Let's Talk McCarthy

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Since we seem to be discussing backup plans, just wanted to advocate for Brandon McCarthy. Injuries are a concern but they've also helped obscure a very strong track record that -- with the exception of his time in Arizona -- would otherwise place him in the conversation as a potential top of the rotation guy. Putting on my EV hat, the improved performance after shifting from Diamondbacks to Yankees last year appears to relate to his pitch selection, which the Dbacks had pressured him to restrict, so it should be repeatable (not necessarily 133 ERA+, but that ballpark).
 
Yeah, 2014 was his first season with 200IP, but injuries are a concern for any pitcher (and as a result of his past DL stints, he has a smaller career workload compared to other FAs his age, so his arm must be fresher... ) and the Sox have enough depth to get by; and if he stays healthy, he could be a 1/2 pitcher at reasonable money/years.
 
Edit: thanks to the mods for breaking this out. We have threads for "Trading for Starting Pitching", and for "Bottom of the Rotation" but nothing for top/mid-rotation FAs, so wasn't sure where to put it; if McCarthy is too specific, maybe this could work as a "Top of the Rotation FAs" or "Lester Backup Plan" thread.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Broke this out of the Lester thread. 

 

[grimshaw]

He's never been a top of the rotation guy other than one year in Oakland and looked good for his time in NY. He's got a career ERA at 4.09 a FIP at 3.98, k/9 of 6.35 and he's 31.  I'm fine with him as a 5 maybe 4, but they can do a lot better.

He wasn't good in Chicago or Texas either, so it wasn't just Arizona.

 

[InsideTheParker]

the improved performance after shifting from Diamondbacks to Yankees last year appears to relate to his pitch selection, 
 

 
This is why I have presumed that if the money is equal, he'd prefer the Yankees, since they seem to have saved his career

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

 
He's never been a top of the rotation guy other than one year in Oakland and looked good for his time in NY. He's got a career ERA at 4.09 a FIP at 3.98, k/9 of 6.35 and he's 31.  I'm fine with him as a 5 maybe 4, but they can do a lot better.

He wasn't good in Chicago or Texas either, so it wasn't just Arizona.
 

Context matters: he was age 21-25 in Chicago and Texas; a 101 ERA+ at that stage of a career is actually pretty decent, but it's not particularly relevant either way. Since missing 2010 entirely, his FIP over the past four years is 3.44, including the time in Arizona, and he's put up an ERA+ of at least 120 everywhere except Arizona.

 

[dylanmarsh]

Jeff Sullivan did a deep dive on McCarthy's 2014 transition back to the AL and his injury history, which might save us some time in evaluating his worth: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brandon-mccarthy-as-a-value/ . Most significantly, McCarthy's approach was drastically changed in NY and, as a result, he was able to bring his stats in-line with his peripherals:

Team

Four-Seam

Sinker

Curve

Cutter

Change



Arizona

7%

55%

26%

10%

1%



New York

24%

36%

21%

19%

0%

 

[grimshaw]

Context matters: he was age 21-25 in Chicago and Texas; a 101 ERA+ at that stage of a career is actually pretty decent, but it's not particularly relevant either way. Since missing 2010 entirely, his FIP over the past four years is 3.44, including the time in Arizona, and he's put up an ERA+ of at least 120 everywhere except Arizona.

I'm still seeing him as a 4 because of the whole body of work and I'd like to see if teams adjust to his new repertoire.  I would agree he could be an excellent bargain but a #1 or a #2 on a team competing for another World Series is not going to be McCarthy.
 
I prefer all the trade targets mentioned aside from maybe Leake or Cashner to him.  I'd slot him right near Porcello.  The benefit being that he only costs money.

 

[dylanmarsh]

FWIW, Fangraphs' crowd-sourcing has him at 3 years, $36M: http://www.fangraphs.com/freeagents.aspx?sign=all&pos=all&nteam=all&oteam=all

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I'm still seeing him as a 4 because of the whole body of work and I'd like to see if teams adjust to his new repertoire.  I would agree he could be an excellent bargain but a #1 or a #2 on a team competing for another World Series is not going to be McCarthy.
 
I prefer all the trade targets mentioned aside from maybe Leake or Cashner to him.  I'd slot him right near Porcello.  The benefit being that he only costs money.

1) Looking at his whole body of work penalizes him for being brought up at an age when most of the players you're comparing him to were in college or in the minors. Why would you take this approach? Look at the the past five years and you'll see a very good pitcher with injury concerns.
 
2) His "new repertoire" is basically the same as he used in Oakland.
 
3) The Giants had exactly one SP with an ERA+ over 100 in 2014...

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm still seeing him as a 4 because of the whole body of work and I'd like to see if teams adjust to his new repertoire.  I would agree he could be an excellent bargain but a #1 or a #2 on a team competing for another World Series is not going to be McCarthy.
 
I prefer all the trade targets mentioned aside from maybe Leake or Cashner to him.  I'd slot him right near Porcello.  The benefit being that he only costs money.

 
Even over the "whole body of work" -- i.e., from 2005 to 2014 -- he's in the second quintile among 293 qualifying SPs in FIP-, xFIP- and SIERA. So I think the worst you could call him is a #3 type, and that's pretty bearish.
 
Also relevant to his value to the Sox: by replacing his change with the cutter as his primary off-speed pitch, he has drastically reinvented himself as a groundball pitcher (his GB/FB ratio has gone from 0.53 to 1.78 since 2008--that's pretty remarkable). And I think it's increasingly clear how important GB rate is, particularly for RHP, in Fenway.
 
At 3/36 I think he'd be a "don't think about it, just do it" value.

 

[grimshaw]

1) Looking at his whole body of work penalizes him for being brought up at an age when most of the players you're comparing him to were in college or in the minors. Why would you take this approach? Look at the the past five years and you'll see a very good pitcher with injury concerns.
 
2) His "new repertoire" is basically the same as he used in Oakland.
 
3) The Giants had exactly one SP with an ERA+ over 100 in 2014...

Porcello was brought up at the same age and has been a much more productive pitcher.  Still not an ace or a two.  And still not going to lead the Red Sox staff.
 
Where would he slot in on all the playoff teams last year?
 
And he's projected to make 12 million dollars a year or two WAR or so.  Again, good value.  What are we even arguing about?

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Of the available FA targets, I'm a big McCarthy proponent. Seems a much smarter target than the Masterson/ Liriano/Santana group, and I actually think might provide more value than someone like Shields' huge contract will provide. If that 3/36 is in a realistic neighborhood, he definitely seems like someone being undervalued by the market. For me, he'd be perfect to pair with whatever frontline guy they end up getting (assuming they do).

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Porcello was brought up at the same age and has been a much more productive pitcher.  Still not an ace.  And still not going to lead the Red Sox staff.

 
This is silly. We're shopping for a pitcher, not a quarterback or a team captain. Why do we need somebody to "lead the Red Sox staff", and what does that mean exactly aside from pitching really well about 30 times a year?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Porcello was brought up at the same age and has been a much more productive pitcher.  Still not an ace.  And still not going to lead the Red Sox staff.
 
Where would he slot in on all the playoff teams last year?
 
And he's projected to make 12 million dollars a year.  What are we even arguing about?

Has he? He's pitched more innings, but McCarthy has better numbers across the board.
 
Though 3/36 is probably a pipedream, fangraphs crowd sourced contracts tend to significantly underestimate the contracts players get.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Has he? He's pitched more innings, but McCarthy has better numbers across the board.
 
Though 3/36 is probably a pipedream, fangraphs crowd sourced contracts tend to significantly underestimate the contracts players get.

 
OTOH, MLBTR also has him at 3/36 and they've overestimated several contracts (including Pablo's and Hanley's).

 

[grimshaw]

Has he? He's pitched more innings, but McCarthy has better numbers across the board.
 
Though 3/36 is probably a pipedream, fangraphs crowd sourced contracts tend to significantly underestimate the contracts players get.

@Savin Hillbilly - Not sure if facetious? Lead the staff.  As in be of Jon Lester or John Lackey quality.  I don't give a shit about leadership
 
@Cellar-Door More productive.  Consistently higher floor.  More accumulated WAR, better XFip, better home run rate.  They're pretty comparable, and as I said I'd slot him right near Porcello who is 6 years younger and has dropped his ERA in each of the last 4 years.
 
I'll let other people jump in as I don't want to keep repeating my points.

 

[cwright]

The change had to do with not relying on his sinker as much, as he explains:  link
 

McCarthy said the biggest difference between his time in Arizona and in New York has been that the Yankees have encouraged him to reincorporate his four-seamer and cutter into his regular repertoire.
Here's how McCarthy said the change went down.
 
In Arizona, the staff wanted him to trim his pitch selection. So he tended to favor his out pitch, or get "sinker happy," as he said. "There are places that have philosophies and they like to try and and get guys to do certain things," McCarthy said. While he was never directly told to stop throwing his cutter and four-seamer, McCarthy said, it became clear they wanted him to stick with his sinker.
 
The Yankees went in a different direction. McCarthy said when he was acquired by the Yankees they told him they traded for the pitcher they had seen post a 17-15 record and 3.29 ERA in Oakland. "It was exciting when I got here and they said, 'We want you to start throwing the cutter more,'" McCarthy said. "It wasn't a discussion of why we aren't throwing it. It was just, 'Hey, we want this. And this is what we traded for.' And there was a confidence in that regard where I've got something new to get guys out with."
 

 

 

[pokey_reese]

To be fair, his peripherals were significantly better than his results even with Arizona.  When he went to the Yankees it was more that his results outperformed his peripherals, while with the Diamondbacks they severely underperformed.
 
Arizona: .85 K/IP, .18 BB/IP, 3.82 FIP, BABIP .347, ERA 5.09
Yankees: .90 K/IP, .14 BB/IP, 3.22 FIP, BABIP .308, ERA 2.89
 
The one thing that BRef is missing here is xFIP, but I remember looking at this when I was thinking about grabbing him in fantasy, and he had a much lower xFIP than FIP with Arizona, because of his high GB rate and unlucky HR/FB and strand rates that normalized when he went to NY.  Fangraphs has xFIP by "half" in their splits though, which is close:
 
xFIP first half: 2.92
xFIP second half: 2.79
 
He was a very similar pitcher with both teams in terms of effectiveness (according to luck-adjusted peripherals, not outcomes), even as he changed his pitch selection.
 
I want McCarthy badly, regardless of who we sign to be our "ace."  I would also be ok if we picked him to fill the opening day starter role for next year, and then get someone in the next FA starter crop.

 

[smastroyin]

I think outbidding the Yankees might be tough there, but I agree.  If the offense performs, the Red Sox don't need a staff of aces.  Signing McCarthy and trading for Porcello doesn't fill the void of a Lester or Scherzer level pitcher, but I'm not entirely sure that void needs to be filled.  I'd feel better about just those two if I could get a good feeling about Buchholz.  As it stands I'd say they'd be one pitcher short of making a serious run for the playoffs and would need to find a way to consolidate their bevy of not quite sure thing starters into a guy they can rely on for 30 starts of not completely sucking, and/or sign Shields as the third guy.
 
Of course all of this seems far from fruition right now.  I'm sure dominos will start falling once Lester makes up his mind.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Jumping on Smas' point, without  a star-power 1-2 it may just be better for the Sox to put away GFIN in 2015 and let the chips fall where they may (which could always end up being better than predicted) and re-invest their available money in the 2016 class. I'd even go so far as to suggest playing Betts in Pawtucket if they can't get anything good for Cespedes (or if Victorino is really healthy) and just let things build toward the next year. 
 
The Red Sox also need to find a way to increase their MiL pitcher's counts so they can step up and in.

 

[nothumb]

Jumping on Smas' point, without  a star-power 1-2 it may just be better for the Sox to put away GFIN in 2015 and let the chips fall where they may (which could always end up being better than predicted) and re-invest their available money in the 2016 class. I'd even go so far as to suggest playing Betts in Pawtucket if they can't get anything good for Cespedes (or if Victorino is really healthy) and just let things build toward the next year. 
 
The Red Sox also need to find a way to increase their MiL pitcher's counts so they can step up and in.

 
I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate this point, but you have Ortiz nearing the end, you just signed two big FAs, you don't know how fast Pedey's decline is coming, you have one more season of Napoli and (at least for now) Cespedes. You have a ton of money coming off the books and have basically announced that you can go for broke this year since you'll get back under the luxury tax next year.
 
They don't have to "let the chips fall where they may" in 2015 in order to remain flexible / competitive in 2016. I don't think the Sox will take on a bunch of terrible long term deals to go for it in 2015, but I fully expect them to be aggressive filling out the roster and turning their glut of prospects and ML OF talent into the best 25 man they can get without totally crippling them in future years. I do agree with the basic idea that landing Porcello and McCarthy rather than Lester and Hamels isn't the catastrophe some people would make it out to be, but I'd still like to see them add one true ace (Lester) and then add some reasonably priced SP support via trade or FA.
 
You might not need a staff of aces in the regular season if you have a great offense, but you need pitching that can step up in the postseason if you're going to make a deep run. The Giants only had one guy with an ERA+ over 100, but that guy had a transcendent, Gibson-in-his-prime type postseason for them. I don't think you can count on that from Rick Porcello. You can't really COUNT on it from anyone, but you can at least make a reasonable bet on it from a guy like Lester.

 

[grimshaw]

 
 
You might not need a staff of aces in the regular season if you have a great offense, but you need pitching that can step up in the postseason if you're going to make a deep run. The Giants only had one guy with an ERA+ over 100, but that guy had a transcendent, Gibson-in-his-prime type postseason for them. I don't think you can count on that from Rick Porcello. You can't really COUNT on it from anyone, but you can at least make a reasonable bet on it from a guy like Lester.

Not to mention the Giants made the playoffs by the skin of their teeth anyhow.  I have no idea how they did it, but one guy with an ERA+ of 120 is probably the exception to the rule.

 

[smastroyin]

Not to mention the Giants made the playoffs by the skin of their teeth anyhow.  I have no idea how they did it, but one guy with an ERA+ of 120 is probably the exception to the rule.

 
Are you talking about a make the playoffs rules or a win the World Series rules?
 
Here are post-strike (3 round playoff) World Series winners with only one starter with an ERA+ of 120 or better.
 
2014 Giants
2012 Giants 
2011 Cardinals 
2009 Yankees
2008 Phillies
2006 Cardinals
2000 Yankees
1999 Yankees
1997 Marlins (kind of, Livan Hernandez would be the second - he gave them 90 innings at 127 and obviously pitched the post-season).
 
I disagree with the idea that the Red Sox should ever put themselves in a position where they "have to" win it in specific Year X.  The flukiness of the playoffs just makes it a bad strategy.  

 

[foulkehampshire]

Even without Lester, the Sox could scrap together a passable rotation of average-to-good pitchers via FA and trades. Not really worried. Especially due to the aforementioned pitcher boom arriving next year through free agency.
 
Seems to me that good hitters are a more rare commodity these days. Not so long ago, a 3-3.5 ERA was #1 territory. How times have changed.  

 

[grimshaw]

 
Are you talking about a make the playoffs rules or a win the World Series rules?
 
Here are post-strike (3 round playoff) World Series winners with only one starter with an ERA+ of 120 or better.
 
2014 Giants
2012 Giants 
2011 Cardinals 
2009 Yankees
2008 Phillies
2006 Cardinals
2000 Yankees
1999 Yankees
1997 Marlins (kind of, Livan Hernandez would be the second - he gave them 90 innings at 127 and obviously pitched the post-season).
 
I disagree with the idea that the Red Sox should ever put themselves in a position where they "have to" win it in specific Year X.  The flukiness of the playoffs just makes it a bad strategy.  

Point taken.

 

[Al Zarilla]

1) Looking at his whole body of work penalizes him for being brought up at an age when most of the players you're comparing him to were in college or in the minors. Why would you take this approach? Look at the the past five years and you'll see a very good pitcher with injury concerns.
 
2) His "new repertoire" is basically the same as he used in Oakland.
 
3) The Giants had exactly one SP with an ERA+ over 100 in 2014...

Peavy was 161 with the Giants last year.

 

[Fireball Fred]

Many people seem to be unable to come to grips with the fact that the Sox have no starting rotation at all. The two established starters are Buchholz, basically the worst in the majors last year, and Kelly, who has never come close to a full season. Together they pitched about 270 innings and racked up -1.4 bWAR. None of the youngsters looked all that good either. The reason the Sox need a couple of good solid pitchers is that otherwise they have nothing to build around. Of course some of the guys they have now might be good in '15, but there's no one who's even 50-50.

 

[jacklamabe65]

 
Are you talking about a make the playoffs rules or a win the World Series rules?
 
Here are post-strike (3 round playoff) World Series winners with only one starter with an ERA+ of 120 or better.
 
2014 Giants
2012 Giants 
2011 Cardinals 
2009 Yankees
2008 Phillies
2006 Cardinals
2000 Yankees
1999 Yankees
1997 Marlins (kind of, Livan Hernandez would be the second - he gave them 90 innings at 127 and obviously pitched the post-season).
 
I disagree with the idea that the Red Sox should ever put themselves in a position where they "have to" win it in specific Year X.  The flukiness of the playoffs just makes it a bad strategy.  

Amen to this. 

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Peavy was 161 with the Giants last year.

Yes, Jake Peavy (he of the 11 ER in 16 playoff IP) was effectively the Giants #2 pitcher this past year. That's my point.

 

[foulkehampshire]

Thankyou, this has been posted elsewhere, but the FIP projections for the starters the Sox have under contract are terrible.

Buchholz 4.06
Workman 4.37
Kelly 4.39
RDLR 4.47
Webster 4.90

 
Would the sox be better served singing 2-3 good mid-range SP to smaller contracts instead of blowing all their money on Lester and being forced to give up valuable positional prospects in a trade for another? I honestly don't know, but something has gotta give.

 

[smastroyin]

Many people seem to be unable to come to grips with the fact that the Sox have no starting rotation at all. The two established starters are Buchholz, basically the worst in the majors last year, and Kelly, who has never come close to a full season. Together they pitched about 270 innings and racked up -1.4 bWAR. None of the youngsters looked all that good either. The reason the Sox need a couple of good solid pitchers is that otherwise they have nothing to build around. Of course some of the guys they have now might be good in '15, but there's no one who's even 50-50.

Who in this topic meets this hypothesis? What does this have to do with McCarthy?  I cna make some guesses but it would be better if you made these arguments yourself if you are going to take the time to post.
 
This post (and granted a couple before it) just turn the thread into another mega complain about starting pitching thread making the same points. We already have two general starting pitching threads.  When we split threads to try and encourage discussion in a specific target it is not an excuse to just start the same discussions over and over.  

 

[KillerBs]

I certainly want to see the Sox sign Lestah even at 6/150, but it is not as if all is lost if we don't get him or another putative ace.
 
Jays' rotation looks like Dickey, Buehrle, Storman, Hutchison, Sanchez or Norris, lots of question marks there and no "No 1".
 
Rest of AL East is also short if not void on the true ace type pitcher many deem to be a necessity.
 
We know Shields is good enough to front a AL pennant winning rotation and Tillman an AL east winner.
 
If we add two from the group of Liriano, Iwakuma, Porcello, Latos, McCarthy, Santana, even Hammel or Volquez, to go with the many other in house candidates, we have a decent shot at a rotation good enough to win the AL East. If Buchholz, Kelly and all the kids suck, we won't win, even with Lester in the fold.    

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Yes, I think people often get hung up on the importance of having an ace pitcher, or defense up the middle, or power at the corners, etc. There are a lot of ways to win games.

The Red Sox would be a playoff contender with the current roster, which I am sure will be improved. Perhaps by getting an ace, perhaps not.

 

[nothumb]

 
I disagree with the idea that the Red Sox should ever put themselves in a position where they "have to" win it in specific Year X.  The flukiness of the playoffs just makes it a bad strategy.  

 
I don't know if others are saying this but I hope it doesn't sound like I am. I'm just saying I think the Sox have room to be a bit aggressive in talent acquisition this year without hamstringing themselves for the future (and they have a lot of prospects who are approaching their sell-by date even if we weren't in the midst of this broader GFIN? conversation). Regardless of whether or how hard they are "going for it," there's a case to be made that the best way to get max value from their glut of high minors talent, especially given the current ML roster, involves packaging guys for established ML talent in a quality-over-quantity approach. It's impossible for us to know for sure how the prospects will pan out and what offers are on the table, so I won't be calling for anybody's head if they don't move them, but I just think it's plausible.
 
Basically I agree that adding a couple of guys who are perceived as second tier acquisitions at relatively lower cost is not a bad idea. But I also think they can add Lester + another SP via trade without mortgaging the future. Either way, trying to stay vaguely on topic, I'm bullish on McCarthy in any scenario, and if he can be had for the prices rumored, grab him and worry about whether he's your #1, #2 or whatever later on.

 

[JimD]

Count me in the camp that advocates going after McCarthy regardless of what happens on the Lester or Hamels front.  He may be an ideal candidate for Ben's 'pay more for fewer years' strategy that worked so well two winters ago. 
 

I think it's a reasonable idea.

Take any two of Iwakuma, McCarthy, Liriano, Shields, Niese, Hammel, Santana, Porcello, etc...

Add those two to Buchholz, Kelly, and RDLR (with Workman and Webster as depth, presumably) and you've got the potentials for a fairly deep rotation that won't hamstring the future, still allows you to compete, and to make a splash in the market the next year.

That being said, they appear to have the budget to do better than that, is there a pressure to spend the money since they have it? Don't really know.

 
I believe the 'pick any two' route is quite likely Ben's Plan D.  Plan A is almost certainly Lester and plan B a trade for a guy like Hamels.  Shields is probably plan C, perhaps in conjunction with a stronger number 2 guy given that Big Game James is not quote on the Lester or Hamels level. 

 

[Pedro 4 99MVP]

Here is my issue with McCarthy. It's not that he isn't good or have the potential to be good, it's that he doesn't fit our need. I know, I know, we need starting pitching, but we need a #1 and #2. I see McCarthy as too much of an injury risk to be 1 of those guys. McCarthy is coming off a good season and justifiably wants to cash in. He will get multiple years and a decent amount of cash. 3/36 has been suggested, but that may be on the low end. Either way, a lot to commit to someone with his injury history. I think Medlen and Beachy are better choices at short money if we are going to gamble on an injury prone starter, but I would only get 1 of them to challenge the kids for the 5 spot, not to fill the top 2 spots. 
 
No starting pitcher is a sure thing, but I think there are plenty of options with better histories than McCarthy for 1 of the top 2 spots in our rotation. 

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

The Red Sox have a ton of young starting pitching, all of whom need a major league try out, most of whom will fail. It seems like McCarthy might be a perfect fit - a guy who pitches great when he's healthy, but isn't always healthy. If you can get 15 quality starts from McCarthy, and 15 open audition slots, it might not be the worst thing in the world to shuffle through the youngsters who don't get a spot on the opening day roster.

 

[jasail]

I understand the allure of McCarthy. When he's healthy he's good. Last year, he was very good last year, particularly after he went to NYY. Moreover, he's projected to be good this year. However, giving him any deal over 1-year gives me heartburn. This is a guy who collected 200 IP and 30 starts once in his career - last year - and prior to only put together one solid season, 2011 in Oakland. I recognize that part of his injury history is related to a liner back at the head, which is an outlier. However, even with that recognition, I feel the Sox already have a guy like McCarthy in Buchholz. Considering Clay is potentially under contract through 2017 with an AAV of $15M, I'd rather the Sox only have one guy that is very good when healthy but totally unreliable under contact for more than $10M per for the next three seasons. For the right deal, I wouldn't balk at him being added as a 3rd pitcher this off-season, but he wouldn't be my primary target and I'm not sure I'd break the bank for him.
 
That said, recognizing he changed his pitching style last season, is there any reason to believe his new style will lend itself to better health or less stress on arm/elbow/shoulder?

 

[TSC]

Appears to be on the verge of going to the Dodgers for a 4 year deal.