Max Scherzer New York Mets

Age: 37 (July 27, 1984) | 6' 3" | 208lbs. | Throws: Right Minors: p-33 ph-2
Tm Lg YEAR W L SV Hld G GS IP H HR BB SO ERA WHIP Rating BB/9 SO/9 BABIP G/L/F % $4x4 $5x5
WAS NL 2018 18 7 0 0 33 33 220.1 150 23 51 300 2.53 0.91 0.95 2.1 12.3 .283 34/18/48 41 40
WAS NL 2019 11 7 0 0 27 27 172.0 144 18 33 243 2.93 1.03 1.09 1.7 12.7 .342 41/21/38 27 28
WAS NL 2020 5 4 0 0 12 12 67.0 70 10 23 92 3.76 1.39 1.44 3.1 12.4 .382 33/27/40 12 18
WAS NL 2021 8 4 0 0 19 19 111.0 71 18 28 147 2.76 0.89 1.01 2.3 11.9 .242 32/17/51 21 20
LAD NL 2021 7 0 0 0 11 11 68.0 48 5 8 89 1.99 0.82 0.88 1.1 11.8 .295 35/21/44 18 16
NYM NL 2022 4 1 0 0 7 7 44.0 29 5 11 55 2.66 0.91 0.95 2.2 11.2 .258 35/18/46 9 9
Career 15yrs 194 98 0 0 414 405 2577.0 2101 292 688 3075 3.15 1.08 1.12 2.4 10.7 .301 n/a
Welcome! You are invited to wander around and read all of the comments that have been posted here at Patton & Co., but as soon as you register you can see the bid limits that Alex, Peter and Mike propose for each player, and you can post your own comments. Registering is free, so please join us!

Stathead Spotlight

In his home debut for the New York Mets, Max Scherzer threw seven innings of ten strikeout, one-hit ball against the San Francisco Giants. It was the fifth game of 7+ IP, 10+ Ks and allowing one hit or fewer in his career. Since 1901, only Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson and Bob Feller have more such games in the NL or AL.

PlayerNo. of Games
Nolan Ryan19
Randy Johnson10
Bob Feller6
Justin Verlander5
Max Scherzer5
Sandy Koufax5
Clayton Kershaw5

See the full list on

Alex Patton Alex
Apr 20

In The Athletic this morning...

By Andy McCullough  Mar 27, 2022 32  

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. — The first ace tagged out just past 2 p.m. on Sunday, before an adoring, appreciative crowd at Clover Park. Jacob deGrom accepted a round of applause and a slew of handshakes as he stalked off the mound and into the Mets dugout. Nine minutes later, the fans popped once more, rising to acknowledge the appearance of Max Scherzer as he bounded out of the dugout and climbed the mound. The second ace had tagged in.

For the penultimate weekend of this abbreviated spring training, Mets manager Buck Showalter presented the public with a miniaturized distillation of the hopes and dreams and fears of his club in 2022. Showalter divvied up the entirety of one day between his two star pitchers. DeGrom started Sunday’s game, as he will Opening Day. Scherzer finished it. The afternoon highlighted the duo’s outsized importance to the team’s playoff hopes. For this $278 million roster, so much hinges on the health of two arms...

Alex Patton Alex
Mar 28

What worries me about Scherzer's comments is that he laments the death of the "grand bargain" he says was (from the players' point of view) the underlying basis of previous CBAs.  That bargain is that players accept much lower pay earlier in their careers but are more assured of higher pay later, through both arbitration and free agency.

IMO Eugene is right about one of the management goals in these negotiations: expanded playoffs.  Another way to state that goal is expanded revenue.  But to me their second goal isn't a competitive balance tax per se, but maybe better stated that goal is salary cost control.  Obviously this goal is the exact opposite of what players want.

The players will very likely make some concessions on playoff expansion.  But they have zero incentive to move towards the owners on controlling salaries.  And the grand bargain that has previously bridged this gap of competing objectives has not played out in a way that players can accept.

To no one's surprise, once the mechanisms to implement that bargain (minimum salaries, service time, arbitration, and CBT thresholds) were agreed to, the owners quickly figured out what strategies were most efficient to game the system.  Clubs prized young, pre-arb stars like NFL teams prize QBs on rookie contracts. They prized them so much that they manipulated service time clocks (e.g., Bryant),  signed guys to crazy-low pre-arb extensions (e.g, Acuna), and traded off stars who were close to free agency and due for salary explosions (think Betts or even Trea Turner).  They even tanked to get these young stars while they were cheap.  Meanwhile, they placed a much lower value on everyday guys and fringe players.  Hence they began to non-tender guys who were getting pricey and weren't showing star upside.  And middling free agents were offered lowball contracts and treated as fungible, replaceable by upcoming minor-league guys.

The result was that the expected "grand bargain" only worked for stars and potential stars.  And honestly, who can blame the owners for using the agreed-upon system?  Beyond tanking, devaluing everyday players, etc., the owners also gamed the CBT.  High revenue teams avoided the escalating penalties by dipping under the thresholds temporarily, yet still looking at the CBT as a de facto salary cap.  Low revenue clubs and tanking clubs basked in the glory of bargain basement payrolls of AAA and AAAA players, with no minimum team salary.  And to add insult to injury, they spent CBT revenue transfers not on player salaries, but on facilities, coaching, data analytics measures, etc.  Again, who can blame them?  

The challenge for the players is to square the circle and come up with a system that can't be gamed as easily.  The owners, in my opinion, have too large a share of the revenue pie and don't wanna give it up.  Hell, they don't even wanna reveal how big the pie is, even to each other.

My modest suggestions to both sides:

- draft lottery or reorder that rewards teams for winning, but just missing the post-season.

- arbitration clock that is either/or,  service time or age (28.5?)

- big increase in minimum player salaries ($1 million)

- CBT (min and max) thresholds, indexed to something reasonable, with teams below the minimum paying the differential towards those increased minimum player salaries

- And I hate it,  but yes, expanded playoffs.

Because all of the above is so hard in this politically polarized environment, I think we see a delayed season with both sides talking past each other.

Bob Elam Bob-in-TX
Jan 7

Thanks, Eugene. I hadn't seen/noticed those two things in the discussion.

Kent Ostby Seadogs
Jan 5

Let's not pretend that this is a one sided ask. Management is asking for two major things. One - expanded playoffs, which are a huge revenue boon. Two - a competitive balance tax; the last CBA sunset the CBT, so as of right now one doesn't exist at all.  The  Union's proposals have been comprehensive thus far as they've addressed all of the players' wants and both of management's. 

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Jan 5

Has this idea been proposed?

All money going to the small-market teams is apportioned according to their share of the wins each season.

Just like that, the value of the Rays would triple.

Alex Patton Alex
Jan 5

What incentive to make changes do the teams have?

I get what the players want and even agree, but negotiations are about benefiting both sides. When you look at what Scherzer is asking for, they are all boons to the players but no incentive to the owners.  Even if the players offered something temporary it could be helpful (we'll do X for 2 seasons to help with the transition).

Scherzer seems to be saying -- We want higher minimum salaries, higher salaries for mid-grade free agents, and no cap on overall spending. 

I agree with his premise --> How do we make all 30 teams want to compete?

I honestly think that a non-playoff team draft order that starts with #13 overall (or whatever) is a very good starting point. If the top draft position is #13 instead of #30 then tank-for-the-best-prospects isn't going to work.

If I'm an owner though, looking at what Scherzer has proposed, my first question is going to be: What's in it for me?

Kent Ostby Seadogs
Jan 5

I very much disagree. My reading of the Scherzer story in the LA TImes lays out a very clear framework. The players don't want a salary cap or any other limits, they want a market economy that the teams have to abide by to compete. That is, they want all teams to compete, not just a few.

This seems to me unassailable. But please assail.

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
Jan 5

The Max Scherzer discussion that the players are looking to update the CBA in such a way that tanking is no longer the optimal strategy for owners and that every season all 30 teams will be trying their best to win makes me think that we are in for a very long lockout especially because the players don't seem willing to give up anything for this (i.e. they are unwilling to cap high end earnings but want to raise early career and mid-range FA salaries). While I agree with what Scherzer is saying as their goal, they are going to have to give something in return. If they are trying to push up salary on the bottom, I don't see how they don't have some sort of cap even if it's an NBA style cap.

And before you say that players will never give in to a cap, let me say that I agree with you.  Which just reiterates what I'm saying. The players have a big ask, but I don't know what chip they have to give to the owners in return for it.

Kent Ostby Seadogs
Jan 4