moonslav59

We seem to do better against good pitchers.

In February, I was hopeful one from Mata, Walter or Murphy could give us a mid season boost- not anymore. I'm not sure any will ever step foot on a MLB field. I have more hope in the farther away pitchers. I'm impressed by our young class in the bigs, right now- more so than I have since the Lester days.

It looks to be one of the better foundations in a while. SP has the ETAs of these kids: 2023: Mata 2024: Drohan, Walter, L Guerrero, R Fernandez 2025: Wikelman 2026: Perales, E R-C ??? Denlinger, Rogers, Dean, Paez, Encarnacion, Liu...

LOL vs our team with none.

Oh, there are mosre busts than just him. I was just pointing out the good ones or the turn-arounds. Several prospects are gone.

Okay, right on the Pivetta differential is big, but it's not like 5.17 is something to brag about with Wong. He's worse with both compared to 2021-2022. On Sale, you don't think he'd have been rusty with Wong over the first few starts, and YES, I do think switching says something big. I've never argued Cora, Bloom or pitchers prefer McGuire or think he's better. He hasn't been better. No, it doesn't sound like I'm desperately searching. You said all starters and Crawford sucked with Wong. He was as many starts as Paxton and just 1/3 those of Bello. My only beef was with the deceptive phrase you used to compare Wong and McGuire, when many comps can't be counted due to no sample sizes for one half the comp, and a few others are so lop-sided, they should not count. (If they do, then so should Crawford and even Wink.) To me, the record is 3-2 in Wong's favor and some of the Wong wins need context. Honestly, do you think sale would suck, now had McGuire stayed catching him? Kluber would be much better had Wong caught him? It's hard to imagine a further decline from Houck and Whitlock from 2021--2022 than they've had with Wong, but I suppose they could have been even worse. My point is there is too much nuance to tell much, at this point, but yes, Wong has a better CERA and catches only the good pitchers.

I think Bloom expected numbers near 2021-2022: 4.17 ERA 3.66 FIP 1.25 WHIP 4.1 K/BB If he was at 4.60 or 4.70, we might not even be talking about him.

Not sure why 2019 matters, then, either, or why it matters more than 2018. My point was that his xFIP seems out of whack, too, and pretty much always does- one way or the other.

About what I expected from Nate and better than Kluber's expectations.

It kind of jumps out at me, how many Bloom prospect trade acquisitions are taking a big step forward, this year in their numbers, anyway: Wong (Betts trade) joining Verdugo in starting off as a career season. (.704 OPS and 8th on team in PAs) Winckowski (Beni trade): exploding off the charts at the MLB level (2.15 ERA and 5th on the team in IP.) E Valdez (Vaz Trade) .800 OPS at MLB level in 68 PAs (13th on team and rising) W Abreu (Vaz Trade) .864 OPS is the best in his minor league career (1st year in AAA) Hamilton (Renfroe Trade) .862 OPS is best in minor league career (also first season in AAA) Corey Rosier (Groome Trade) .818 in first year at AA (22 SB in 30 games) Max Ferguson (Groome Trade) .742 in A+, but .386 OBP (better than career .707) 19 SB in 32 games Theo Denlinger (Frank German Trade) 1.84 ERA at AA (.392 OPSA!!!! and 0.818 WHIP) Luis de la Rosa (Beni Trade) 2.88 ERA at A (.576 OPSA) & Grant Gambrell (Beni) 4.34 ERA A+/AA

His higher xFIP is farther from his career xFIP than his ERA is from his career ERA.

I'm not sure what to read into the xFIP v ERA point. It seems like every good ERA season he has had, his xFIP is worse, and every bad season he has had, his xFIP is better- sometimes by a lot. ERA/ xFIP 2.78/3.36 3.20/3.71 3.38/3.88 5.09/4.05 4.13/3.88 3.20/4.12 4.76/4.80 (2019 is the only trend buster, but still: every other ERA season over 4.00 has a better xFIP) 6.62/4.30 5.05/3.91 3.32/3.99 3.58/4.61 (Every season with an ERA below 4.00 had a worse xFIP) If you are going to us xFIP and ERA differentials to put Wacha down, then shouldn't you also be saying he was much better during his "off years" than the number showed?

I don't think Kluber should count in the discussion, because of this and the 8 to 1 split. Houck, Whitlock, Paxton and Crawford have only started with Wong, and Houck/Whitlock have sucked compared to 2021-2022, so how can they count in Wong's favor? That leaves Pivetta (not a big differential), Bello (only 6 GS) and Sale (who has only been caught by Wong since his adjustment period.) It's too nuanced to draw any major conclusions, and CERA is often that way, especially with small or unbalanced sample sizes- sometimes both. The major changes from 2022-2023: Whitlock and Houck- major declines (only caught by Wong) Crawford and Wink- major improvement (much better with mcGuire) To me, this pretty much muddles the picture on Wong being clearly better.

I was not impressed with the higher price SP'er options, this year. I was okay with signing Kluber and expected better than this, for sure. I would not have paid Nate for 2 years and lose the comp pick. I was skeptical about the Eflin attempt, but that would have been nice. I liked Wacha and thought he'd get $26M/3 or $20M/2.

He's had 3 good seasons and 3 others not so bad or with limited IP. That's close to half his seasons, and people are making it sound like he has a 1 in 10 chance at having a good season. OK, 3 seasons in a row before 2022 is concerning, but he did have a 4.47 FIP in 2021, so he wasn't horrific. Nate was at 5.99 in 2019 and missed a big chunk of time (25% or more) in 2020 and 2021. Wacha has a career 4.03 ERA and a 4.05 FIP. The 5.11 ERA from 2019-2021 should ot be swept under the rug, but it is also not the be all end all point. Yes, he misses time, too, but... 2019-2022 IP 413 Wacha 408 Nate 281 Kluber 2020-2022 340 Nate 286 Wacha 245 Kluber 2021-2022 293 Nate 252 Wacha 244 Kluber

If Wacha gives 2 good years, he's worth $26M- a trizillion percent! He's on his way to one.

Yea, I think I short-changed Abreu.

I'm not disagreeing on the concern over McGuire getting the most from the few pitchers both catch a significant amount of time- which isn't many. I do think just about all of our SP'ers would say the prefer Wong, at this point in time- maybe even Kluber. I don't think Crawford or Wink would, but they are not starters, right now. I'm just trying to point out that it's not 8 to nothing.

OPS+ 88 McGuire 86 Wong It's about even on O, but certainly both are trending in opposite directions- duly noted.

I did not know this when I first made my point, but if he does well, we (and the Padres) would want that deal, if not they may end up with the player option taken, and those numbers change. I still like the Wacha gamble more than the Kluber one, and this is not in hindsight.

No doubt, and it's totally understandable. I'm not arguing otherwise. Maybe even Kluber would like to try Wong a few more times. (BTW, he has improved a lot on his ERA with McGuire, after that rocky start to the season.) If Crawford or Wink were asked to start, who would they choose?

Crawford has as many GS'd as Paxton and did better with McGuire, so technically, this is not true. The fact that 4 of 8 SP'ers have only been caught by one catcher - Whitlock, Houck, paxton and Crawford (both starts with Wong with an 8.00 ERA, BTW,) and Kluber is 8 to 1 makes your statement very deceiving. The 5 pitchers with significant time with both catchers are divided 3 to 2 in Wong's favor, but you want to focus on only SP'er. I think, if you put Whitlock, Houck and paxton in Wong's corner, then you should count Crawford in McGuire's. (I'd put Wink, too, but he has not started.)

Probably not good enough for top 10, but proving it at the MLB level should give a little boost.

That is so deceiving. Houck- ONLY Wong Whitlock- ONLY Wong Paxton- ONLY Wong That's half the sample size off the bat. Kluber has 1 start with McGuire, so how can he count? 5 IP w Wong 1.80 37 IP w McGuire 6.87 Sorry, but I can't see how this example should mean much at all. That leaves 3 others, and this is what all the debate is really about, IMO. Sale- 6 GS w Wong and 3 GS with McGuire- YES a massive disparity (11.25 to 3.05, but one could argue McGuire only caught Sale as he was trying to regain what he had lost. Yes, one can argue Wong helped him find it more quickly, but do we know that?) Pivetta has sucked with both catchers: 6 GS w McGuire 6.75 4 GS w Wong 5.17 Yes, better with Wong, but not by a whole lot and just 15.2 IP with Wong is one pitch from being equal or worse than McGuire.) Bello- just 6 GS 4 w Wong 3.05 2 w Wong 8.22 A massive disparity but less than 8 IP with McGuire. The fact that all 3 have done better with Wong does have significance. I'm not denying it, but when you say all starters, it really is about 3 of the 7. I'd like to add one more thing: Crawford has as many GS'd as Paxton (2) and both Crawford and Winckowski have more IP than Bello, Whitlock and Paxton, but you only highlight the starters. I think they should be in the discussion, and they would make the score 3 for McGuire and 2 for Wong. (Crawford + Wink have more IP: 56 than Whitlock + Bello + Paxton: 55.1) Wink 18 IP w Wong 2.50 11 IP w McGuire 1.59 Close but so is Pivetta Craw 13 IP w Wong 6.08 14 IP w McGuire 1.26 Massive differential but small samples

The conversation drifted towards signing Nat or wacha, instead of Kluber, so I just highlighted what the differences would have been. Kluber for one year at $10, and then minus that $10M/1 from Nate and wacha leaves.... $24M x for Nate (2024) $34M/2 - $10M/1. $16M x 3 for Wacha (2024-2026) $26M/4 - $10M/1 Yes, both have risks, but I do not think $5.3M x 3 for Wacha over the next 3 years is all that catastrophic, and he does have a chance at being decent.