrove is fairly intriguing, just not sure I want to trade more assets for a short-term rotation piece, even ones multiple years away.

Id much rather sign Richards, Kluber, Q than send prospects to Pitt for him. I just don't see enough separation between them to say let's trade vs spend.