2014 Pirates

[element1286]

the argument is that he is a 500 pitcher and you already have a number of those for 450k, not 19.9M.

the gamble is whether a 37 yo, who is a 500 pitcher can be someone who will be 7 games above 500 when the young guy will be only 500.

the other aspect, we aren't good enough to win it this year. not enough horses. will be similar to lsat year.
when polanco is playing all year, and taillon is here all year, and we have a real 1B option, then in 2015 we will be competing for WS. since burnett is really a 1 yr person, why spend all that money on a guy who isn't going to get you over the top and in the WS.
save the money for 2015 or 2016 when we should be legitimate contenders for the WS, not just wildcard hopefuls.

I'm baffled by your continuance on using wins as a barometer for pitcher performance, so I cannot agree with any assessment using wins as it's basis for performance.

 

[thecrow124]

the money comes from the same pot. they are tied together. $ spent now are less to spend later. just like any budget. as long as you aren't below the floor.

You are wrong on this issue, the money comes from the same pot, but a teams budget is not a one year event. They plan things out for a minimum of 6 years, and forecast raises to every player in their system factoring in inflation.

That being said, a one year deal comes off the books after one year and has zero bearing on any future years budget. So if a team can support a $100 million dollar budget this year, and they have the room under that amount, then they could spend on a one year deal. The next year, they would in essence have the same $100 million dollars to spend the next year, with added revenues above that amount.

I say that to say that signing Burnett for one year would have zero to do with wether we signed our young guys after this season. I would venture to say that there are no young guys we have that would be worthy of an extension this offseason, so any deals done from here out should be of the one year variety. So no one else signed this year should matter after this year.

Now if you feel that Burnett is not worth the money we have left to spend, whatever that number is, then that is another issue. But arguing that any deal we sign him to would affect the ability to sign anyone else after this year is wrong. Personally I don't know why everyone wants to lock players up before they hit their second arb year. Until that point, they are relatively affordable, and the best ones aren't going to give a discount regardless of their situation. So in my opinion, we have no one worth signing to an extension for at least 4 more years, and that is only if Marte continues on his current trajectory. I see no reason to extend anyone else, well unless Cutch wants to give us another contract on a lifetime deal.

 

[Illinest]

For a team that's still "2 years away" the Pirates came pretty close to making it to the NLCS last year.

The Pirates are ready to compete now. What's holding them back is a refusal to sign any talent that isn't cheap talent. Last year they identified catcher as a pressing need and they made an aggressive offer to Martin. That worked out very well for us. There's a maxim that I've heard said a few times in other places that goes "there's no such thing as a bad 1-year contract". That's what we're talking about when we talk about Burnett (or to a similar degree prior to his signing, Napoli). It might be ridiculous overpayment if you gave Burnett a 22 million dollar offer, but if it expires at the end of the year then it only prevented you from doing some stupid jackass move like trying to salvage Volquez.
Crappy teams can afford to take long gambles on guys like Volquez. We're not a crappy team anymore - or at least I hope we're not.

As for the budget - there is no reason to believe that the Nuttings have ever allowed the team to operate at a deficit in any season. There are financial documents that suggest the opposite, actually, and if the Pirates' budget is carried over from one year to the next then by this point we've saved enough money that we ought to be able to afford a shin soo choo contract if we wanted to.

 

[thecrow124]

I'm baffled by your continuance on using wins as a barometer for pitcher performance, so I cannot agree with any assessment using wins as it's basis for performance.

I think it has to do with him believing that a pitcher has more control of the outcome of a game than the rest of the team. It is a very 80's ish way of thinking. I used to put value on that and other less meaningless stats as well.

I do understand his thinking on the "pitches well enough to lose", theory though. It comes from the 80's as well, when pitchers did actually pitch to the score. If your team gave you 5 runs, instead of trying to get outs, the pitcher would try to pitch longer into the game and thus not pitch to their full capability. This is heard every year when Jack Morris would be left out of the Hall of Fame. I do believe he pitched to the score instead of pitching to his ability.

This does not fit with Burnett however, since he has always pitched to his ability, for the last 2 years he has been the beneficiary of poor run support and continually going against the opposing teams best pitcher/lineup. He does have the occasional clunker of a game, but every pitcher does.

 

[thecrow124]

For a team that's still "2 years away" the Pirates came pretty close to making it to the NLCS last year.

The Pirates are ready to compete now. What's holding them back is a refusal to sign any talent that isn't cheap talent. Last year they identified catcher as a pressing need and they made an aggressive offer to Martin. That worked out very well for us. There's a maxim that I've heard said a few times in other places that goes "there's no such thing as a bad 1-year contract". That's what we're talking about when we talk about Burnett (or to a similar degree prior to his signing, Napoli). It might be ridiculous overpayment if you gave Burnett a 22 million dollar offer, but if it expires at the end of the year then it only prevented you from doing some stupid jackass move like trying to salvage Volquez.
Crappy teams can afford to take long gambles on guys like Volquez. We're not a crappy team anymore - or at least I hope we're not.

As for the budget - there is no reason to believe that the Nuttings have ever allowed the team to operate at a deficit in any season. There are financial documents that suggest the opposite, actually, and if the Pirates' budget is carried over from one year to the next then by this point we've saved enough money that we ought to be able to afford a shin soo choo contract if we wanted to.

But I have no interest in signing Shin Soo Choo to anything but a 1 year contract. Definitely not 7 years. Neither I nor the NUttings, I think, would have a problem signing anyone to a long term deal, as long as they were young, and got them on a team friendly deal. If you really believe in your farm system to produce, then theoretically you could continue to put good teams on the field for eternity. You just have to operate like the Tampa Rays. When your star players get a year or two from free agency, trade them for prospects. This is not a popular way to operate, but if you don't generate enough revenue at the gates, then it just becomes what you have to do. I also do not believe the Nuttings would mind operating at a deficit for one year if it meant winning a World Series.

 

[element1286]

I think it has to do with him believing that a pitcher has more control of the outcome of a game than the rest of the team. It is a very 80's ish way of thinking. I used to put value on that and other less meaningless stats as well.

I do understand his thinking on the "pitches well enough to lose", theory though. It comes from the 80's as well, when pitchers did actually pitch to the score. If your team gave you 5 runs, instead of trying to get outs, the pitcher would try to pitch longer into the game and thus not pitch to their full capability. This is heard every year when Jack Morris would be left out of the Hall of Fame. I do believe he pitched to the score instead of pitching to his ability.

This does not fit with Burnett however, since he has always pitched to his ability, for the last 2 years he has been the beneficiary of poor run support and continually going against the opposing teams best pitcher/lineup. He does have the occasional clunker of a game, but every pitcher does.

I think there is something to 'pitching to the score' if you're up a lot, don't go to the fastball so much, don't need to strike everyone out, be more efficient. Same with close games, need a big strikeout but risk losing the hitter to a walk.

Think of two scenarios, 7th inning tied 2-2, runner on third one out; you are looking for the strikeout/groundball, the sac fly is not a good outcome.

Then 7th inning up/down 10-3, runner on third one out; you really just want to get an out giving up a sac fly isn't going to cost you the game.

I think everyone understands those scenarios on the micro level, but there isn't a way to scale those up to the macro level, and considering there are opposing approaches based on the score, its likely that for many pitchers those scenarios cancel themselves out on the overall numbers.

 

[element1286]

For a team that's still "2 years away" the Pirates came pretty close to making it to the NLCS last year.

The Pirates are ready to compete now. What's holding them back is a refusal to sign any talent that isn't cheap talent. Last year they identified catcher as a pressing need and they made an aggressive offer to Martin. That worked out very well for us. There's a maxim that I've heard said a few times in other places that goes "there's no such thing as a bad 1-year contract". That's what we're talking about when we talk about Burnett (or to a similar degree prior to his signing, Napoli). It might be ridiculous overpayment if you gave Burnett a 22 million dollar offer, but if it expires at the end of the year then it only prevented you from doing some stupid jackass move like trying to salvage Volquez.
Crappy teams can afford to take long gambles on guys like Volquez. We're not a crappy team anymore - or at least I hope we're not.

As for the budget - there is no reason to believe that the Nuttings have ever allowed the team to operate at a deficit in any season. There are financial documents that suggest the opposite, actually, and if the Pirates' budget is carried over from one year to the next then by this point we've saved enough money that we ought to be able to afford a shin soo choo contract if we wanted to.

Choo seems like a stretch, there aren't many teams that can afford that deal. If they gave out a 4/50 to a 29 year old, quality player their payroll could probably handle it, and they would be the right amount of value.

 

[sychmd]

thanks for the budgeting tips.
i think you project extensions, and payroll, but out of the box situations occur. having an extra 19M around would benefit the next year or 2, or get a deadline person or 2.
just because you don't spend it this year doesn't mean you lose it and have to stay at the 2015 projection you made in 2009. no business runs that way.
capitalizing on present opportunities and while still positioning well for future success is what every business is tasked in stewarding well. nobody ever rigidly sets the budget, and if they have left over money, doesn't apply it to growth opportunities in the next year or 2, unless they have tax implications from not spending it in this year (or it was a grant for a specific purpose).

regarding the wins issue. until they determine WS champs on any other statistic than wins, that is the most important. the other peripherals tell you what might be key elements in achieving the most important, wins.
the reason those others are so controversial is because they don't cover the whole picture, are affected by various issues, might apply best in certain contexts or conditions, etc. that is why they can tell some of the story, or work for some situations, but not across the board.

do you want guys who win or have great peripherals. the celtics of the 60's, as individuals had unremarkable peripherals, but they accumulated wins.

you can call it an 80's mentality, thanks for the complement. but baseball is still baseball.
talent, size, speed, and velocity have increased but smart pitching, defense are primary then plate discipline and good situational hitting are the add-on keys for winning.

 

[element1286]

thanks for the budgeting tips.
i think you project extensions, and payroll, but out of the box situations occur. having an extra 19M around would benefit the next year or 2, or get a deadline person or 2.
just because you don't spend it this year doesn't mean you lose it and have to stay at the 2015 projection you made in 2009. no business runs that way.
capitalizing on present opportunities and while still positioning well for future success is what every business is tasked in stewarding well. nobody ever rigidly sets the budget, and if they have left over money, doesn't apply it to growth opportunities in the next year or 2, unless they have tax implications from not spending it in this year (or it was a grant for a specific purpose).

regarding the wins issue. until they determine WS champs on any other statistic than wins, that is the most important. the other peripherals tell you what might be key elements in achieving the most important, wins.
the reason those others are so controversial is because they don't cover the whole picture, are affected by various issues, might apply best in certain contexts or conditions, etc. that is why they can tell some of the story, or work for some situations, but not across the board.

do you want guys who win or have great peripherals. the celtics of the 60's, as individuals had unremarkable peripherals, but they accumulated wins.

you can call it an 80's mentality, thanks for the complement. but baseball is still baseball.
talent, size, speed, and velocity have increased but smart pitching, defense are primary then plate discipline and good situational hitting are the add-on keys for winning.

This the whole reason wins are bad, they are a team measure, not an individual measure.

 

[sychmd]

the single most important determinant of the win is pitching.

 

[thecrow124]

the single most important determinant of the win is pitching.

And the single most determinant point of pitching is run prevention. To prevent runs, a pitcher must first prevent baserunners.

 

[thecrow124]

the single most important determinant of the win is pitching.

By your standard, here are a few pitchers that had better years last year than Burnett.
C.C Sabathia
Jeremy Guthrie
Jeremy Hellickson

I would argue that none of those 3 where anywhere near as good as Burnett, and they themselves would probably agree.

 

[thecrow124]

And Joe Saunders and Eric Stultz.

 

[thedddd]

Heck Felix Doubront and Mark Buerhle had more wins. And then the likes of Maholm, Haren, Bud Norris and even Jeff Locke had as many wins. Using the Locke comparison would you say Locke was as effective?

Also on the other side of that argument Darvish and Verlander only had 13 wins would you want Liriano or Colon over those two?

 

[sychmd]

By your standard, here are a few pitchers that had better years last year than Burnett.
C.C Sabathia
Jeremy Guthrie
Jeremy Hellickson

I would argue that none of those 3 where anywhere near as good as Burnett, and they themselves would probably agree.

for last year, maybe they were.
for his career, burnett has great talent, has never lived up to the potential of his stuff, and gets outperformed regularly. hard to believe that a great pitcher would have only 1 year of 8 wins above 500 and one year of 6 games above 500, and be a 500 pitcher the other 12 years. he played on good teams with other aces on those teams taking the tough games (which only matters in the first 3-4 weeks of the season, then rotations don't match up except chance so that argument is weak).

yes, baserunner prevention wins games, but some pitchers give up 5 runners, and part of that is a 2 run HR, where others only give up singles. over the long run, fewer base runners equals more wins, but some pitchers bear down well with a man on, or they pitch better from the stretch(less movement, better control and more torque).
pitchers that give up walks rarely are winners. too many base runners for free, and they don't have good enough control to be good situational pitchers either.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

This the whole reason wins are bad, they are a team measure, not an individual measure.

'

I dont entirely agree... But then again i only look at wins or losses as an individual measure if it is significant...

For example comparing 2 players where one player has 5 more wins, i do take wins as a factor... But if a pitcher has one or 2 more wins i consider it a tie...

same with losses...

Can you really say that you dont use wins as a factor at all, especially if someone had 20 or more wins??

 

[element1286]

'

I dont entirely agree... But then again i only look at wins or losses as an individual measure if it is significant...

For example comparing 2 players where one player has 5 more wins, i do take wins as a factor... But if a pitcher has one or 2 more wins i consider it a tie...

same with losses...

Can you really say that you dont use wins as a factor at all, especially if someone had 20 or more wins??

No, I don't even look at the column, there is nothing I can learn from 'wins' that other stats don't show me in more detail. Have no idea how many wins anyone in the league had last year.

 

[thecrow124]

'

I dont entirely agree... But then again i only look at wins or losses as an individual measure if it is significant...

For example comparing 2 players where one player has 5 more wins, i do take wins as a factor... But if a pitcher has one or 2 more wins i consider it a tie...

same with losses...

Can you really say that you dont use wins as a factor at all, especially if someone had 20 or more wins??

I look at wins a lot, the Pirates team had 94 of them last year, ask me what pitcher had how many...... I couldn't even guess as to how many each pitcher had. I also don't care how many the pitcher had because the team had 94. The year before the team had 79, and again I couldn't guess how many any particular pitcher had.

Look at it from a different perspective, I'll lay out a scenario that happens more than a couple times in a season.

Your team is winning 5-2 in the top of the 9th. The "closer" comes in, walks the leadoff hitter, he takes second, so he intentionally walks the next better. The next guy gets a hit driving in the guys from second making it 5-3. Next guy hits a homerun putting your team down 6-5, the closer settles down and get the next 3 guys out. Your team comes up in the bottom of the 9th and hits back to back homeruns for the team victory. The winning pitcher?, well that would be the guys that gave up 4 runs in 1 inning, was he effective? I would say no, but he did get the win.

Another scenario, pitcher gives up a leadoff homerun in the first inning, then retires the next 27 hitter he faced, his team does not score though, so he takes the loss. Was he effective?, I would say yes, very effective, but he did not get the win. Then lets say the pitcher is pulled after 7 2/3 innings, he was still very effective, and lets say the team scores 2 runs in the next half inning, he still would not get the win.

Both of these scenario's are extreme, but both happen to some degree over the course of a season. Lets say it happens 10 times to each team. Well if it happens to the same pitcher half the time, he loses 5 wins, however the team would still be .500 over those 10 games. Conceivable the team could win all 10 and the pitcher could get credit for none of them.

The pitcher does control Maoist of the game, but in reality has very little to do with his own outcome in that game.

 

[sychmd]

I look at wins a lot, the Pirates team had 94 of them last year, ask me what pitcher had how many...... I couldn't even guess as to how many each pitcher had. I also don't care how many the pitcher had because the team had 94. The year before the team had 79, and again I couldn't guess how many any particular pitcher had.

Look at it from a different perspective, I'll lay out a scenario that happens more than a couple times in a season.

Your team is winning 5-2 in the top of the 9th. The "closer" comes in, walks the leadoff hitter, he takes second, so he intentionally walks the next better. The next guy gets a hit driving in the guys from second making it 5-3. Next guy hits a homerun putting your team down 6-5, the closer settles down and get the next 3 guys out. Your team comes up in the bottom of the 9th and hits back to back homeruns for the team victory. The winning pitcher?, well that would be the guys that gave up 4 runs in 1 inning, was he effective? I would say no, but he did get the win.

Another scenario, pitcher gives up a leadoff homerun in the first inning, then retires the next 27 hitter he faced, his team does not score though, so he takes the loss. Was he effective?, I would say yes, very effective, but he did not get the win. Then lets say the pitcher is pulled after 7 2/3 innings, he was still very effective, and lets say the team scores 2 runs in the next half inning, he still would not get the win.

Both of these scenario's are extreme, but both happen to some degree over the course of a season. Lets say it happens 10 times to each team. Well if it happens to the same pitcher half the time, he loses 5 wins, however the team would still be .500 over those 10 games. Conceivable the team could win all 10 and the pitcher could get credit for none of them.

The pitcher does control Maoist of the game, but in reality has very little to do with his own outcome in that game.

agree with most points, but when you take examples that are more than 2 standard deviations away fro norm, not really what cases are made of. it's distraction from dealing with the reality.
the single most important determinant in a game and over the long haul, of a game/teams outcome, is the pitching. it doesn't determine the whole thing but is the single most important variable. and over a season, the extreme situations on both ends of the spectrum that are not in a payers control, will cancel each other out.
when they don't, it often comes back to the individual.

 

[Darkstone42]

The Pirates lost four games Burnett pitched in which he gave up 1 earned run. They lost another five games in which he gave up 2 earned runs. They lost 16 total games in which he pitched. Over half of the team's losses in games he pitched could be attributed to one or more of the following:

1. Poor defense (he had three unearned runs in two of those starts)
2. Poor offense (in those nine losses, the Pirates scored a combined 16 runs, for an average of 1.78 runs per game)
3. Poor bullpen efforts (the bullpen allowed nine runs in those 9 games, which is a good many, considering the innings discrepancy and overall how well they pitched last year)

Burnett's record is more the product of horrible luck than bad pitching. It's really hard to win when your team can't even score two runs, after all.