McCarthy & Loe

by bronco28 on Mar 25, 2007 6:00 AM CDT Comment 28 comments

Maybe Loe will end up as McCarthy's co-starter since it seems like McCarthy is going to have trouble making it through five innings on a regular basis.

Anyone else notice how inefficient McCarthy is? And it's not a "spring problem" either. He was one of the most inefficient pitchers in the AL last year.

The guy needed 4.11 pitches per plate appearance last year and only four big league starters were at 4.00 or more. He needed 17.2 pitches to get through an inning (only three MLB starters needed more).

McCarthy has talent, to be sure, but at this point I'd say that any club that has someone like this penciled in as a #3 starter doesn't really have "rotation stability."

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

panic button

is rampant on this site. All of our starters are going to struggle in some starts. Loe is going to get plenty of innings helping out all of them from time to time, not because he's McCarthy's 'co-starter'. I am more worried about too many walks from the entire staff in general, not just McCarthy.

by t ball on Mar 25, 2007 6:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The shadow of Danks...

True. It's not panic button time, but, some may want to know the location of that button...just in case.

My own lack of tolerance for B-Mac's struggles has a lot to do with my dissatisfaction withe the trade. As an organization you can't lead all fans by the nose. And you can't trade away BA's #1 prospect, a homegrown favorite, for an unknown and not be aware of the damning possibilities.

Danks was portrayed as TOO YOUNG, but apparently he's old enough to start for one of the better teams in baseball? The press was completely behind this deal, assuring everyone this was a sound strategy. Danks just had a good ST, B-Mac's has been average (at-best). Too early to panic? Yes. Too early to worry? No.

by 3Bagger on Mar 25, 2007 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

I have a couple of problems with your post.

"an unknown"

This is dead wrong. Daniels made the trade to acquire a known who had actually performed in the majors.

"Danks was portrayed as TOO YOUNG, but apparently he's old enough to start for one of the better teams in baseball?"

The White Sox are not one of the better teams in baseball and the back of their rotation was very thin. If it wasn't Danks, it would have been Gavin Floyd, who hasn't exactly torn up the majors.

by a bebop a rebop on Mar 25, 2007 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reply...

I'm not sure what the correct definition of known or unknown might be? Are we asking some LSB zealot or some spud-sucker who attends 3 games a year in his company's box?

Brandon is 7-9 with 150 innings to his name, spread over two seasons, mostly as a middle reliever (perhaps the least hearladed, least known spot in the Bigs).

BTW. Something people hate to consider, he's never been a #3 or a #5 SP in the Show. That doesn't mean he won't do well, I'm just saying everything we know is based on limited data.

I admit I'm biased, I like Danks. I like B-Mac too, but Righties who throw high 92 always scare me. Danks has that great curve, but I also think his intangibles will prove to be very important.

by 3Bagger on Mar 25, 2007 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Funny how the same people............

who want to discount what Sosa's done "because it's only ST" are ready to plug Loe into McCarthy's spot because of a couple of rough ST outings.....and because Danks may make the ChiSox as a 5th starter (not too tough when Gavin Floyd is your only competition).

I'd also wonder how much of a difference it makes, when a guy is pitching "to make" the club vs. a guy who's a 4th starter "getting ready" for the season.

Let's make a wager on who ends up having a better year.....I'll bet on McCarthy.....any taker's?

by tklawless on Mar 25, 2007 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take it

Milk, milk, lemonade, around the corner fudge is made.

by Chris Martin on Mar 25, 2007 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's the wager?

Let me say in advance, I don't want to see (or be seen in) that Mrs. Lima dress on anyone.....

by tklawless on Mar 25, 2007 7:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wager

Before we decide on a wager we need to decide on the criteria for who has a better year. Obviously, if Danks makes a couple of starts and then gets sent to AAA then McCarthy will have a better year and I lose. However, if they both end up getting 25+ starts and/or 150+ innings in the majors then we will have to come up with something.

Milk, milk, lemonade, around the corner fudge is made.

by Chris Martin on Mar 26, 2007 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

BTW, you seem down on the Ranger's

at least by some of your projections. Not expecting a very good year?

Not that I blame you, I, too see a lot of "if's" and realize most of the if's won't pan out (especially the OF defense & Sosa, etc.). I felt like the offense might have had a chance with another bat, but am resigned to the fact you can only accomplish so much in any one off season, and JD had a lot to do.

by tklawless on Mar 28, 2007 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes and no

Overall, I think the team is about .500. I have been keeping track of my projections. I think most of them are pretty positive.

.250/.360/.460/475PA - Brad Wilkerson

.295/.350/.460/400PA - Frankie the Cat

.275/.325/.445/475PA - Gerald Laird

12/170/4.60 - Brandon McCarthy

.315/.405/.596 - Mark Teixeira

.310/.360/.490 - Ian Kinsler

.303/.347/.456 - Michael Young

4/75/5.60 - Robinson Tejeda

.290/.350.380 400 PA - Kenny Lofton

.265.315/.430 350PA - Nelson Cruz

Milk, milk, lemonade, around the corner fudge is made.

by Chris Martin on Mar 28, 2007 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it was the pitcher's projection's

that made me think that.

by tklawless on Mar 28, 2007 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I probably saw your's on Tejeda

and figured you didn't think much of McCarthy, since you were wearing me out about him....after seeing all your projections, I take it back.

Does that mean you think Danks wins more than 12 with and ERA under 4.50?

by tklawless on Mar 28, 2007 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

why?

you think danks will ahve a better year than mccarthy?

"I want him focused on figuring out a way to beat that lefty's ass." - RW

by ab03 on Mar 25, 2007 7:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

nope, problem gambler. He'll bet on anything

What do you say we turn a homeless man into a stock trader? Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go steal the Orange Juice Concentrate quarterly report.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Mar 26, 2007 3:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's possible

I don't necessarily believe it's a lock but there is a decent shot. That's why it's a bet. There would be no point in betting on something like if Teixeira would have a better year than Ojeda.

Plus, I just wanted someone to call him on it considering he has been telling us how great McCarthy is pretty much since the day the trade was made.

Milk, milk, lemonade, around the corner fudge is made.

by Chris Martin on Mar 26, 2007 7:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just optimistic we got

McCarthy, the starter from 2005 not McCarthy the reliever from 2006. Although something in between would be pretty decent and above where Danks projected before the trade and he became a "can't miss Ace".

All their minor league stats point to McCarthy being the better pitcher. I'd love to still have Danks, if for no other reason than to be able to say the Rangers can develop a guy. But, we've got McCarthy now and being a Ranger fan, I gonna pull for him......not against Danks.

by tklawless on Mar 28, 2007 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

BTW, I thought you were FOR the trade?

and only anti-Eaton....

by tklawless on Mar 25, 2007 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well....

At 17.2 pitches per inning, he should be able to get through 6 innings pretty regularly (103 pitches), then the pen for the 7th, 8th, and 9th. I see no problem whatsoever with this. As a matter of fact, that is probably the Rangers blueprint for a starter this year.

by Topgun22 on Mar 25, 2007 8:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

17.2 pitches/inning

That would put him at 103 pitches after 6IP on average. I'll take that every time. Especially considering our 8th and 9th inning guys could be the best combo in the league.

I think his high pitches/inning stat is mainly a function of being a reliever last year anyway. In his 12 ML starts he is averaging 15.6 pitches/inning. Of the 80 pitchers who qualified last year, that would be in the top 40%. But it would allow him to work into the 7th inning before he got to 100 pitches and would probably give us a chance to win most nights.

by hurley325 on Mar 25, 2007 9:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

True enough

But at 76-90 pitches, opposing hitters tune McCarthy up with a cumulative 1.236 OPS.

He might get to the sixth in 100 pitches, but those numbers suggest you might not want to see those last 25 offerings.

I'm sure he's going to be consistently great. If the Rangers say so, then I believe it. What organization, after all, has had a keener eye for great pitching than this one?

Kidding aside, I'm still a long way away from believing the propoganda on this guy. He's got talent, but so does Volquez. Can he pitch? Consistently?

by bronco28 on Mar 25, 2007 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, here are the standards....

If we're going to judge Danks and McCarthy, they need to be compared to league average for the #3 and #5 positions.

AL average #3 ERA: 4.58
AL average #5 ERA: 6.22

More info here

It's better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.

by rooster on Mar 25, 2007 10:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Okay

Do you really think we're going to have to have a tandem starter setup because McCarthy won't be able to go 5 regularly?

Or are you just wanting to bitch about the Danks trade?

by Adam J. Morris on Mar 25, 2007 12:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't that Grady Fuson?

by tklawless on Mar 25, 2007 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was kinda hoping

that you'd stay at the Newberg site bronco. It really doesn't matter what we say cause your mind is already made up, but I'm fairly positive McCarthy will have a much better year than Danks.

by FirebatM3 on Mar 25, 2007 12:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

McCarthy V. Danks, 2007

I'm pretty sure you're right about that. I liked Danks as a prospect, but he was never really mentioned as a "phenom", which is basically what he'd be if he were to be good in MLB this year.

I'm expecting both of them to struggle, but I think Danks probably won't stick all year.

Two years from now, who knows?

by Dustin on Mar 25, 2007 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

I'll stay away if I'm not welcome here. My mind isn't made up one way or another. I just don't understand why it's taken as a given the McCarthy is something that he hasn't proven to be. Has he really proven anything more than Loe has?

by bronco28 on Mar 26, 2007 5:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Emotions

I think the emotions are still running high on the Danks trade, despite all the claims to contrary. People are concerned. Despite the posturing or self-assured quips from some, all Ranger fans are hoping for the best on this trade, and secretly cringing at the prospect of another Chris Young moment.

Proof of my sensivity claim is Sosa. He's constantly abused on this site, nasty nicknames, and few if any care. If Sosa succeeds, he'll fill out a huge void for this team. But who's backing him up? Very few. They're all supporting MCCarthy instead.

by 3Bagger on Mar 26, 2007 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs