Steven Matz made his MLB debut last year in late June and was impressive in two starts before landing on the disabled list with a torn lat. He was sidelined for three months but came back to make four more starts in the regular season and three more in the playoffs. It’s a rather unique situation, one whereby Matz still retains his rookie eligibility but we’ve seen enough of him, and in pressure situations, to form more than a “Who knows?” type of opinion.
Matz displayed solid peripherals and got his share of grounders, too. But what really made his debut so amazing was how effective he was in stranding runners who got on base against him. The league average LOB% was 72.9 last year. A mark of 80% is considered excellent. Matz’ strand rate was 91.4% which is incredible. It also explains how a guy with a FIP of 3.61 winds up with a 2.27 ERA.
Here are our individual projections for Matz:
| IP | ERA | K | BB | HR | FIP | LOB% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Barbieri | 139.1 | 4.00 | 128 | 46 | 8 | 3.03 | 68.1 |
| Scott Fergson | 165.0 | 3.50 | 155 | 60 | 13 | 3.37 | 72.0 |
| Charlie Hangley | 142.0 | 3.36 | 135 | 53 | 21 | 4.27 | 79.0 |
| Brian Joura | 170.0 | 3.56 | 175 | 58 | 19 | 3.55 | 75.8 |
| Mike Koehler | 140.0 | 3.50 | 124 | 47 | 15 | 3.76 | 75.0 |
| Matt Netter | 145.0 | 3.15 | 157 | 44 | 10 | 2.78 | 88.0 |
| Jim O’Malley | 168.0 | 3.33 | 148 | 44 | 18 | 3.55 | 79.5 |
| Larry Smith | 150.0 | 3.55 | 140 | 38 | 12 | 3.07 | 79.0 |
| Chris Walendin | 169.0 | 3.33 | 153 | 42 | 16 | 3.30 | 84.0 |
Our projections are varied but generally a touch more conservative than what you might expect, given our history. Our LOB% forecasts are distributed throughout, as two people have Matz posting a mark in the 80% range, while two others have him being below the 2015 average. No one predicts him for a sub-3.00 ERA and the highest IP forecast checks in at 170.
Here’s our official group projection:
Given Matz’ injury history it makes sense not to have our group forecast near 200 IP. Still, I’m surprised no one got him close to that number. Overall, this seems understandably bearish. Now let’s see what the computer models predict. Many times over the years what seemed like a cautious group projection for us was not the case when we saw what the big boys were forecasting. Here are those numbers:
| IP | ERA | K | BB | HR | FIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcel | 78.0 | 3.46 | 71 | 24 | 9 | 3.74 |
| Mets360 | 154.1 | 3.50 | 146 | 48 | 15 | 3.44 |
| Steamer | 139.0 | 3.60 | 136 | 47 | 15 | 3.59 |
| ZiPS | 141.2 | 3.37 | 139 | 44 | 12 | 3.20 |
We can discount the innings total for Marcel, which always struggles with forecasts for guys without several full years in the majors. Even so, we still had the highest innings forecast. On a rate basis, we all essentially see the same guy. And really, a 15 IP difference isn’t huge.
I think the numbers on 2015 go to someone else! Although 600 IP would be a sight to behold.
None of the 2015 numbers are right. I’ve got a request into Mike and will update as soon as he sends me a new one.
The updated one is now here. Thanks for alerting us.
Broken record here—Give me 180 Healthy Innings! If all of these guys are healthy, they’re probably collectively better. I expect a glitch or two in performance, but these are such compelling Pitchers!!!
Matz is most interesting because he’s “the newest toy”….. Every night a different Young Pitcher….and on the 5th night it’s Bartolo. It’s certainly a fun watch!!!
Add the Conforto and Cespee AB’s…. there’s is a lot to be pumped about. This is a 180 from the misery of the recent past—a good and fun team to watch—and it’s a generally like-able bunch.
Sorry about the graphics goof, y’all.
As far as Matz goes, I’m a little surprised at the numbers. There’s definitely a few very bullish projections on our end (Brian, I’d be shocked if he even sniffs 170 IP), but our collective projections are only a touch rose-colored compared to the “accepted” models. 140-ish IP, 3.5 ERA and 3.5 FIP seem very attainable by these projections.
Let’s use 6 IP per start, since that’s an easy number. If he has 28 starts, that’s 168 IP. So, since you don’t think he’ll sniff 170 IP, which choices below do you think keeps him from that many?
A: He won’t average that many innings per start
B: You’re projecting a DL stint over 21 days
c: You think the Mets will go to a 6-man rotation
D: You think he’ll bomb and need a trip to the bullpen or minors
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to predict any or all of the above choices. Since you think he’ll have a 3.50 ERA, that seems to eliminate “D” above. Personally, I’m not predicting “C” and I think “A” is too pessimistic. My projection was with one minor DL trip.
Matz Pitched 125 innings last year with an 8 week injury— I’m hoping the natural progression is at least 160-180 innings.
I think Matz will be in the 160 IP at the upper limit by the end of regular season play.
I’d go soft on Matz this year, innings-wise, especially if there’s any expectation of a postseason run. The Mets would love a solid 150-160 out of him. I’m conflicted, since I’d like to see him become a 7-inning pitcher, which means battling through some late-game fatigue. The tendency last year was to pull him at the first sign of trouble, but maybe, short-term, that’s the right thing to do.
If the goal is a full, healthy season, I guess they need to proceed with caution. Then you double-down on that approach if you want this guy to register some big outs in September and October.
I feel that if he’s healthy, the results will be better than what’s been predicted here. I like him a lot.
Too many numbers and cyber stat bull.
I will just take these out of the 4th spot: 150 innings, 2.5 -1 K vs walk ratio, 10-5 record, 3.20 ERA.
Let’s go ‘Matz’.
O, Arturo, Prince of Irony!
If Matz stays healthy I expect him to have a much better year
than the experts predict.
I expect him to have an ERA under .300 and win at least 15 games
and strike out close to if not more than 200 batters.
If he stays healthy.
Editor’s Note – Please do not capitalize words in your post, as that is a violation of our Comment Policy.