PDA

View Full Version : Treatment of McCarthy Makes No Sense


sox230
09-27-2006, 09:46 PM
So let me understand this. At crucial points in the second half of the season when we were still in the race, and Javier Vazquez really sturggling, our excuse for not starting McCarthy was because he was ttrained all season to only go three or four innings at the most and so he couldn't start a game. Yet now, when we are eliminated and it doesn't matter anymore, all the sudden he is called upon to get a start. And you can't say this makes sense because who else would the Sox have to pitch. These games don't matter anymore, they could call on any of the new guys such as Tracey to start, so how come all the sudden McCarty magically has the ability to start a game??? This makes no sense whatsoever.

shoelessshaun27!
09-27-2006, 09:51 PM
:dtroll: i don't think Vasquez was our problem at the end, our biggest problem was mark buehrle, McCarthy should have been starting instead, We lost this season though because of Ozzie guillen, making stupid moves in the bullpen, not ever having a day where all the starters played and hating brian anderson

PEACE

Crede_Fan
09-27-2006, 09:56 PM
:dtroll: i don't think Vasquez was our problem at the end, our biggest problem was mark buehrle, McCarthy should have been starting instead, We lost this season though because of Ozzie guillen, making stupid moves in the bullpen, not ever having a day where all the starters played and hating brian anderson

PEACE


Nice first post. Little advice :dtroll: + 1st post = you being called a troll.

chaerulez
09-27-2006, 10:09 PM
:dtroll: i don't think Vasquez was our problem at the end, our biggest problem was mark buehrle, McCarthy should have been starting instead, We lost this season though because of Ozzie guillen, making stupid moves in the bullpen, not ever having a day where all the starters played and hating brian anderson

PEACE

How is he trolling? He makes a good point. McCarthy wasn't being effective in the bullpen and it was a legit question to ask why he wasn't put into the rotation. At almost any time in the second half it could've been for anyone except Garland. The other four really struggled, except Garcia and Vazquez picked it up at the end, but by then it was too late.

southside rocks
09-27-2006, 10:13 PM
:dtroll: i don't think Vasquez was our problem at the end, our biggest problem was mark buehrle, McCarthy should have been starting instead, We lost this season though because of Ozzie guillen, making stupid moves in the bullpen, not ever having a day where all the starters played and hating brian anderson

PEACE

Fixed it for you. :tongue:

HotelWhiteSox
09-27-2006, 10:13 PM
I don't get it either, Anderson and McCarthy are getting similar treatment. I don't even get why KW traded for another starter, when you had one who helped save your season LAST year, and then stick him in the pen when he's never done it before. It wasn't broken and they tried to fix it.

I_Liked_Manuel
09-27-2006, 10:15 PM
How is he trolling? He makes a good point. McCarthy wasn't being effective in the bullpen and it was a legit question to ask why he wasn't put into the rotation. At almost any time in the second half it could've been for anyone except Garland. The other four really struggled, except Garcia and Vazquez picked it up at the end, but by then it was too late.

that's really not a legit question- if mccarthy can't even be productive out of the pen, why should he be in the starting rotation?

Martinigirl
09-27-2006, 10:16 PM
I have given up trying to understand Ozzie's logic (or lack there of) this season.

Iwritecode
09-27-2006, 10:17 PM
So let me understand this. At crucial points in the second half of the season when we were still in the race, and Javier Vazquez really sturggling, our excuse for not starting McCarthy was because he was ttrained all season to only go three or four innings at the most and so he couldn't start a game. Yet now, when we are eliminated and it doesn't matter anymore, all the sudden he is called upon to get a start. And you can't say this makes sense because who else would the Sox have to pitch. These games don't matter anymore, they could call on any of the new guys such as Tracey to start, so how come all the sudden McCarty magically has the ability to start a game??? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Because Vasquez makes a lot more $$$. He would've been a really expensive reliever.

We lost this season though because of Ozzie guillen, making stupid moves in the bullpen

When the starters can't make it past the 5th innning and Thorton and Jenks were the only two reliable relievers he really didn't have a lot of options.

southside rocks
09-27-2006, 10:19 PM
It's not as simple as putting McCarthy into the rotation (although that is not to say it couldn't have been done) -- what do you do with the starter you displace?

In fantasy baseball, it's a quick switch. In real life, the manager is dealing with egos, mental states, and all kinds of messy stuff -- like emotions and motivation -- that goes along with managing human beings. Human beings with egos the size of Montana.

HotelWhiteSox
09-27-2006, 10:26 PM
Because Vasquez makes a lot more $$$. He would've been a really expensive reliever.

I was more of a 'switch El Duque and McCarthy' guy in the offseason, but I don't get this argument. You also have an underpaid starter then, it balances out the same

HotelWhiteSox
09-27-2006, 10:29 PM
In fantasy baseball, it's a quick switch. In real life, the manager is dealing with egos, mental states, and all kinds of messy stuff -- like emotions and motivation -- that goes along with managing human beings. Human beings with egos the size of Montana.

I don't know how much Ozzie cares about mental states. See his handling of Anderson this year and having McCarthy help save the season last year and leaving him off all playoff rosters/getting mad at those in the media who praised him

BA: The Hitman
09-27-2006, 10:31 PM
I was more of a 'switch El Duque and McCarthy' guy in the offseason, but I don't get this argument. You also have an underpaid starter then, it balances out the same


Who gives a **** how much money what guy makes? The manager makes the decisions and it shouldnt have anything to do with the player salary. McCarthy should have been put in the rotation at about midseason because he has show he is much more effective as a starter. And if people are saying that couldn't have been done because Vazquez is making too much money to be in the bullpen, that is, as Ozzie would say, horse****.

JB98
09-27-2006, 10:31 PM
Brandon never pitched well enough to take anyone's place in the rotation. It's really that simple.

HotelWhiteSox
09-27-2006, 10:34 PM
Who gives a **** how much money what guy makes? The manager makes the decisions and it shouldnt have anything to do with the player salary. McCarthy should have been put in the rotation at about midseason because he has show he is much more effective as a starter. And if people are saying that couldn't have been done because Vazquez is making too much money to be in the bullpen, that is, as Ozzie would say, horse****.

That's what I'm saying...

Iwritecode
09-27-2006, 10:37 PM
I was more of a 'switch El Duque and McCarthy' guy in the offseason, but I don't get this argument. You also have an underpaid starter then, it balances out the same

OK, money and ego. Vasquez is a veteran. Anderson and McCarthy aren't. That's why Ozzie jerks the latter two around a lot more.

JB98
09-27-2006, 10:43 PM
OK, money and ego. Vasquez is a veteran. Anderson and McCarthy aren't. That's why Ozzie jerks the latter two around a lot more.

But what has Brandon done this season to earn a spot in the rotation?

cwsfannick
09-27-2006, 10:46 PM
OK, money and ego. Vasquez is a veteran. Anderson and McCarthy aren't. That's why Ozzie jerks the latter two around a lot more.

Correct. And you see how Javy loses his poise on the mound when doesn't get a call go his way, can you imagine how long he would sit and sulk about being demoted to the bullpen.

Chips
09-27-2006, 10:49 PM
But what has Brandon done this season to earn a spot in the rotation?

Here is one reason (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1363702&postcount=25)

JB98
09-27-2006, 10:50 PM
Here is one reason (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1363702&postcount=25)

It's good that Brandon has balls. But you have to get people out too. It's hard to make a case that you belong in the rotation by pitching poorly in relief.

FarWestChicago
09-27-2006, 10:51 PM
It's good that Brandon has balls. But you have to get people out too. It's hard to make a case that you belong in the rotation by pitching poorly in relief.Yeah, he had balls down the middle then going out over the fence.

Chips
09-27-2006, 10:56 PM
It's good that Brandon has balls. But you have to get people out too. It's hard to make a case that you belong in the rotation by pitching poorly in relief.

I agree. I don't think Brandon has done anything worthy of a starting spot.

Unless giving up home runs became a good thing.

Frontman
09-27-2006, 10:57 PM
Yeah, he had balls down the middle then going out over the fence.

Then had the balls to complain that he wasn't starting. As Steve Stone said, "Doesn't matter when you take the mound. Strike the man out in front of you."

McCarthy hasn't shown that ability this season. Although, I will give credit where due, he did strike out 8 in 5+ innings tonight, so with a bit more endurance, he might be right and he's only good as a starter.

God forbid you might need him in a 14+ inning game, as he says he ain't no good out of the bullpen.

Front

HotelWhiteSox
09-27-2006, 10:59 PM
Brandon never pitched well enough to take anyone's place in the rotation. It's really that simple.

Yep, last year; he has been crappy this year, but for me personally the pen and the rotation are like apples and oranges, different mindset, mental side is a big aspect of pitching, and different thinking you can't allow 1 baserunner compared to not being an issue at all when starting/spreading it out over 5-8 innings

JB98
09-27-2006, 11:06 PM
Yep, last year; he has been crappy this year, but for me personally the pen and the rotation are like apples and oranges, different mindset, mental side is a big aspect of pitching, and different thinking you can't allow 1 baserunner compared to not being an issue at all when starting/spreading it out over 5-8 innings

It is a different mindset, and I hope McCarthy will be better if he moves to the rotation next year. But it sends a bad message to a team when you take a pitcher who is struggling in the bullpen and put him in the rotation midseason. Essentially, you are rewarding a guy who is performing poorly, and that's not a precedent that needs to be set.

caulfield12
09-27-2006, 11:10 PM
I agree. I don't think Brandon has done anything worthy of a starting spot.

Unless giving up home runs became a good thing.

Maybe because he's giving up less hit per IP than Bobby Jenks after tonight.

Maybe because of his five quality starts when we wouldn't have survived without him and Contreras down the stretch last year and nobody was stepping up in the rotation.

BainesHOF
09-27-2006, 11:16 PM
The reason McCarthy wasn't inserted into the starting rotation was not that he wasn't stretched out. That was only the talk here, not in the dugout.

It was clear that McCarthy, like last year, could have helped us if he was inserted in the rotation. The reason he wasn't was because the Sox didn't want to de-value of any of our big-money starters. It's stupid, and that simple.

McCarthy was horribly wasted in a season when our pitching struggled. He was basically left to rot. The Sox reaped what they sowed with McCarthy late in the year. By the way, one of the reasons McCarthy was ineffective late in the last two months was because he wasn't throwing his changeup nearly enough. A changeup is a "feel" pitch. You need to pitch regularly to keep command of it, and the Sox never pitched McCarthy regularly. Instead he too often was brought into the game when we were down 5-1.

FarWestChicago
09-27-2006, 11:22 PM
It was clear that McCarthy, like last year, could have helped us if he was inserted in the rotation.:?: It was? It looked more like it would have helped the other team.

Lip Man 1
09-27-2006, 11:41 PM
Baines:

Sorry. Ozzie was quoted directly numerous times as saying that McCarthy wasn't stretched out therefore he would not be inserted into the rotation.

It wasn't something someone made up at WSI. Ozzie said it himself and on one occasion so did Cooper.

Lip

California Sox
09-27-2006, 11:43 PM
I'm going to take a couple whacks at this dead horse. I've said from the first day the Vazquez trade was rumored that McCarthy does not have the right mental makeup to be a reliever. He's an intense preparation fanatic and those guys don't usually do well in relief. I agree he had a very up and down season out of the pen, but no one can deny that he showed flashes of ability even out there.

The mishandling of McCarthy set us back not only for this year, but also for next. We still don't know what we have, and this start, while tantalizing, probably won't convince anyone who wasn't convinced by the way he closed the 2005 season. (Including KW?) There are going to be some pretty wrenching payroll decisions to be made in the offseason. (5 starters all making close to $10mil a year, Dye and Crede scheduled for raises, etc.) The team can't afford to pay everyone. McCarthy offers a very attractive starting option at a very affordable price. The money saved can be used to keep core players like Crede and/or to acquire needed pieces, for instance help in the bullpen.

caulfield12
09-27-2006, 11:53 PM
:?: It was? It looked more like it would have helped the other team.

From the last game of the D-Rays series, it has seemed that way.

But he still has a better IP/H ratio than Bobby Jenks, despite how badly he stumbled the last month.

But you saw tonight how good he can be when he has a chance to get his rhythm over an extended outing. He did it a couple of other times this season, it's not a coincidence. One was the Boston game before the ASB. Another was a game he pitched 3.1 in relief.

He gets better as the game goes on and he gains confidence (and control) with his offspeed stuff, which is devastating when he gets ahead with his fastball.

Sox-o-matic
09-28-2006, 12:31 AM
So the guy gets a win and all of the sudden he should have been pitching the whole second half? Any manager that starts a guy who is just a few more innings beyond a rookie instead of a pitcher named Jose Contreras, Mark Buehrle, Jon Garland, Freddy Garcia, or Javier Vazquez is nuts, especially when the almost-rookie doesn't have amazingly dominant stuff.

Newsflash: the season is over, forget about it. All the FOFOBB will have more than enough to get excited about next year when he is starting every fifth game.

soxinem1
09-28-2006, 12:45 AM
My biggest thing with McCarthy is one day he pitched long relief, then in a K situation, then as a set up guy, then he came in during the fifth inning, then in the 8th, etc. He did fine this year until the last three weeks or so. For being jerked around in so many roles, I think he's handled himself well. His role was never outlined, and it got to him by the end of August.

Tonight he looked fluid, confident, and poised, as he did last year when he started getting his change over.

I think he's a starter at heart, and much like Wilson Alvarez in 1992 when he was a bounce-aroud guy too, he will be better served in a SP role next season, whether it's here or for someone else.

Beautox
09-28-2006, 03:37 AM
Brandon never pitched well enough to take anyone's place in the rotation. It's really that simple.

Now thats a bold faced lie.

These stats were taken from sox machine (http://soxmachine.com/blogs/soxmachine/)

If McCarthy's season ended last night here is the line for his sesaon.

W-L 4-7
IP 84.2
H 77
ER 44
HR 17
BB 33
K 69
ERA 4.68
WHIP 1.30


Very maso menos

But lets keep some things in mind: Last year even with intermitten stops in Chicago, McCarthy led the IL(AAA) in SOs. McCarthy is a feel pitcher, and when he doesn't have a feel for his change/curve and doesn't locate his straight as an arrow fastball he is going to get hit. All season long McCarthy was misused by Ozzie and if you don't feel so i suggest you read the article at Sox Machine for a better understanding.

Now personally i love Black Jack, but i don't sip on his kool aid with regards to outs and pitchers, there is clearly a mental difference between a starter and a reliever, if outs were so easy to come by everyone could be an effective closer, obviously thats not the case. So sorry BJ i'm going to have to throw that theory out the window.

Now for some more stats from Sox Machine


Outs 0-3
IP 19.2
H 33
ER 25
HR 8
BB 16
K 17
ERA 11.44
WHIP 2.49

Outs 4+
IP 65
H 44
ER 19
HR 9
BB 17
K 52
ERA 2.63
WHIP 0.94

that second line of 65IP tells me three things 1.) he "pitched well enough to take anyone's place in the rotation" 2.) he is more than just a 3-5 starter/fodder, infact i would say he has ACE written all over him and 3.) that is the reason KW has never given him up, It's really that simple :cool:

Grzegorz
09-28-2006, 05:38 AM
But what has Brandon done this season to earn a spot in the rotation?

The argument for McCarthy is that it's not a question of earning a spot in the rotation as it is one one letting a scuffling pitcher miss a turn in the rotation. Of course this is only done when his stamina has been built up to start.

I have to say that I agree with Ozzie/Coop that McCarthy stay in the bullpen. I think it gives him experience and I do not think that McCarthy, once stepping in for Vasquez or Buerhle, replace either one in the rotation through years end. This team struggled in all areas at different times through the year. With as many as ups and downs that McCarthy had coming out of the pen his move to start weakens the pen that much more.

I wish I could say that moving McCarthy into the starting rotation gets the White Sox in the playoffs. I am sorry I can't; that would be too great a leap of faith.

harwar
09-28-2006, 08:53 AM
My biggest thing with McCarthy is one day he pitched long relief, then in a K situation, then as a set up guy, then he came in during the fifth inning, then in the 8th, etc. He did fine this year until the last three weeks or so. For being jerked around in so many roles, I think he's handled himself well. His role was never outlined, and it got to him by the end of August.

Tonight he looked fluid, confident, and poised, as he did last year when he started getting his change over.

I think he's a starter at heart, and much like Wilson Alvarez in 1992 when he was a bounce-aroud guy too, he will be better served in a SP role next season, whether it's here or for someone else.

Its nice to see someone who understands the reality of the situation that McCarthy was put in.
Some guys can pitch in any role you put them in and some guys are specialist because thats the way they were taught.
McCarthy has no business being anything but a starter.He has been groomed for that role much like Mark Prior(who was destroyed by Dusty Baker by throwing too many innings).
I think that some of these guys are brought along too fast and players like McCarthy and Brian Anderson should have been playing in Charlotte this year.

Flight #24
09-28-2006, 10:42 AM
To me, it's easy. By the time you could realistically have put McCarthy in the rotation and pulled a starter, the guy who you'd most likely have pulled (Javy), was actually beginning to pitch well. So you couldn't pull him, especially when Brandon was struggling in the 'pen.

As someone noted, down the stretch, the guy you could have replaced with Brandon was Buehrle or prior to his last couple of starts, maybe Garcia. But those guys have been pretty good for a while and dominant in the WS year of '05 - so it's a lot harder to pull them.

It's one of the issues involved in having a deep & experienced rotation. Even when they struggle, you can't pull guys like Buehrle. And if guys like Vazquez pitch reasonably well, you can't pull them either.

But regardless, this will be a very interesting offseason to see how KW treats the trade of one of the starters. I doubt very much that he wants to be in the same situation again, but he also won't want to be in the "I don't have a #6 starter in case I need one" boat either. Tough line to walk.

tony1972
09-28-2006, 11:54 AM
I usually don't criticize Ozzie or any manager..but he did keep resting our regular line up although some even wondered why he was doing this as they wanted to play..

But some of our starters who really were HURT AND TIRED AND NEEDED A REST...just kept getting trotted out to give up 5 or 6 runs by the 3rd or 4th inning...that doesn't make sense..

Why rest those who didn't really need it (our line up) ? and not those who may have needed it (Buerhle, Contreras)..?

BainesHOF
09-28-2006, 12:13 PM
Baines:

Sorry. Ozzie was quoted directly numerous times as saying that McCarthy wasn't stretched out therefore he would not be inserted into the rotation.

It wasn't something someone made up at WSI. Ozzie said it himself and on one occasion so did Cooper.

Lip

Point taken. However, it was a convenient thing to say when Ozzie didn't want to install him in the rotation at the expense of one of the starters. And many relievers, including McCarthy himself as we just saw, have pitched well and long enough when given a start.

I talked with Cooper in August about inserting McCarthy into the rotation and he was adament that the starters were going to continue to start because they're starters. His gist was much more that the team didn't want to mess with the starters than it was anything about McCarthy's readiness to start.

kitekrazy
09-28-2006, 12:18 PM
I have given up trying to understand Ozzie's logic (or lack there of) this season.

It was KW decision as well.

kitekrazy
09-28-2006, 12:36 PM
The reason McCarthy wasn't inserted into the starting rotation was not that he wasn't stretched out. That was only the talk here, not in the dugout.


That's what Kenny says. Sox starters are expected to throw 200 innings every season. I guess they didn't want to chance having a Mark Pryor or Kerry Wood on thier hands.

JB98
09-28-2006, 01:14 PM
Now thats a bold faced lie.

These stats were taken from sox machine (http://soxmachine.com/blogs/soxmachine/)

If McCarthy's season ended last night here is the line for his sesaon.

W-L 4-7
IP 84.2
H 77
ER 44
HR 17
BB 33
K 69
ERA 4.68
WHIP 1.30


Very maso menos

But lets keep some things in mind: Last year even with intermitten stops in Chicago, McCarthy led the IL(AAA) in SOs. McCarthy is a feel pitcher, and when he doesn't have a feel for his change/curve and doesn't locate his straight as an arrow fastball he is going to get hit. All season long McCarthy was misused by Ozzie and if you don't feel so i suggest you read the article at Sox Machine for a better understanding.

Now personally i love Black Jack, but i don't sip on his kool aid with regards to outs and pitchers, there is clearly a mental difference between a starter and a reliever, if outs were so easy to come by everyone could be an effective closer, obviously thats not the case. So sorry BJ i'm going to have to throw that theory out the window.

Now for some more stats from Sox Machine


Outs 0-3
IP 19.2
H 33
ER 25
HR 8
BB 16
K 17
ERA 11.44
WHIP 2.49

Outs 4+
IP 65
H 44
ER 19
HR 9
BB 17
K 52
ERA 2.63
WHIP 0.94

that second line of 65IP tells me three things 1.) he "pitched well enough to take anyone's place in the rotation" 2.) he is more than just a 3-5 starter/fodder, infact i would say he has ACE written all over him and 3.) that is the reason KW has never given him up, It's really that simple :cool:

I'm not reading your article, and I'm not interested in your statistical analysis. I've watched 159 games this season, and Brandon hasn't shown me much. I spend much more time watching baseball than I do crunching numbers.

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 01:20 PM
I'm not reading your article, and I'm not interested in your statistical analysis. I've watched 159 games this season, and Brandon hasn't shown me much. I spend much more time watching baseball than I do crunching numbers.

Until the last weeks, you have to agree that you've cringed when Vazquez entered the 5th or 6th inning, stats or not.

You would also probably agree from those stats that Brandon does better the longer he pitches...he has been very good (one of the best in the AL) from the 3rd-6th innings of an appearance (over the last two seasons). Most of his problems are in the first inning plus. Which would seem to argue for his inclusion as a starter...just as Vazquez would have been the best candidate to be a reliever.

JB98
09-28-2006, 01:32 PM
Until the last weeks, you have to agree that you've cringed when Vazquez entered the 5th or 6th inning, stats or not.

You would also probably agree from those stats that Brandon does better the longer he pitches...he has been very good (one of the best in the AL) from the 3rd-6th innings of an appearance (over the last two seasons). Most of his problems are in the first inning plus. Which would seem to argue for his inclusion as a starter...just as Vazquez would have been the best candidate to be a reliever.

I can't stand Vazquez and want him gone this offseason. But my opinion of him does not change my feeling about McCarthy. Brandon simply did not pitch well in his role this year, and you do not reward a guy who is underperforming with a promotion to the rotation.

If KW wants to move Brandon into the rotation next year, then so be it. We need some payroll relief somewhere, and dumping an overpriced starter to put McCarthy in the rotation gives us that. Hopefully, McCarthy will pitch better in 2007, but he did nothing this year to merit taking the spot of any of the five men in the rotation.

People seem to forget McCarthy made a spot start for the injured Contreras in May and looked awful. If people want to proclaim Brandon's "greatness" on the outing last night, I can just as easily argue he sucks based on that performance in Tampa Bay. Neither argument would be fair or correct.

Beautox
09-28-2006, 03:02 PM
I'm not reading your article, and I'm not interested in your statistical analysis. I've watched 159 games this season, and Brandon hasn't shown me much. I spend much more time watching baseball than I do crunching numbers.

First off its not my statistical analysis and secondly ignorance must be bliss. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say you think Rowand is > Anderson and you buy into the hype of Chemistry and that it was Ozzie instead of 4 pitchers having a great season that led us to our first WS in ages. Glad to see some my fellow white sox fans aren't as ignorant as cub fans.

Madscout
09-28-2006, 03:07 PM
The times that I have seen Brandon pitch well this year have been the times he comes out in a situation where there is nobody on base. In other words, when it is like he is starting his own game. He makes and cleans up his own messes. He fights his own battles.
That said, what happens when he comes out in the first and faces batters who are over anxious or cold vs. when he comes out with guys on first and third with a hungry hitter up that has seen about 3 ab?

chaerulez
09-28-2006, 03:12 PM
I can't stand Vazquez and want him gone this offseason. But my opinion of him does not change my feeling about McCarthy. Brandon simply did not pitch well in his role this year, and you do not reward a guy who is underperforming with a promotion to the rotation.

If KW wants to move Brandon into the rotation next year, then so be it. We need some payroll relief somewhere, and dumping an overpriced starter to put McCarthy in the rotation gives us that. Hopefully, McCarthy will pitch better in 2007, but he did nothing this year to merit taking the spot of any of the five men in the rotation.

People seem to forget McCarthy made a spot start for the injured Contreras in May and looked awful. If people want to proclaim Brandon's "greatness" on the outing last night, I can just as easily argue he sucks based on that performance in Tampa Bay. Neither argument would be fair or correct.

McCarthy has proven in his last few starts in '05 and his start yesterday, that he has the ability to start. Putting him into the rotation isn't a "promotion", it's allowing him and the team the best chance to succeed. Granted I'm not ready to say he's going to an all star next year, but he gives a better chance anyone in the back half of our rotation did this year.

Beautox
09-28-2006, 03:16 PM
I can't stand Vazquez and want him gone this offseason. But my opinion of him does not change my feeling about McCarthy. Brandon simply did not pitch well in his role this year, and you do not reward a guy who is underperforming with a promotion to the rotation.

If KW wants to move Brandon into the rotation next year, then so be it. We need some payroll relief somewhere, and dumping an overpriced starter to put McCarthy in the rotation gives us that. Hopefully, McCarthy will pitch better in 2007, but he did nothing this year to merit taking the spot of any of the five men in the rotation.

People seem to forget McCarthy made a spot start for the injured Contreras in May and looked awful. If people want to proclaim Brandon's "greatness" on the outing last night, I can just as easily argue he sucks based on that performance in Tampa Bay. Neither argument would be fair or correct.

I don't understand this distaste for Vazquez, the offense failed him the second half.

Javier Vazquez, since 8/5

11 GS 72.1 IP 59 H 29 ER 8 HR 20 BB 68 K, 3.61 ERA, 1.09 WHIP

White Sox record in those starts - 2-9(9 straight losses) and much like Garland of '04 hes the one on the team "wearing" it, even Hawk has commented on that.

As For McCarthy and your apparent way of thinking, than anyone not named Vazquez or Garland shouldn't be pitching in this rotation next season and should give back their pay checks for underachieving. Its kinda of hard to succeed when your manager doesn't give you enough work to get a feel for your pitches and your an extreme fly ball pitcher(for example seeing how you've watched 159 games this year, the game against KC bottom of the 8th men on first and third 1 out, McCarthy is brought in, in a close and late situation in a tie game, what happens? he fails, on a sac fly).

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 03:24 PM
The times that I have seen Brandon pitch well this year have been the times he comes out in a situation where there is nobody on base. In other words, when it is like he is starting his own game. He makes and cleans up his own messes. He fights his own battles.
That said, what happens when he comes out in the first and faces batters who are over anxious or cold vs. when he comes out with guys on first and third with a hungry hitter up that has seen about 3 ab?

McCarthy is one of the few Sox pitchers that showed trends of improvement as the game went on....ala Bartolo Colon.

He actually gets better in the middle innings once he's established a rhythm and feel for his pitches.

Even with a .500 record and 4.50-4.75 ERA (which is where he stands now after everything would argue he's been HORRIBLE recently), he gives the payroll the flexibility (by his insertion and the dumping on one of the starters' salaries) to improve middle relief, LF, SS and potentially CF.

goon
09-28-2006, 03:50 PM
I don't understand this distaste for Vazquez, the offense failed him the second half.


me either, i would love to see vazquez back for the sox next year. that being said, i think that last night's game was a testament to what McCarthy is capable of as a starting pitcher for the sox. however kenny works out the rotation for next year, i have a strong feeling McCarthy will be in there as our fifth starter.

assrevolution
09-28-2006, 04:04 PM
I like McCarthy and think he has a great future for the Sox. He's given up way too many homers this year and it sticks out like a sore, bloody, infected thumb. How many other Sox pitchers have less hits than innings pitched. I don't want to look because I'm afraid the answer will be zero.

Sox Machine
09-28-2006, 04:28 PM
I'm not reading your article, and I'm not interested in your statistical analysis. I've watched 159 games this season, and Brandon hasn't shown me much. I spend much more time watching baseball than I do crunching numbers.

As the owner of the research, I'd like to point out that I've seen ~140 games myself. Many of the ones I haven't seen are thanks to blackouts on Extra Innings.

This isn't blind statistical wankery like you seem to think it is -- if you read it (which you refuse to), the research followed up on a hypothesis I had based on watching him. Just like you do.

To summarize what I saw: McCarthy tightens up when he enters with runners on, or where one swing can decide the game. He won't throw his changeup, and will only throw fastballs when he absolutely cannot issue a walk. When he has some time to work, he'll use all three pitches, even if he doesn't feel comfortable with one of them at the start.

So I looked at his game logs. What I found is that he's had 27 outings where he's had to record 3 outs or less. He's had 26 outings where he's had to record 4 outs or more. He's been absolutely terrible at the former, and generally terrific at the latter.

BainesHOF
09-28-2006, 04:43 PM
That's what Kenny says. Sox starters are expected to throw 200 innings every season. I guess they didn't want to chance having a Mark Pryor or Kerry Wood on thier hands.

Prior and Wood are injured because they throw in a weird way and put extra stress on their arms, not because they pitched too many innings.

Ol' No. 2
09-28-2006, 04:45 PM
Prior and Wood are injured because they throw in a weird way and put extra stress on their arms, not because they pitched too many innings.Kenny was crystal clear before the season that he didn't want to put McCarthy in the rotation because he didn't think he'd hold up for a whole season. I have to agree with him. The kid's a stick.

kitekrazy
09-28-2006, 05:06 PM
If KW wants to move Brandon into the rotation next year, then so be it. We need some payroll relief somewhere, and dumping an overpriced starter to put McCarthy in the rotation gives us that.

This really cracks me up. You sound as if this is coming out of your bank account.

I love this imaginary salary cap Sox fans like to live under. So what if the $100M payroll didn't win the WS this year. There's a guy who annually spends close to $200 and there's been no ring to show for it since 2000.

I wish fans would stop with the budget conscious crap as if you're the frickin' owner of the team.

Sure there are teams with less payroll but that doesn't guarantee a winning season either-only a higher profit margin. Just ask Bill Wirtz.

NardiWasHere
09-28-2006, 05:11 PM
Kenny was crystal clear before the season that he didn't want to put McCarthy in the rotation because he didn't think he'd hold up for a whole season. I have to agree with him. The kid's a stick.

Exactly...I didn't see this mentioned in this thread, so I'll throw it out there...

When interviewed on the Score, Kenny mentioned that McCarthy spent this past year working his core. Since all the starters on this team are expected to carry a 200 IP workload, it was decided that he would spend the year in the pen. This isn't a "blame Ozzie" issue. Hell... the way I look at it, it isn't even a "Blame Kenny Issue". The organization has a philosophy (which no doubt contributed to the championship) and they stick by it. I'd much rather have a organization that has a plan and stays the course than a bunch of people in a state of panic hoping something sticks. That is why one is able to feel confident that although '06 was extremely dissapointing (I just reread some of my fustrated posts from last week), the team is in position to rebound.

I'm reading a book by Chuck Klosterman that I just bought. In one of the essays, he says something I think is terrific... it can also be applied to the 2k6 season...

"If you want to truly deduce how intelligent someone is, just ask this person how they feel about any issue that doesn't have an answer; the more certainty they express, the less sense they have".

All these posts on McCarthy and Anderson and Ozzie I think can fall under the scope of 'issue without an answer'. In a season that spans from April to October, so much happens. So many things change, it is very had (dare I say impossible) to pin the problems on one or two issues. This is why baseball is so fantastic. Although some of the fun of being a sportsfan is issuing blame for the lack of successs, I feel like its futile. There was a million reasons for the lack of success...

Sometimes there isn't one reason a team loses. I kept seeing ESPN run the clip of a Philidelphia homer being called foul the past few days. People were acting as if that would be the sole reason the Phillies missing the playoffs. That makes no sense to me. And on a larger scale, the same logic is being used by those who say if McCarthy was starting, we would be a playoff team.

To quote Dennis Miller...That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Iwritecode
09-28-2006, 05:38 PM
Prior and Wood are injured because they throw in a weird way and put extra stress on their arms, not because they pitched too many innings.

Mark Prior the pitcher with perfect mechanics? :o:

I agree that was Wood's problem but I'm not sure they know what's wrong with Prior yet. He kept getting all sorts of mysterious illnesses and injuries all year long.

Sox-o-matic
09-28-2006, 05:44 PM
Mark Prior the pitcher with perfect mechanics? :o:

I agree that was Wood's problem but I'm not sure they know what's wrong with Prior yet. He kept getting all sorts of mysterious illnesses and injuries all year long.

Maybe Dusty's making him throw 160 pitches per simulated game?

JB98
09-28-2006, 07:47 PM
First off its not my statistical analysis and secondly ignorance must be bliss. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say you think Rowand is > Anderson and you buy into the hype of Chemistry and that it was Ozzie instead of 4 pitchers having a great season that led us to our first WS in ages. Glad to see some my fellow white sox fans aren't as ignorant as cub fans.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ROTFLMAO!

My rants against chemistry being important are legendary on this board. And I don't give a crap about Aaron Rowand. In fact, I'm glad he's gone.

Talent + Execution = Wins. I don't give a **** about chemistry.

You suggesting I read an article in order to achieve "a better understanding" is an insult. I'm a season-ticket holder, and I've watched almost every Sox game for as long as I can remember. I'm capable of forming my own opinions, thank you very much. So don't play the "I'm more knowledgeable about baseball" card with me.

JB98
09-28-2006, 07:55 PM
As the owner of the research, I'd like to point out that I've seen ~140 games myself. Many of the ones I haven't seen are thanks to blackouts on Extra Innings.

This isn't blind statistical wankery like you seem to think it is -- if you read it (which you refuse to), the research followed up on a hypothesis I had based on watching him. Just like you do.

To summarize what I saw: McCarthy tightens up when he enters with runners on, or where one swing can decide the game. He won't throw his changeup, and will only throw fastballs when he absolutely cannot issue a walk. When he has some time to work, he'll use all three pitches, even if he doesn't feel comfortable with one of them at the start.

So I looked at his game logs. What I found is that he's had 27 outings where he's had to record 3 outs or less. He's had 26 outings where he's had to record 4 outs or more. He's been absolutely terrible at the former, and generally terrific at the latter.

Between August 31 and September 10, Brandon McCarthy's shoddy relief pitching cost us not one, not two, not three, but FOUR GAMES. He collected three losses himself, and in another game, he lost the game by allowing inherited runners to score.

Let me repeat that: McCarthy lost us four games in 11 days in the heat of a pennant race. And you all are convinced that he has pitched well enough to unseat one of the members of our starting rotation. AND you are all lecturing me about my supposed lack of knowledge. Get over yourselves. Your comments are embarrassing.

McCarthy tightens up when he enters with runners on base or in situations where one swing could change the game, huh? Well, if he's such a great pitcher, maybe he better get over that. This is the ****ing big leagues. I don't think Brandon himself would ever make such a pathetic excuse. If he did, I'd tell him to take the ****ing diaper off and play baseball.

JB98
09-28-2006, 08:14 PM
McCarthy has proven in his last few starts in '05 and his start yesterday, that he has the ability to start. Putting him into the rotation isn't a "promotion", it's allowing him and the team the best chance to succeed. Granted I'm not ready to say he's going to an all star next year, but he gives a better chance anyone in the back half of our rotation did this year.

Putting him into the rotation isn't a promotion? So you're prepared to make the argument that it's more prestigious to work in middle relief?

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 08:16 PM
Between August 31 and September 10, Brandon McCarthy's shoddy relief pitching cost us not one, not two, not three, but FOUR GAMES. He collected three losses himself, and in another game, he lost the game by allowing inherited runners to score.

Let me repeat that: McCarthy lost us four games in 11 days in the heat of a pennant race. And you all are convinced that he has pitched well enough to unseat one of the members of our starting rotation. AND you are all lecturing me about my supposed lack of knowledge. Get over yourselves. Your comments are embarrassing.

McCarthy tightens up when he enters with runners on base or in situations where one swing could change the game, huh? Well, if he's such a great pitcher, maybe he better get over that. This is the ****ing big leagues. I don't think Brandon himself would ever make such a pathetic excuse. If he did, I'd tell him to take the ****ing diaper off and play baseball.

JB, you're missing the point.

McCarthy is NOT A RELIEVER! It's a completely different pitching role than he has devoted himself to learning.

That's like asking a cardiac surgeon to remove an aneurysm from a brain and saying, "Hey, you got your ****ing MD. You better figure it out."

JB98
09-28-2006, 08:20 PM
JB, you're missing the point.

McCarthy is NOT A RELIEVER! It's a completely different pitching role than he has devoted himself to learning.

That's like asking a cardiac surgeon to remove an aneurysm from a brain and saying, "Hey, you got your ****ing MD. You better figure it out."

If McCarthy cannot pitch in relief, then he belonged in Charlotte this year.

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 08:22 PM
If McCarthy cannot pitch in relief, then he belonged in Charlotte this year.

Ozzie is the one who should've been in Charlotte this year.

JB98
09-28-2006, 08:27 PM
Ozzie is the one who should've been in Charlotte this year.

Well, that settles it.

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 08:35 PM
How many 6th inning blowups did we see Vazquez repeat over and over and over?

How many starts could you just SEE that Mark's head wasn't in it?

How many times did Mack cost us precious runs because of his bad defense?

Pods, same thing?

How many GLARING indications were there that something was WRONG with Contreras? (Remember him vs. Runelvys in that series in KC????)

If it weren't for the pig-headed insistence of pushing starters to (and most often through) the 7th, and this lefty/righty ****, and the obvious resentment for BA, and making some changes and having the attitude that we are going to GUT out games, we would have 10 or 12 of those lost games back.

That was our missed post season. Right there.

Teal isn't necessary. Just consider another POV. That guy was dead on. I sat through 140 too, and I see the same thing.

There was also another guy... Tony I think... Who pointed out how much we protected the lineup players with lots of bench talent, but how often did we give an SP a break? I'll tell you.... Never until we were out of it. We only went out of rotation twice and that was because Contreras went on the 15 day (early - Haegar and McCarthy).

Yeah man - Ozzie. That DOES settle that.

JB98
09-28-2006, 08:38 PM
How many 6th inning blowups did we see Vazquez repeat over and over and over?

How many starts could you just SEE that Mark's head wasn't in it?

How many times did Mack cost us precious runs because of his bad defense?

Pods, same thing?

How many GLARING indications were there that something was WRONG with Contreras? (Remember him vs. Runelvys in that series in KC????)

If it weren't for the pig-headed insistence of pushing starters to (and most often through) the 7th, and this lefty/righty ****, and the obvious resentment for BA, and making some changes and having the attitude that we are going to GUT out games, we would have 10 or 12 of those lost games back.

That was our missed post season. Right there.

Teal isn't necessary. Just consider another POV. That guy was dead on. I sat through 140 too, and I see the same thing.

There was also another guy... Tony I think... Who pointed out how much we protected the lineup players with lots of bench talent, but how often did we give an SP a break? I'll tell you.... Never until we were out of it. We only went out of rotation twice and that was because Contreras went on the 15 day (early - Haegar and McCarthy).

Yeah man - Ozzie. That DOES settle that.

Thread hijacked.

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 08:41 PM
Thread hijacked.

Not true - Speaks to McCarthy not being used properly.

shoelessshaun27!
09-28-2006, 08:44 PM
sorry doods for the troll thing, I'm a die hard sox fan GO SOX, but i still think mccarthy should have had way more starts

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 08:45 PM
How many 6th inning blowups did we see Vazquez repeat over and over and over?

How many starts could you just SEE that Mark's head wasn't in it?

How many times did Mack cost us precious runs because of his bad defense?

Pods, same thing?

How many GLARING indications were there that something was WRONG with Contreras? (Remember him vs. Runelvys in that series in KC????)

If it weren't for the pig-headed insistence of pushing starters to (and most often through) the 7th, and this lefty/righty ****, and the obvious resentment for BA, and making some changes and having the attitude that we are going to GUT out games, we would have 10 or 12 of those lost games back.

That was our missed post season. Right there.

Teal isn't necessary. Just consider another POV. That guy was dead on. I sat through 140 too, and I see the same thing.

There was also another guy... Tony I think... Who pointed out how much we protected the lineup players with lots of bench talent, but how often did we give an SP a break? I'll tell you.... Never until we were out of it. We only went out of rotation twice and that was because Contreras went on the 15 day (early - Haegar and McCarthy).

Yeah man - Ozzie. That DOES settle that.

How do you know Vazquez would have pitched so well at the end of the season if Ozzie did the 'ol Garland/Manuel routine?

How do you go about determining whether Mark's head was in it? Isn't that like Wells saying Frank wasn't hurt?

What options did KW give OG for BA? What if Ozzie played him against every tough righty and Anderson slumped to .120 and never played in the majors again?

Was Ozuna better defensively than Pods? Or Gload?

Contreras actually had most of his highs for the season in strikeouts after he came back from the injury....it was his location that got him in the 2nd half, and pitch selection.

Obvious resentment for KW? You would probably say it was obvious resentment if he left him in every game and he slumped his way all the way down the Charlotte. If anything, he cared too much and was too protective of him so he could rebuild his confidence.

If we had an actual bullpen in the first half, it would have helped. Did OG throw all those pitches for Nelson, Politte, Cotts and Logan? Would you have used Jenks in every game from the 7th on?

Was Ozzie causing Thome, Crede, Konerko and AJ to slump for large parts of the second half? For the offense to score less than the Royals in the second half?

Was he causing Pods to lose all his aggressiveness? Give me a break.

JB98
09-28-2006, 08:45 PM
Not true - Speaks to McCarthy not being used properly.

Mackowiak vs. BA and Pods have nothing to do with this. I'm glad you have inside information about Contreras. I don't.

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 08:48 PM
Mackowiak vs. BA and Pods have nothing to do with this. I'm glad you have inside information about Contreras. I don't.

And Mark. He probably works in the clubhouse.

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 09:05 PM
How do you know Vazquez would have pitched so well at the end of the season if Ozzie did the 'ol Garland/Manuel routine?

I don't. Did I say I did? I'd have preferred to see Vazquez come out of the bullpen after the ASB, if it were up to me.


How do you go about determining whether Mark's head was in it? Isn't that like Wells saying Frank wasn't hurt?
Mark never had an ERA over a 4.0 in pre or post ASB in the last 3 years. This year, he was over in BOTH periods. He got married at the end of a very long season, and had little off-time. My wife actually offered very early that she thought he's not "thinking about what he's doing". I started believing her when I saw him check a runner with bases loaded. So, I used a little deductive reasoning.

And to the 2nd part - No.

What options did KW give OG for BA? What if Ozzie played him against every tough righty and Anderson slumped to .120 and never played in the majors again?
He had the most powerful offense in the front 8 anyway. I feel the same as many others - If you're gonna bring him and play him, then PLAY him. Don't half ass him, then talk ****.

Was Ozuna better defensively than Pods? Or Gload?
I'd take either over him to get on base in the #1 slot.

Contreras actually had most of his highs for the season in strikeouts after he came back from the injury....it was his location that got him in the 2nd half, and pitch selection.
That's living by the sword. I hope you're better than that.

Obvious resentment for KW? You would probably say it was obvious resentment if he left him in every game and he slumped his way all the way down the Charlotte. If anything, he cared too much and was too protective of him so he could rebuild his confidence.
I said obvious resentment for BA, not KW, and if he slumps his way down, then he does. KW made the decision to make him the starting CFer. If he never hits, he never hits. No reason to sacrifice runs on defense when you can/should always be able to make more runs with the 8 in front and can sub a pinch late if needed.

If we had an actual bullpen in the first half, it would have helped. Did OG throw all those pitches for Nelson, Politte, Cotts and Logan? Would you have used Jenks in every game from the 7th on?
No. He brought McCarthy in to roles where the SP was getting blown up and let him deal with it along with those guys. You see that a few times, you put him in 5 and if all looks good, move him out. Give the RP a chance. He REFUSED to do this. Over and over he'd push to see if "this is the day".... And again and again - Nope.

Was Ozzie causing Thome, Crede, Konerko and AJ to slump for large parts of the second half? For the offense to score less than the Royals in the second half?
No. Maybe had to do with them all standing on the field all season and watching the SP blowup and him not do anything about it. Make some changes. Put some guys on short inning counts. Shake up the rotation.

Was he causing Pods to lose all his aggressiveness? Give me a break.
Pods looked like he never recovered. The WHOLE year long.

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 09:20 PM
And who in baseball is going to take a $12.5 million middle reliever that you've just created in Vazquez?

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 09:26 PM
And who in baseball is going to take a $12.5 million middle reliever that you've just created in Vazquez?

I don't know, man. But that's what he is now for sure. We successfully confirmed an expensive starting pitcher with GOOD STUFF has serious issues getting through a 3rd look (reliever - by definition). And then BEAT THAT PERCEPTION INTO EVERYONE'S HEAD with a sledgehammer.

BTW - Isn't he still subsidized on that contract? Wha'er - He's a mess to deal with now no matter how you look at it.

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 09:34 PM
I don't know, man. But that's what he is now for sure. We successfully confirmed an expensive starting pitcher with GOOD STUFF has serious issues getting through a 3rd look (reliever - by definition). And then BEAT THAT PERCEPTION INTO EVERYONE'S HEAD with a sledgehammer.

BTW - Isn't he still subsidized on that contract? Wha'er - He's a mess to deal with now no matter how you look at it.

Vazquez might be our most tradeable starter right now, after Garland. He's been our best pitcher the final six weeks of the season.

He has a contract through next season with a club option for 2008, so it gives some flexibility. However, nobody would have touched him had we put him in the bullpen after being removed from the rotation....we would have had to do another deal like we did to get rid of El Duque, which cost us Chris Young.

Except trading Vazquez this time would have cost us Sweeney or Fields, if not more.

Frontman
09-28-2006, 09:40 PM
There was also another guy... Tony I think... Who pointed out how much we protected the lineup players with lots of bench talent, but how often did we give an SP a break? I'll tell you.... Never until we were out of it. We only went out of rotation twice and that was because Contreras went on the 15 day (early - Haegar and McCarthy).

Yeah man - Ozzie. That DOES settle that.

And what did McCarthy do in the start he took for Contreras?

L

as in Loss

So, in his one time used early, he didn't get the job done. He also never looked good coming out of the bullpen. Say what you will, but when he got a shot, he blew it. Granted, he did get a win yesterday, but yet again, didn't go farther than into the 6th. A starter needs to be able to go deep into a game, and at only 82 pitches? He couldn't get to 100?

But, I see your point. He belongs as a starter. 4.68 ERA, right between Garcia and Vaquez in that category, and a loosing record, worse than Burhele's.

Yeah, I can really see him being lights out for us next season.

southside rocks
09-28-2006, 09:42 PM
I don't know, man. But that's what he is now for sure. We successfully confirmed an expensive starting pitcher with GOOD STUFF has serious issues getting through a 3rd look (reliever - by definition). And then BEAT THAT PERCEPTION INTO EVERYONE'S HEAD with a sledgehammer.

BTW - Isn't he still subsidized on that contract? Wha'er - He's a mess to deal with now no matter how you look at it.

Check back in this time next year and we'll see who's right on this: I predict IF Vazquez and McCarthy both start next year for the Sox, Vazquez will have the better year, as measured in W-L and ERA.

Not interested in arguing, since it's all opinions, but I'll bet you a meal at the Cell that JV is better than Brandon next year. Want it?

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 09:54 PM
Vazquez might be our most tradeable starter right now, after Garland. He's been our best pitcher the final six weeks of the season.

I agree.

He has a contract through next season with a club option for 2008, so it gives some flexibility. However, nobody would have touched him had we put him in the bullpen after being removed from the rotation....
Whoa - Let me stop you right there. Nobody would have TOUCHED him when he's good through 2007, has an option for '08, but we're bombing in a championship defense season with bad peformance??? That makes NO sense. I didn't say trade him - I said put him the pen after the ASB THIS YEAR.

We would have had to do another deal like we did to get rid of El Duque, which cost us Chris Young. Funny you mention - Who else was a part of that deal?????

Except trading Vazquez this time would have cost us Sweeney or Fields, if not more.
Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't say Vazquez should be traded. I said relegating him to some BP duty to work on his stuff (since he's so solid consistency for 2 appearances by batters) would've been better for us after say... Oh, I don't know... the 8th time? :wink:

SSR - No. I didn't say Vazquez should be traded. Read back. I'm only trying to stay on the topic of the thread which is about how McCarthy was used (and could've been used better in hindsight) this year. The first part of the season (and Vazquez in particular) is a point of support.

Sox Machine
09-28-2006, 09:55 PM
And what did McCarthy do in the start he took for Contreras?

L

as in Loss

So, in his one time used early, he didn't get the job done. He also never looked good coming out of the bullpen. Say what you will, but when he got a shot, he blew it. Granted, he did get a win yesterday, but yet again, didn't go farther than into the 6th. A starter needs to be able to go deep into a game, and at only 82 pitches? He couldn't get to 100?

But, I see your point. He belongs as a starter. 4.68 ERA, right between Garcia and Vaquez in that category, and a loosing record, worse than Burhele's.

Yeah, I can really see him being lights out for us next season.


You're really going to judge a pitcher on one start? One where Ozzie found out Boone Logan was in way over his head? One where the Sox offense was up against an above-average lefty? And blame him entirely for a loss? Even for a message board, that's ridiculous.

By that rationale, Mark Buehrle is the worst pitcher of all time because he gave up 11 runs in a start against the Cubs. Everybody can cherry-pick one start.

What about the 4 1/3 innings of scoreless relief McCarthy threw against Boston in the 19-inning game? The five innings of one-run ball he threw against Minnesota? His recent start?

In the 20 outings where he's thrown 2 innings or more, he has a cumulative ERA of 2.08. Take away the first three outs in each outing (because to throw more than one inning, he'd likely have to have a good first frame), his ERA is 2.65.

That may not be much to hang one's hat on, but when he gets a chance to settle in on the mound, he's generally succeeded. Mark Buehrle has a 7.12 ERA since the start of July, so it's not like the recent competition's all that stiff.

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 09:59 PM
And what did McCarthy do in the start he took for Contreras?

L

as in Loss

So, in his one time used early, he didn't get the job done. He also never looked good coming out of the bullpen. Say what you will, but when he got a shot, he blew it. Granted, he did get a win yesterday, but yet again, didn't go farther than into the 6th. A starter needs to be able to go deep into a game, and at only 82 pitches? He couldn't get to 100?

But, I see your point. He belongs as a starter. 4.68 ERA, right between Garcia and Vaquez in that category, and a loosing record, worse than Burhele's.

Yeah, I can really see him being lights out for us next season.


:?:

You're comparing his ERA to STARTERS when he got only 2 starts? 1-1?

HE NEVER WAS PLAYED IN THAT ROLE!!!! THAT IS THE POINT!!!!

I'm done. Night, guys.

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 10:04 PM
I agree.


Whoa - Let me stop you right there. Nobody would have TOUCHED him when he's good through 2007, has an option for '08, but we're bombing in a championship defense season with bad peformance??? That makes NO sense. I didn't say trade him - I said put him the pen after the ASB THIS YEAR.

Funny you mention - Who else was a part of that deal?????


Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't say Vazquez should be traded. I said relegating him to some BP duty to work on his stuff (since he's so solid consistency for 2 appearances by batters) would've been better for us after say... Oh, I don't know... the 8th time? :wink:

SSR - No. I didn't say Vazquez should be traded. Read back. I'm only trying to stay on the topic of the thread which is about how McCarthy was used (and could've been used better in hindsight) this year. The first part of the season (and Vazquez in particular) is a point of support.


Would we have won if we substituted McCarthy for Vazquez in the rotation after the ASB? I think most would disagree, he's been our best starter the last six weeks. You're making a HUGE assumption a fragile starter relegated to the pen would come back the next season and pitch well enough to be traded...

Would we now be stuck with another pitcher that would untradeable? Yes, not to mention it would be very difficult to trade Contreras or Buehrle right now for equal value.

Which would leave KW behind the 8 ball having to trade Garcia and everyone knowing it....

Not to mention the fact that you give up on Vazquez in the middle of the season, what makes you think you can stick him back into the 07 rotation and get anything out of him?

If anything, hindsight would have indicated we should have removed Buehrle or Garcia from the rotation.

Frontman
09-28-2006, 10:20 PM
You're really going to judge a pitcher on one start? One where Ozzie found out Boone Logan was in way over his head? One where the Sox offense was up against an above-average lefty? And blame him entirely for a loss? Even for a message board, that's ridiculous.

By that rationale, Mark Buehrle is the worst pitcher of all time because he gave up 11 runs in a start against the Cubs. Everybody can cherry-pick one start.

What about the 4 1/3 innings of scoreless relief McCarthy threw against Boston in the 19-inning game? The five innings of one-run ball he threw against Minnesota? His recent start?

In the 20 outings where he's thrown 2 innings or more, he has a cumulative ERA of 2.08. Take away the first three outs in each outing (because to throw more than one inning, he'd likely have to have a good first frame), his ERA is 2.65.

That may not be much to hang one's hat on, but when he gets a chance to settle in on the mound, he's generally succeeded. Mark Buehrle has a 7.12 ERA since the start of July, so it's not like the recent competition's all that stiff.

And you're willing to make him a starter based on that same stat. (Or based on his work in 2005. I keep getting told to forget 2005, so we pretty much need to do the same here for McCarthy.) He has started and won a single game this year. And for that, you want him in the rotation instead of guys who have proven their worth (to lesser or greater degrees.) THAT's my point. He's proven nothing other than whining this year. "Oh boo-boo me. I never planned on coming out of the bullpen! I wasn't used right. boo-hoo-freakin-hoo!" And precisely who should of gone to the 'pen in lieu of McCarthy into the rotation? Javy, who after some pretty damn rough outings, started going into the 7th or 8th, only to have our offense let him down? Mark is an easy target, but once we all realized he wasn't the same, it was pretty late into the season, and once again, how can you have Brandon go as a starter when he's done after 5 innings? People keep on asking who quit on this team, and up until last night, the first name out of my mouth was Brandon's. I'm willing to give him his due, he pitched well last night, just not too far over 80 pitches.

McCarthy should take the damn ball when given and pitch to whoever is in front of him. If he can't handle guys on base, what? After giving up a lead off single, he can't handle working for a double play? If in the first he's in trouble, what does he want? Keep on serving up the spicey meatball or have Ozzie come get him, saying, "That's alright. You can't handle pressure of baserunners, I understand."

Get batters out, THAT's his job, whether coming in from the pen or starting a game. I really was a Brandon supporter until he started the "I'm done for the year. Don't use me out of the 'pen."

And if you're going to quote that Mark has had a 7.12 ERA since the ASB, let look at how many key runs Brandon gave up since that same time. On second thought, let's not look at how the "Chosen One" gave up and cost this team games. Far easier to blame the manager than to look at who actually was on the field.

All I know is that when the chips were down, both in this year and last, in extremely long games (like game 3 of the Series, and the 19 inning marathon you use to illustrate Brandon's worth) Mark went to the 'pen and warmed up to help his team win. When he did poorly, he took it on his own shoulders. As did Freddy (who if he was taken out of the rotation, we wouldn't of seen his two amazing performances this year) as did Javy. They all admitted they didn't do their best. They weren't blaming the manager for their roles on the team and the effect it had on their performance like Brandon did from Mid-August on.

Simply put, this martyrdom of Brandon McCarthy and that he's needs to be a starter is just plain garbage talk. Here's one stat he needs to get to, beyond anything else. 100 pitches in a game consistently. THEN come talk to me that he can be a starter. Until then, all he is is a future pitcher who whines with the best of them about not being used right.

Brandon McCarthy, meet Cedric Benson. Cedric, Brandon.

Front

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 10:20 PM
Would we have won if we substituted McCarthy for Vazquez in the rotation after the ASB? I think most would disagree, he's been our best starter the last six weeks.

Would we now be stuck with another pitcher that would untradeable? Yes, not to mention it would be very difficult to trade Contreras or Buehrle right now for equal value.

Which would leave KW behind the 8 ball having to trade Garcia and everyone knowing it....

Not to mention the fact that you give up on Vazquez in the middle of the season, what makes you think you can stick him back into the 07 rotation and get anything out of him?

Ok - Last one.


Would we have won if we substituted McCarthy for Vazquez in the rotation after the ASB? I think most would disagree, he's been our best starter the last six weeks. Maybe. But I'm not even suggesting a straight sub as much as I am a floating STARTER in McCarthy. Garland started out ****ty, worked his way out. Contreras, the opposite. Freddy - ****, he's high all the time. Why not spot START Bran after a few REPEAT bad ones by any of these guys? Same goes for Mark? It doesn't have to mean, "it's your job", I'm talking about winning some ****ing games! We were the defending champs and should learn something from this. Our pitching was BAD this year. BAD. And we had 6 starters. *** is that?!?!?!?!?!

Don't defend. Even Boston got to the playoffs last year.

Would we now be stuck with another pitcher that would untradeable? Yes, not to mention it would be very difficult to trade Contreras or Buehrle right now for equal value.
You put a ring on his finger and he contributes to a repeat or at least a defense appearance (starter, reliever, or combo of each), he'll have value. What do we got now?


Which would leave KW behind the 8 ball having to trade Garcia and everyone knowing it....
I don't agree and if Freddy isn't out of here after this season and getting us some opps for a #1 hitter, LF, CF, or any variation in between, we're gonna be here again next year.


Not to mention the fact that you give up on Vazquez in the middle of the season, what makes you think you can stick him back into the 07 rotation and get anything out of him?
Nothing. I gave reasons for why he'd be a great MR guy or, a split start guy. He's great for the first couple times he's faces batters. Who gives a **** about '07 when you're supposed to be getting to the post season and defending your title NOW? If Ozzie is managing our pitching with these kinds of thoughts, then I will settle into the realization that I saw two things that happen only once per generation: A Sox Championship and Haley's comet.

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 10:48 PM
And how many times has this "floating" starter idea worked for recent playoff teams?

It's about like the idea of having the entire rotationn and relievers pitch one inning per game that some teams use in Little League.

Beautox
09-28-2006, 11:03 PM
Get batters out, THAT's his job, whether coming in from the pen or starting a game. I really was a Brandon supporter until he started the "I'm done for the year. Don't use me out of the 'pen."

Black Jack is that you? Seriously don't perpetuate that lie about "just getting outs", if it was that easy anyone in the league could be an effective closer, thats not the case at all, so quit pretending it is. Next McCarthy hasn't complained at all this year, this is simply sox fans much like yourself, who watched all the games this season much like yourself, who got tired of seeing him being put in a position to fail and his manager throw him and numerous other rookies under the bus, and constantly fall asleep at the wheel, there was never a need for second guessing when moves or lack there of were so obvious. Mackowiak in CF since the ASB? when brian for a while was hitting .296. Pods never being benched, Uribe never being benched, and thats just off the top of my head.

chaerulez
09-28-2006, 11:23 PM
Black Jack is that you? Seriously don't perpetuate that lie about "just getting outs", if it was that easy anyone in the league could be an effective closer, thats not the case at all, so quit pretending it is. Next McCarthy hasn't complained at all this year, this is simply sox fans much like yourself, who watched all the games this season much like yourself, who got tired of seeing him being put in a position to fail and his manager throw him and numerous other rookies under the bus, and constantly fall asleep at the wheel, there was never a need for second guessing when moves or lack there of were so obvious. Mackowiak in CF since the ASB? when brian for a while was hitting .296. Pods never being benched, Uribe never being benched, and thats just off the top of my head.

Exactly, pitching has become specialized in this day and age. This is why Cotts couldn't make it as a starter when he came up and then later excelled in a relief role (yes I am aware he had a bad year, but that's the uncertain nature of relief pitching). Or Vazquez, when the Yankees used him as a reliever, he was horrible. Examples could go on and on.

Ol' No. 2
09-28-2006, 11:38 PM
Exactly, pitching has become specialized in this day and age. This is why Cotts couldn't make it as a starter when he came up and then later excelled in a relief role (yes I am aware he had a bad year, but that's the uncertain nature of relief pitching). Or Vazquez, when the Yankees used him as a reliever, he was horrible. Examples could go on and on.Cotts couldn't make it as a starter because he had only two decent pitches. And the Yankees never used Vazquez as a reliever in the regular season. They used him twice as a reliever in the post-season and once as a starter. He was equally horrible in both roles.

Any more good examples?

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 11:48 PM
And how many times has this "floating" starter idea worked for recent playoff teams?

It's about like the idea of having the entire rotationn and relievers pitch one inning per game that some teams use in Little League.

I saw the World Series last year - Did you?

Not that it was planned... but...

We pitched what's effective, when the situation/batter(s) calls for it. It worked.

Thanks for solidifying my point.

caulfield12
09-28-2006, 11:59 PM
I saw the World Series last year - Did you?

Not that it was planned... but...

We pitched what's effective, when the situation/batter(s) calls for it. It worked.

Thanks for solidifying my point.

Ummm...because a starter worked a couple of times out of the pen, that proves your point? Mark Buehrle pitched to one batter and El Duque got out of a jam and that's your great validation? If Ozuna actually went in as planned and got an out, would he have been in line to be a "starter" as well for the Sox this year?

With your theory, we would have "benched" Garland, who became our ace in the second half? How long would we have put Garland into the pen? What if he never pitched well out of the pen? Would you have sent our $9 million dollar starter to Charlotte or traded him?

Then Contreras, Vazquez, Buehrle and Garcia were all struggling in the middle of the season. How would you have known which pitcher to replace? Would you have kept Contreras in the bullpen for the remainder of the season (after he returned from injury) if Brandon was pitching well?

Replacing starters and undermining their psyches is supposed to be successful how, exactly? Every starter would be waiting to be sent to the bullpen after a subpar performance? That's exactly how NOT to get results out of a staff. Didn't we see that over and over again with how Manuel had the quick hook with Garland. Did we ever see Jon pitch like he did the last two years with that strategy?

It's easy to have hindsight to say what should have been done. But it doesn't help much now. Unless there's a WSI competition with prizes for who had the best recipe for fixing things with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?

KW didn't want to do it. OG didn't want to do it. So it really doesn't matter what theory you've developed, it's ancient history.

JB98
09-29-2006, 12:00 AM
I saw the World Series last year - Did you?

Not that it was planned... but...

We pitched what's effective, when the situation/batter(s) calls for it. It worked.

Thanks for solidifying my point.

Funny how Buerhle was able to come in during the World Series and get the final out of Game 3 in relief even though he's in the mindset of being a starter. That's called being a good pitcher and getting the guy you're asked to get out regardless of what "role" you prefer to pitch in.

McCarthy had all season to adjust to the "mindset" of relief pitching. He never did it. In fact, he's gotten worse as the season has progressed. I hate this "I don't know what my role is" stuff. Your role is to get people out when the manager puts you in the game.

caulfield12
09-29-2006, 12:06 AM
Funny how Buerhle was able to come in during the World Series and get the final out of Game 3 in relief even though he's in the mindset of being a starter. That's called being a good pitcher and getting the guy you're asked to get out regardless of what "role" you prefer to pitch in.

McCarthy had all season to adjust to the "mindset" of relief pitching. He never did it. In fact, he's gotten worse as the season has progressed. I hate this "I don't know what my role is" stuff. Your role is to get people out when the manager puts you in the game.


Actually, he managed to "dis-prove" his point, because veteran pitchers are able to adjust much more easily than rookies. Buehrle and El Duque are exceptions to the rule, because both are "pitchers" no matter what the situation...bases empty, loaded, relief, starting.

And the original point was the McCarthy should have been replacing all of our failing starters on an ongoing basis throughout the season. Whenever someone had X amount of bad starts, adios, go to the pen.

Garland would have been axed in the first half. Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia and Vazquez during the second half. Maybe Brandon could have pitched four rotations spots in a row (while he was at it, why hold him back?) for the last 2 months...

JB98
09-29-2006, 12:18 AM
Actually, he managed to "dis-prove" his point, because veteran pitchers are able to adjust much more easily than rookies. Buehrle and El Duque are exceptions to the rule, because both are "pitchers" no matter what the situation...bases empty, loaded, relief, starting.

And the original point was the McCarthy should have been replacing all of our failing starters on an ongoing basis throughout the season. Whenever someone had X amount of bad starts, adios, go to the pen.

Garland would have been axed in the first half. Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia and Vazquez during the second half. Maybe Brandon could have pitched four rotations spots in a row (while he was at it, why hold him back?) for the last 2 months...

The only starter I ever would have considered pulling from the rotation would have been Vazquez, and I wouldn't have done that because McCarthy wasn't pitching well enough for me to say definitively that he would have given us a better chance to win.

McCarthy's defenders have done little to sway me in this thread.

drewcifer
09-29-2006, 12:21 AM
McCarthy had all season to adjust to the "mindset" of relief pitching. He never did it. In fact, he's gotten worse as the season has progressed. I hate this "I don't know what my role is" stuff. Your role is to get people out when the manager puts you in the game.

He had "all season?" He had an appearance in 1/3 of the games this season to do what he's not trained to do.

Secondly, he has GREAT numbers in his REAL ROLE but only had 2 ****ING CHANGES TO DO IT THE WHOLE SEASON. (And mind the K's)

Go away. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=7484&type=pitching&year=2006)

Flight #24
09-29-2006, 12:32 AM
Funny how Buerhle was able to come in during the World Series and get the final out of Game 3 in relief even though he's in the mindset of being a starter. That's called being a good pitcher and getting the guy you're asked to get out regardless of what "role" you prefer to pitch in.

McCarthy had all season to adjust to the "mindset" of relief pitching. He never did it. In fact, he's gotten worse as the season has progressed. I hate this "I don't know what my role is" stuff. Your role is to get people out when the manager puts you in the game.


Yes, because McCarthy should be able to replicate in his first year what a veteran all-star like Buehrle can do.

The key point is that when a kids' adjusting to the bigs, which is a big adjustment, you're also putting him in an unfamiliar position rather than maintaining what he's been doing and been successful at.

Like it or not, it's a relatively well-proven fact that not all pitchers can succeed in all roles (hence the difficulties in finding a good closer). And in this game, even if it's only a mental thing where you THINK it's different relieving than starting - it just became different and that much harder for you to succeed.

drewcifer
09-29-2006, 12:38 AM
Yes, because McCarthy should be able to replicate in his first year what a veteran all-star like Buehrle can do.

The key point is that when a kids' adjusting to the bigs, which is a big adjustment, you're also putting him in an unfamiliar position rather than maintaining what he's been doing and been successful at.

Like it or not, it's a relatively well-proven fact that not all pitchers can succeed in all roles (hence the difficulties in finding a good closer). And in this game, even if it's only a mental thing where you THINK it's different relieving than starting - it just became different and that much harder for you to succeed.

No, this is the bigs. No excuses.

Beautox
09-29-2006, 01:10 AM
No, this is the bigs. No excuses.

Yeah, outs are outs, and you should be able to get them with relative ease in any situation. Including the 8th with men on first and third in a tie game with one out.

drewcifer
09-29-2006, 01:23 AM
Yeah, outs are outs, and you should be able to get them with relative ease in any situation. Including the 8th with men on first and third in a tie game with one out AS A GROOMED STARTER WITH A 4 PITCH CATALOGUE AND NO CHANCE TO SET THAT STYLE YOU'VE WORKED YEARS ON, AND THEN, BE THROWN INTO A ROLE WHERE YOU'RE NOT PREPARED OR HAVE THE CORRECT PITCHES OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, MINDSET. AH, BUT STILL YOU SHOULD'VE HAD TIME AND BE BETTER, BUT YOU STILL SUCK.

Yep, heard that last time.

JB98
09-29-2006, 02:46 AM
Yes, because McCarthy should be able to replicate in his first year what a veteran all-star like Buehrle can do.

The key point is that when a kids' adjusting to the bigs, which is a big adjustment, you're also putting him in an unfamiliar position rather than maintaining what he's been doing and been successful at.

Like it or not, it's a relatively well-proven fact that not all pitchers can succeed in all roles (hence the difficulties in finding a good closer). And in this game, even if it's only a mental thing where you THINK it's different relieving than starting - it just became different and that much harder for you to succeed.

Around and around it goes. I've already responded to this argument.

If McCarthy was incapable of adjusting to the relief role, fine. Then he should have spent the season as a starter in Charlotte instead of losing critical games for the Sox as a reliever.

There was no room for him in the rotation this year, barring injury. And aside from Contreras in May, we didn't have to use the disabled list with anyone in the rotation.

JB98
09-29-2006, 02:48 AM
No, this is the bigs. No excuses.

After all, big-league baseball is about developing young talent, not winning games. This was a developmental year for the organization. We weren't trying to defend a World Series championship or anything.

Frontman
09-29-2006, 09:03 AM
Black Jack is that you? Seriously don't perpetuate that lie about "just getting outs", if it was that easy anyone in the league could be an effective closer, thats not the case at all, so quit pretending it is. Next McCarthy hasn't complained at all this year, this is simply sox fans much like yourself, who watched all the games this season much like yourself, who got tired of seeing him being put in a position to fail and his manager throw him and numerous other rookies under the bus, and constantly fall asleep at the wheel, there was never a need for second guessing when moves or lack there of were so obvious. Mackowiak in CF since the ASB? when brian for a while was hitting .296. Pods never being benched, Uribe never being benched, and thats just off the top of my head.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. McCarthy wasn't complaining, he was stating a fact. Tune in at 2:15 today on WSCR to hear from White Sox pitcher Brandon McCarthy talk about how he wasn't used right (which, you consider a lie, I consider what I HEARD WITH MY OWN DAMN EARS!! He complained on the air, he complained to sports writers. Might be a reason for him not getting into the rotation eariler, as he was already quitting on this team in the 3rd week of August.) and laughing it up about his teddy bear.

And no, I'm not Black Jack, nor am I Steve Stone. But if I was going to listen to a pitcher and what it takes mentally to be a PITCHER, I'd listen to those two over Brandon any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Front

Frontman
09-29-2006, 09:09 AM
If McCarthy was incapable of adjusting to the relief role, fine. Then he should have spent the season as a starter in Charlotte instead of losing critical games for the Sox as a reliever.



Wonder how much complaining about OG would of been done then if they did send him down to start. "What is Ozzie thinking?!?!? You'll damage his ego....er, I mean, confidence!!!"

I saw a lot of Sox players take it on their shoulders that they let the team/fans down. All I heard from and about Brandon is that he wasn't used right. No admission of responsibility, just its Ozzie's and the coaching staffs fault.

Front

Ol' No. 2
09-29-2006, 10:00 AM
Yeah, outs are outs, and you should be able to get them with relative ease in any situation. Including the 8th with men on first and third in a tie game with one out.Yes. As a matter of fact, he should. Want to know what the biggest difference is between starters and relievers? The best pitchers generally become starters. There are lots of examples of failed starters becoming relievers, but I can't think of one failed reliever who became a successful starter.

caulfield12
09-29-2006, 10:09 AM
Yes. As a matter of fact, he should. Want to know what the biggest difference is between starters and relievers? The best pitchers generally become starters. There are lots of examples of failed starters becoming relievers, but I can't think of one failed reliever who became a successful starter.

Kelvin Escobar
Josh Fogg
Papelbon next year (although not a failure as a closer)
Miguel Batista
Salomon Torres
Shawn Chacon (last year w/ NY)
Tanyon Sturtze
Julian Tavarez (against White Sox, lol)


I think it's tough on Brandon to say he's a "failed reliever" based on the last four weeks. He never had a consistent role, and he still has a better IP/H ratio than Jenks, so he hasn't been terrible by any stretch of the imagination.

southside rocks
09-29-2006, 10:48 AM
Oh, that's right, I forgot. McCarthy wasn't complaining, he was stating a fact. Tune in at 2:15 today on WSCR to hear from White Sox pitcher Brandon McCarthy talk about how he wasn't used right (which, you consider a lie, I consider what I HEARD WITH MY OWN DAMN EARS!! He complained on the air, he complained to sports writers. Might be a reason for him not getting into the rotation eariler, as he was already quitting on this team in the 3rd week of August.) and laughing it up about his teddy bear.

And no, I'm not Black Jack, nor am I Steve Stone. But if I was going to listen to a pitcher and what it takes mentally to be a PITCHER, I'd listen to those two over Brandon any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Front

Right with you on this one.

A pitcher wants to be a starter but there's no spot in the rotation for him at the beginning of the year.

He gets assigned to the pen, where he can expect to pitch a decent number of innings in long relief.

Does he say 'well, this isn't what I really want, but I see it as an opportunity to make myself a better pitcher, learn my trade, and pick up a lot of experience in pitching under pressure, which will stand me AND MY TEAM in good stead since we are in pennant contention'?

Apparently not. Apparently this pitcher said 'waaaahhh, I am a starter, and they are messing me up!'

You know what -- I WILL take Stoney and Black Jack any day over ten Brandon McCarthys. When Brandon is as far removed from his playing days as they are from theirs, no one will know Brandon's name. Book it.

Meanwhile, I wish he'd **** and grow up already. He and his roomie BA seem stuck in a perpetual adolescence, from what they say and what I read.

caulfield12
09-29-2006, 10:56 AM
Right with you on this one.

A pitcher wants to be a starter but there's no spot in the rotation for him at the beginning of the year.

He gets assigned to the pen, where he can expect to pitch a decent number of innings in long relief.

Does he say 'well, this isn't what I really want, but I see it as an opportunity to make myself a better pitcher, learn my trade, and pick up a lot of experience in pitching under pressure, which will stand me AND MY TEAM in good stead since we are in pennant contention'?

Apparently not. Apparently this pitcher said 'waaaahhh, I am a starter, and they are messing me up!'

You know what -- I WILL take Stoney and Black Jack any day over ten Brandon McCarthys. When Brandon is as far removed from his playing days as they are from theirs, no one will know Brandon's name. Book it.

Meanwhile, I wish he'd **** and grow up already. He and his roomie BA seem stuck in a perpetual adolescence, from what they say and what I read.

Where are these quotes?

In all fairness, in the newspaper at least, Brandon always took responsibility (over the last month) starting with the TB loss in extra innings, said he wished he could be pitching better, that he was letting the team down...I don't think I've ever READ that he complained about OG's usage of him.

Same thing with Politte and Cotts, they've been pretty standup all season and have done their best to answer reporters' questions even after tough losses.

I don't buy the idea he wasn't trying or "gave up" or "didn't care" simply because he didn't want to pitch in the pen...how would that help him get into the starting rotation?

southside rocks
09-29-2006, 11:05 AM
I thought Politte was very stand-up all the way, and I really felt badly for him as he struggled so much. I hope that the surgery allows him to return to pitching somewhere.

I don't think McCarthy gave up or didn't care; I think he was disgruntled and didn't want to be in the role he was, as a reliever, so he persisted in seeing himself as a starter-being-misused. Pitchers are mental cases, and if he wasn't 100% into his assignment, then I don't think he could give 100%.

I saw him pitch very well in some games. He did a flawless 5+ innings against the Twins on 8/26, IIRC, after Contreras got shelled and left early.

I also saw him pitch really badly in some games, where he appeared unable to control his frustration. Big-leaguers handle it, that's all I'm saying ...

Quotes. Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like there are accessible quotes. Stuff I've read over the season on this and other boards, and stuff that I have heard from people I know and work with, people who either work at the park or have kids who hang out in bars that Anderson and McCarthy frequent. And I might be reading more into that than I should. After all, I'm no more happy than McCarthy with his performance this season, although probably for different reasons. :tongue:

Ol' No. 2
09-29-2006, 11:36 AM
Kelvin Escobar
Josh Fogg
Papelbon next year (although not a failure as a closer)
Miguel Batista
Salomon Torres
Shawn Chacon (last year w/ NY)
Tanyon Sturtze
Julian Tavarez (against White Sox, lol)


I think it's tough on Brandon to say he's a "failed reliever" based on the last four weeks. He never had a consistent role, and he still has a better IP/H ratio than Jenks, so he hasn't been terrible by any stretch of the imagination.None of those guys were "failed relievers", though (and I'd agree that Brandon is not really a "failed reliever" either. All of those guys started out in the pen to learn how to pitch and struggled mainly because they were still learning, just as McCarthy has done. It's a long-established method of getting young pitchers the experience they need before becoming a full-time starter.

Hopefully, McCarthy will take what he learned this year to make him a better starter next year. But I see no basis to conclude that he would have been better as a starter this year than he was as a reliever.

ma-gaga
09-29-2006, 12:57 PM
It's a long-established method of getting young pitchers the experience they need before becoming a full-time starter.

The thing that bugs me, is that McCarthy got in 86 innings this year. If he is put into the rotation, he'll probably get around 180 innings next year. That kind of jump in innings really scares me, and upsets me when you have a good young live arm. I have a bad feeling that they are setting him up for an injury. And that jump could have been avoided by getting him some spot starts this year.

I mean, the clearest example is Santana. I'm looking at his Baseball Cube (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Johan-Santana.shtml) page right now. His innings:

1996 - 40
1997 - 40
1998 - 92
1999 - 160
2000 - 86
2001 - 43 (injury)
2002 - 156
2003 - 158
2004 - 228
2005 - 231
2006 - 233

So. What does this tell me... I think that the W.Sox have to try and keep the "jump" in innings down. Johan went from 90 to 160, then spend two years with injuries. The Twins suppressed his innings in 2002 and 2003, after his injuries and to help him get past the "injury nexus", and then let him jump up to his full potential.

So, where is 'Fingernails (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/brandon-mccarthy.shtml)' in his developement, and how can the W.Sox keep him healthy??

2002 - 78
2003 - 101
2004 - 224 (!)
2005 - 119
2006 - 86

gawd, that looks eerily familiar. I think the W.Sox need to suppress McCarthy to 150 innings next year. It seems like it may have been more efficient to get him 120 innings this year, and 180 next year.

But hey, I'm just looking at the stats. Perhaps the scouts can enlighten me. :cool:

Ol' No. 2
09-29-2006, 01:23 PM
The thing that bugs me, is that McCarthy got in 86 innings this year. If he is put into the rotation, he'll probably get around 180 innings next year. That kind of jump in innings really scares me, and upsets me when you have a good young live arm. I have a bad feeling that they are setting him up for an injury. And that jump could have been avoided by getting him some spot starts this year.

I mean, the clearest example is Santana. I'm looking at his Baseball Cube (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Johan-Santana.shtml) page right now. His innings:

1996 - 40
1997 - 40
1998 - 92
1999 - 160
2000 - 86
2001 - 43 (injury)
2002 - 156
2003 - 158
2004 - 228
2005 - 231
2006 - 233

So. What does this tell me... I think that the W.Sox have to try and keep the "jump" in innings down. Johan went from 90 to 160, then spend two years with injuries. The Twins suppressed his innings in 2002 and 2003, after his injuries and to help him get past the "injury nexus", and then let him jump up to his full potential.

So, where is 'Fingernails (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/brandon-mccarthy.shtml)' in his developement, and how can the W.Sox keep him healthy??

2002 - 78
2003 - 101
2004 - 224 (!)
2005 - 119
2006 - 86

gawd, that looks eerily familiar. I think the W.Sox need to suppress McCarthy to 150 innings next year. It seems like it may have been more efficient to get him 120 innings this year, and 180 next year.

But hey, I'm just looking at the stats. Perhaps the scouts can enlighten me. :cool:I think there's a difference between jumping up in IP when you've never done it before and a guy like McCarthy who has. Body type and how you throw also makes a difference. McCarthy's problem is that he's a stick. As I understand it, he's been on a rigorous program to build up his core strength, and will continue it in the off-season. But I agree it would probably be prudent to keep his innings under 200 next year.

slavko
09-29-2006, 01:33 PM
One of his heroes growing up in CA was Orel Hershiser and he has a similar throwing motion to Orel (it looks even funkier because of his build). Orel broke down and Brandon is a candidate for the same fate, esp. if he throws big innings.

JB98
09-29-2006, 01:58 PM
Wonder how much complaining about OG would of been done then if they did send him down to start. "What is Ozzie thinking?!?!? You'll damage his ego....er, I mean, confidence!!!"

I saw a lot of Sox players take it on their shoulders that they let the team/fans down. All I heard from and about Brandon is that he wasn't used right. No admission of responsibility, just its Ozzie's and the coaching staffs fault.

Front

It seems like you and I share a lot of the same thoughts on this issue. The people who are defending McCarthy are the types who want to place all or nearly all the blame for the season on Ozzie. Certainly, Ozzie shares in the accountability, but that's a different thread. And FWIW, I don't think McCarthy was mishandled this year.

There was no place in the rotation this year for Brandon. That means he either had to go down to Charlotte and start or stay with the big club and work out of the bullpen. I'm a firm believer that your 11 best pitchers should be in the major leagues. After you determine your best 11, then you sort out who does what. IMO, Brandon is one of our best 11, but not one of our best five starters. Therefore, it made perfect sense to have him in the bullpen this season. He just didn't perform, and I'm disappointed in him.

A major achilles heel this season was the bullpen, and the lack of depth down there. Cotts and McCarthy are the two biggest culprits, IMO. Ozzie pushed some wrong buttons this year, but one of the reasons that statement is being made is the inability of Cotts and McCarthy (and to a lesser extent Riske) to make quality pitches in key situations. You can't just put it all on the manager. At some point, the players have to perform. People can make all the mocking teal statements they want, but the big leagues are a results-driven business.

caulfield12
09-29-2006, 03:43 PM
It seems like you and I share a lot of the same thoughts on this issue. The people who are defending McCarthy are the types who want to place all or nearly all the blame for the season on Ozzie. Certainly, Ozzie shares in the accountability, but that's a different thread. And FWIW, I don't think McCarthy was mishandled this year.

There was no place in the rotation this year for Brandon. That means he either had to go down to Charlotte and start or stay with the big club and work out of the bullpen. I'm a firm believer that your 11 best pitchers should be in the major leagues. After you determine your best 11, then you sort out who does what. IMO, Brandon is one of our best 11, but not one of our best five starters. Therefore, it made perfect sense to have him in the bullpen this season. He just didn't perform, and I'm disappointed in him.

A major achilles heel this season was the bullpen, and the lack of depth down there. Cotts and McCarthy are the two biggest culprits, IMO. Ozzie pushed some wrong buttons this year, but one of the reasons that statement is being made is the inability of Cotts and McCarthy (and to a lesser extent Riske) to make quality pitches in key situations. You can't just put it all on the manager. At some point, the players have to perform. People can make all the mocking teal statements they want, but the big leagues are a results-driven business.

Don't forget Cliffie.

Oldschoolsoxguy
09-29-2006, 05:02 PM
You are right JB in your assessment of the bullpen woes attributed to Cotts and McCarthy.They didn't get it done for the most part and it helped seal our fate.But don't forget that the starters all stunk it up at various points as well.As for McCarthy he does deserve a shot at one of the rotation spots.Based on his work off of the few chances that he has started last year and a couple days ago,me thinks he's going to be fine.Point is,we need to find out.Kenny will move at least one out of Burly,Garcia,and Vasqwez in the off-season so there is going to be room.With Burly i 'm not sure what to make of his struggles.Hopefully it's just a location thing and he finds his groove again.Vasqwez has pretty much always been this kind of pitcher.Up and down.Garcia for all of his big game rep,didn't show us squat until September.Thanks for mailing it in the other months.So it's not like putting young Brandon in there is going create some gaping hole in the rotation.I think he is going to be better and better as he gains more experience.He was out of place in the bullpen(his fault no doubt)and you are correct in saying he wasn't one of the 5 best starters when the season started.But after what happened over the course of this season...

JB98
09-29-2006, 06:50 PM
You are right JB in your assessment of the bullpen woes attributed to Cotts and McCarthy.They didn't get it done for the most part and it helped seal our fate.But don't forget that the starters all stunk it up at various points as well.As for McCarthy he does deserve a shot at one of the rotation spots.Based on his work off of the few chances that he has started last year and a couple days ago,me thinks he's going to be fine.Point is,we need to find out.Kenny will move at least one out of Burly,Garcia,and Vasqwez in the off-season so there is going to be room.With Burly i 'm not sure what to make of his struggles.Hopefully it's just a location thing and he finds his groove again.Vasqwez has pretty much always been this kind of pitcher.Up and down.Garcia for all of his big game rep,didn't show us squat until September.Thanks for mailing it in the other months.So it's not like putting young Brandon in there is going create some gaping hole in the rotation.I think he is going to be better and better as he gains more experience.He was out of place in the bullpen(his fault no doubt)and you are correct in saying he wasn't one of the 5 best starters when the season started.But after what happened over the course of this season...

The starters sure had their problems this season, and that was another reason for our demise. But I just don't see any definitive evidence that yanking one of the five veterans in the rotation and replacing him with a struggling McCarthy would have made any difference in the final outcome.

Brandon is likely to get a shot in the rotation in 2007, and let's hope he bounces back from the poor year he had this season.

JB98
09-29-2006, 06:52 PM
Don't forget Cliffie.

Politte definitely hurt us, but we were still 24 games over .500 when he got released. To me, the struggles of Cotts and McCarthy were more damaging to the team over the long haul.

caulfield12
09-29-2006, 07:49 PM
Politte definitely hurt us, but we were still 24 games over .500 when he got released. To me, the struggles of Cotts and McCarthy were more damaging to the team over the long haul.


Well, unless you make the argument McCarthy was never suited to be a 7th or 8th inning set-up man and was put into a position he wasn't prepared for...I don't think any of us thought we would count on McCarthy to be a key to the bullpen in the beginning of the season. I looked at him more as the last member of the pen, innings eater, spot starter...that didn't turn out to be the case in the long haul.

JB98
09-29-2006, 07:55 PM
Well, unless you make the argument McCarthy was never suited to be a 7th or 8th inning set-up man and was put into a position he wasn't prepared for...I don't think any of us thought we would count on McCarthy to be a key to the bullpen in the beginning of the season. I looked at him more as the last member of the pen, innings eater, spot starter...that didn't turn out to be the case in the long haul.

Following the acquisition of MacDougal, he wasn't counted on to be a set-up man. But he still managed to lose us four games in an 11-day period from 8/31 through 9/10. Again, lack of bullpen depth is a major problem for the Sox. We've got three pretty good ones and three guys who struggled. Certainly, McCarthy joined Cotts and Riske in the latter category.

California Sox
09-29-2006, 08:17 PM
One of his heroes growing up in CA was Orel Hershiser and he has a similar throwing motion to Orel (it looks even funkier because of his build). Orel broke down and Brandon is a candidate for the same fate, esp. if he throws big innings.

Are you kidding? Hershiser pitched 18 seasons, won over 200 games, got a Cy Young, broke Don Drysdale's consecutive scoreless inning streak and almost single-handedly led a mediocre Dodger's team to the World Series title. If McCarthy has anywhere near that kind of success, we won't be complaining.

JB98
09-29-2006, 08:22 PM
Are you kidding? Hershiser pitched 18 seasons, won over 200 games, got a Cy Young, broke Don Drysdale's consecutive scoreless inning streak and almost single-handedly led a mediocre Dodger's team to the World Series title. If McCarthy has anywhere near that kind of success, we won't be complaining.

I agree. If McCarthy wins a Cy Young and helps us to a World Series title, I'll forget all about his woes this season. :cool:

jabrch
09-29-2006, 08:25 PM
We did the same thing with Bradnon that we did with Buehrle. That worked out ok for us. Coop knows how to manage young pitchers a lot better than Joe Wsiposter does.

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2006, 08:31 PM
Joe Wsiposter

Is this guy available to be a pitching coach?
:)

Frontman
09-29-2006, 08:56 PM
I agree. If McCarthy wins a Cy Young and helps us to a World Series title, I'll forget all about his woes this season. :cool:

I can't think of too many Sox fans who would hold a grudge over this season.

JB98
09-29-2006, 09:58 PM
I can't think of too many Sox fans who would hold a grudge over this season.

Well, not against McCarthy. :cool:

Frontman
09-30-2006, 05:26 PM
Well, not against McCarthy. :cool:

Obviously. Brandon's been awesome this year, the rest of the team stunk.

wsoxfan111
09-30-2006, 05:31 PM
Kenny Williams said that one of the starting pitchers would be leaving the team after this year.

Everyone said it was going to be Freddy Garcia.

After those two awesome games back to back, there was no way they were going to get rid of him.

McCarthy is coming in, so who is going out?

My guess: Contreras

jabrch
09-30-2006, 06:02 PM
Kenny Williams said that one of the starting pitchers would be leaving the team after this year.

Everyone said it was going to be Freddy Garcia.

After those two awesome games back to back, there was no way they were going to get rid of him.

McCarthy is coming in, so who is going out?

My guess: Contreras

His value is a bit low right now. I'm not sure what we'd get for him. It will depend on the market. If KW can go out and get Crawford for Garland (both signed for 2 more years at a reasonable price) I could see Jon gone. The only thing for sure with Kenny is that he wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on any deal that he thinks makes us better.

Jon and Buehrle have the most value. Freddy and Javy have a lot of upside. Contreras has the best "stuff" of the bunch. Who knows? Maybe KW will end up trading Brandon? I don't think we have any idea.

Ol' No. 2
09-30-2006, 06:06 PM
Kenny Williams said that one of the starting pitchers would be leaving the team after this year.

Everyone said it was going to be Freddy Garcia.

After those two awesome games back to back, there was no way they were going to get rid of him.

McCarthy is coming in, so who is going out?

My guess: ContrerasA few good games doesn't excuse Garcia from sucking the first 7/8 of the year. But it did probably increase his trade value.:smile: Contreras would probably be second. I think Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez are about as untouchable as a pitcher can be.

caulfield12
09-30-2006, 06:41 PM
A few good games doesn't excuse Garcia from sucking the first 7/8 of the year. But it did probably increase his trade value.:smile: Contreras would probably be second. I think Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez are about as untouchable as a pitcher can be.

I think Jose has more value to our franchise than any other team. He's comfortable here, has a good relationship with the manager and pitching coach, the manager speaks his language.

There are simply too many injury questions about Jose's year for me to say, let's go out and trade what probably is our best pitcher (when healthy) who has an under-market contract. There were enough glimpses in the second half amid the struggles to remind us it would probably be a huge mistake to deal him.