2014 Pirates

[MilkSpiller22]

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.

I hate this logic, because you can do it with every statistic....

ERA- what if there was a ground ball that went through the fielders legs but the fielder never touched it, and that player finds his way to score a run... That affects your ERA and WHIP, are you going to stop looking at those stats???

All stats have faults, but to dismiss a stat totally is only your fault... Again not claiming Wins or Win% is the greatest stat, but it certainly has merit...

 

[element1286]

I hate this logic, because you can do it with every statistic....

ERA- what if there was a ground ball that went through the fielders legs but the fielder never touched it, and that player finds his way to score a run... That affects your ERA and WHIP, are you going to stop looking at those stats???

All stats have faults, but to dismiss a stat totally is only your fault... Again not claiming Wins or Win% is the greatest stat, but it certainly has merit...

What scenario is that not an error?

There are better stats than ERA and WHIP anyway; SIERA, xFIP, FIP, tERA to name a few.

The point is to look at the most precise stats or the stats that tell you something interesting, which is why batting average still has some value, there are better stats, OPS, wOBA, RC etc but batting average still tells you something unique and interesting.

 

[Illinest]

I hate this logic, because you can do it with every statistic....

ERA- what if there was a ground ball that went through the fielders legs but the fielder never touched it, and that player finds his way to score a run... That affects your ERA and WHIP, are you going to stop looking at those stats???

All stats have faults, but to dismiss a stat totally is only your fault... Again not claiming Wins or Win% is the greatest stat, but it certainly has merit...

It has the least merit. Some stats are less suceptible than others. Who controls the results of an infield single? The defense has a lot of say in that, right? What determines the difference between a long fly ball and a homerun? The ballpark is a big factor, right?

But how many people are involved in a strikeout or a walk? A strikeout is generally a 2 person affair. A walk might include the ability of the catcher to frame the pitch, but is generally another mano y mano battle. This is why strikeouts and walks are great stats to look at when judging a pitcher. Team wins on the other hand are affected by the performance of every player on the field.

If you want to look at stats that predict future success then you're going to focus on the stats that directly measure the performance of the pitcher. Wins dont do that very well. Most fans dont even pay attention to a pitchers wins anymore.

 

[element1286]

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.

That's just not true though, especially on a yearly basis.

If it were true, Joe Saunders and Eric Stults wouldn't have the same amount of wins as AJ last year. And Darkstone's numbers on offensive production during AJ's starts would have just cancelled out. And that doesn't even get into the bullpen and no decisions. Those don't just cancel out, there are too many extraneous variables.

The problem with your reasoning is that at the tails of the distributions everything makes sense for the most part as far as wins and true talent level or true production on a yearly basis, its the middle that doesn't make sense.

 

[thecrow124]

I hate this logic, because you can do it with every statistic....

ERA- what if there was a ground ball that went through the fielders legs but the fielder never touched it, and that player finds his way to score a run... That affects your ERA and WHIP, are you going to stop looking at those stats???

All stats have faults, but to dismiss a stat totally is only your fault... Again not claiming Wins or Win% is the greatest stat, but it certainly has merit...

If a ball goes through a fielders legs and the fielders feet are on the ground, it is an error roughly 100% of the time. However i get the premise of your arguement, so in response I do not find ERA and WHIP to be completely useful stats either, but both are better stats to use than wins.

But for the proponents of wins out there, please explain Clayton Kershaw to me last season.

 

[sychmd]

That's just not true though, especially on a yearly basis.

If it were true, Joe Saunders and Eric Stults wouldn't have the same amount of wins as AJ last year. And Darkstone's numbers on offensive production during AJ's starts would have just cancelled out. And that doesn't even get into the bullpen and no decisions. Those don't just cancel out, there are too many extraneous variables.

The problem with your reasoning is that at the tails of the distributions everything makes sense for the most part as far as wins and true talent level or true production on a yearly basis, its the middle that doesn't make sense.

if what darkstone says is true, which is actually just a partial truth i will get to later, then why for 12 years, is burnett the victim of bad luck while on good teams. his teams are on 169 games over 500 and he is one game over 500. that is an average of 14 games as a team and he is less than .1 game over 500. look at the stats. he was on good teams. a couple great teams. are you saying for 2 years he had good luck, or the lack of bad luck.
but in the other 12 years, he had a preponderance of bad luck, more weighted to him and not the other members of the staff.

when the leadoff batter gets on via an error, then he scores with 2 outs, that is not the same as the SS booting a ball when there are 2 outs and a runner on 2nd. maddux and good pitchers are resilient and get out of the first scenario with no runs, hence no unearned runs. other pitchers of lesser mettle, burnett, get a bit rattled, miffed at the shift, and then give up more to allow that runner to score and get an unearned run.

some pitchers have a knack for giving up the first run, and others don't and lose more 1-0 games or 2-1 games.
burnett's body of data, 14 years worth is not filled with bad luck. he is a 500 pitcher and now 37 yo.
we can find a 500 pitcher for a lot cheaper, in fact we actually found 3 or 4 of them last year. burnett likes the K and he wastes too many pitches. what is a 500 pitcher who is 37 yo worth? we have other options.

i wouldn't have given volquez 5M. give him 2-2.5 and incentives for parameters like liriano.
same with burnett. give hime a base 6M and incentives to get to 15M based on starts, wins, IP, BB, WHIP, ERA, and where the team was when he left the game.
if he is confident he has it in him, let him show it.

 

[sychmd]

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.

he also had several ND games where he pitched marginal to poorly as well as one he gave up 5 runs in 6 IP and got the win.

can you do the same analysis for the other pitchers. they have the same BP, defense, and hitters as burnett does. so you can analyze his losses in a vacuum, or you can put it alongside his wins and compare to the other pitchers to see if his bad luck really stands out or is part of the normal variables all pitchers deal with on the mound and need to overcome.

remedy for scenario 1. if one unearned run is going to be your downfall, you aren't a very dominating P. you expect error free ball behind you all the time. unlikely. throw strikes and work quick and you have the best chance of defensive support. when there is an error, man up and get out of the jam. get the mo back on your side. that is what stoppers, guys demanding 19M do. burnett wastes to many pitches going for the K and his fielders get flat.

remedy for scenario #2 - don't give up a run until you have a lead. match 0's with the other guy. that is what 19M guys do. worse case scenario, you leave the game for a PH and the score is 0-0.

remedy for scenario #3 - quit wasting pitches and go deeper in the game. if you pitch 8, then you have the closer coming in, your best percentage wise guarantee of securing the win you worked for. even mix in a CG. why throw 98 pitches thru 6.1 and allow 4 relievers to determine your fate.

ace's, stars, 19M guys minimize the activity of other guys determining their fate. burnett is not one of those guys. liriano last year was one of those guys. will he be this year, i would say the odds are better that he is again, rather than not, but not as good of odds as wainwright or kershaw, or greinke, etc.

 

[Illinest]

I think this must be how bill nye felt.

 

[Darkstone42]

if what darkstone says is true, which is actually just a partial truth i will get to later, then why for 12 years, is burnett the victim of bad luck while on good teams. his teams are on 169 games over 500 and he is one game over 500. that is an average of 14 games as a team and he is less than .1 game over 500. look at the stats. he was on good teams. a couple great teams. are you saying for 2 years he had good luck, or the lack of bad luck.
but in the other 12 years, he had a preponderance of bad luck, more weighted to him and not the other members of the staff.

when the leadoff batter gets on via an error, then he scores with 2 outs, that is not the same as the SS booting a ball when there are 2 outs and a runner on 2nd. maddux and good pitchers are resilient and get out of the first scenario with no runs, hence no unearned runs. other pitchers of lesser mettle, burnett, get a bit rattled, miffed at the shift, and then give up more to allow that runner to score and get an unearned run.

some pitchers have a knack for giving up the first run, and others don't and lose more 1-0 games or 2-1 games.
burnett's body of data, 14 years worth is not filled with bad luck. he is a 500 pitcher and now 37 yo.
we can find a 500 pitcher for a lot cheaper, in fact we actually found 3 or 4 of them last year. burnett likes the K and he wastes too many pitches. what is a 500 pitcher who is 37 yo worth? we have other options.

i wouldn't have given volquez 5M. give him 2-2.5 and incentives for parameters like liriano.
same with burnett. give hime a base 6M and incentives to get to 15M based on starts, wins, IP, BB, WHIP, ERA, and where the team was when he left the game.
if he is confident he has it in him, let him show it.

he also had several ND games where he pitched marginal to poorly as well as one he gave up 5 runs in 6 IP and got the win.

can you do the same analysis for the other pitchers. they have the same BP, defense, and hitters as burnett does. so you can analyze his losses in a vacuum, or you can put it alongside his wins and compare to the other pitchers to see if his bad luck really stands out or is part of the normal variables all pitchers deal with on the mound and need to overcome.

remedy for scenario 1. if one unearned run is going to be your downfall, you aren't a very dominating P. you expect error free ball behind you all the time. unlikely. throw strikes and work quick and you have the best chance of defensive support. when there is an error, man up and get out of the jam. get the mo back on your side. that is what stoppers, guys demanding 19M do. burnett wastes to many pitches going for the K and his fielders get flat.

remedy for scenario #2 - don't give up a run until you have a lead. match 0's with the other guy. that is what 19M guys do. worse case scenario, you leave the game for a PH and the score is 0-0.

remedy for scenario #3 - quit wasting pitches and go deeper in the game. if you pitch 8, then you have the closer coming in, your best percentage wise guarantee of securing the win you worked for. even mix in a CG. why throw 98 pitches thru 6.1 and allow 4 relievers to determine your fate.

ace's, stars, 19M guys minimize the activity of other guys determining their fate. burnett is not one of those guys. liriano last year was one of those guys. will he be this year, i would say the odds are better that he is again, rather than not, but not as good of odds as wainwright or kershaw, or greinke, etc.

Burnett as a Pirate is a different pitcher than the other Burnetts. He throws more sinkers and induces more ground balls now, his style is different and it makes him a better pitcher.

As for comparing Burnett's run support with other pitchers', the quick and dirty way is to compare the team's R/G number for Burnett and overall.

Burnett 3.78
Total 3.91

So yeah, they scored fewer runs in support of Burnett than overall.

Comparing to "Not Burnett" starts, the contrast is:

Burnett 3.78
Not Burnett 3.95

So yeah, Burnett was unlucky with regards to his team's offensive production, which could, of course, be in part due to him facing the higher quality of opposing starting pitchers.

And I'm fully aware my previous post was a partial truth. It was an elaboration of the inherent partial truth of wins as a stat. Context, really.

 

[ramburgh]

I wonder if Burnett or Morales would take an incentive laden deal where they get $8-10M guaranteed with another $4-$8M in incentives?

If they perform well then the Pirates most likely will not need to add any major additions at the deadline so they will not need to have money available. However, if they aren't performing then their incentives won't kick in and they Pirates can use their incentive money to make a move or two at the deadline. Plus if those two are performing well then attendance should keep going up.

Still think the Pirates should have signed Maholm - even at a greater base ($2Mish). He is reliable and could fill in until Taillon is ready if Volquez, Rodriguez and/or Locke have issues.

 

[element1286]

I wouldn't touch Morales, can't play D, there is a draft pick attached, and he isn't a great hitter, just a good one.

But I agree, they should have gone after Maholm, although who knows if he was willing to return after leaving a few years ago, I remember there being some bad blood when he left.

 

[HammerDown]

I'm getting excited, fellas.

 

[Illinest]

Another way to look at the money issue. The short version: This guy thinks the Pirates' break even point is mid 90s or higher.

Moore might not be telling the truth since the Royals payroll was nearly $87 million last year (per bref and $81 and change per Cot's contracts) and there's new TV $ this year. Regardless, that makes me think about the Pirates break even point. The Royals have a slightly higher price of tickets and concessions ($8 more for a family of four per the FCI: http://www.businessi...1#ixzz2prCM0bst). But the Pirates drew about 500,000 more fans than did the Royals in 2013. The math is not perfect by any means, but if you take the 2013 attendance, divide by four and then multiply by the FCI, the Pirates have a roughly $17 million revenue advantage over KC. Does that mean the Pirates break even point is somewhere around $100 million? I have no idea how much operating expense there is for either club but have to assume it is roughly the same. I mean, I'd be surprised if it costs $7 million more to run the Pirates than it does the Royals. And if it did, that still leaves the Bucs with an approximate $10 million surplus based on attendance. The Royals local TV deal could be stellar. I have no idea on that. At the very, very, very, very, very, very worst, I think it is safe to say that the Pirates 'break even' point is in the mid-$80 million range, but more likely that it is $10 million (or more) higher than that.

Pirates sit at 73.8 million right now.
Pittsburgh Pirates 2014 40-Man Payroll Projection | Pirates Prospects
If you can accept that argument then it stands to reason that the Bucs could've done the following:

16 mill to Napoli
14 mill to Burnett (1 year)
0 to Volquez (don't even bother)

That would've put the Pirates at just under 100 million. It makes it possible that the Pirates would be operating a slight budget deficit in 2014, but at very little risk. In 2015 the Burnett and Rodriguez contracts go away which would free up 21 million dollars. Martin and Liriano's contracts would be done as well which would free up another 14.5 million.

Rotation = Cole, Morton and Taillon with both Kingham and Glasnow nearing readiness. It would require that some problems be addressed but there's 35 million to spend.
The only position player that we'd be losing is Russel Martin. Either give the job to Tony Sanchez at that point or else split the 35.5 million between FA catcher and FA Starting Pitcher

 

[thecrow124]

Another way to look at the money issue. The short version: This guy thinks the Pirates' break even point is mid 90s or higher.



Pirates sit at 73.8 million right now.
Pittsburgh Pirates 2014 40-Man Payroll Projection | Pirates Prospects
If you can accept that argument then it stands to reason that the Bucs could've done the following:

16 mill to Napoli
14 mill to Burnett (1 year)
0 to Volquez (don't even bother)

That would've put the Pirates at just under 100 million. It makes it possible that the Pirates would be operating a slight budget deficit in 2014, but at very little risk. In 2015 the Burnett and Rodriguez contracts go away which would free up 21 million dollars. Martin and Liriano's contracts would be done as well which would free up another 14.5 million.

Rotation = Cole, Morton and Taillon with both Kingham and Glasnow nearing readiness. It would require that some problems be addressed but there's 35 million to spend.
The only position player that we'd be losing is Russel Martin. Either give the job to Tony Sanchez at that point or else split the 35.5 million between FA catcher and FA Starting Pitcher

Napoli was going back to Boston, no money was going to change that.

I am also tired of focusing on money, money doesn't necessarily buy a championship, although it seems that way, what it does is allows teams to make mistakes or have bad contracts and still compete.

I think we will be pretty good this year with our current team, if we sign Burnett that would give us maybe a win or 2 more. So just adding payroll you may not add as much as you think. Heck there is a good chance we entered the year with a lower payroll than when we started and be a better team. Add Taillon, Polanco, and possibly d'Arnaud and Sanchez and subtract the people they replace.

With that, can we stop focusing so much on payroll and focus on the talent that will be on the field.

 

[Illinest]

Burnett signs for 1 year, 16 million....

to play in Philly.

Fuck you Neil, you fucking asshole. Where's our fucking compensation pick?
Prick.
I pray that this is a false rumor but I really don't think that it is.

 

[element1286]

Yep, huge fuckup by the front office. The problem is now there is no way to reuse that 16 million in a productive manner for 2014.

 

[Illinest]

Stephen Drew is the last one I can think of. Kind of an off-the-wall solution but you could sign Drew to play SS and use a rotation of Mercer, Alvarez, Walker and Sanchez to fill the other infield positions.

Not my recommendation but if you want a realistic place for this money I think that it makes more sense than continuing to add to Nut-fuckers piggy-bank.

 

[thedddd]

Well good job NH you not only did not get Burnett back you did not get a compensatory pick.

 

[element1286]

If Drew is attached to a pick, I think that is a deal breaker, IMO.

 

[thedddd]

Stephen Drew is the last one I can think of. Kind of an off-the-wall solution but you could sign Drew to play SS and use a rotation of Mercer, Alvarez, Walker and Sanchez to fill the other infield positions.

Not my recommendation but if you want a realistic place for this money I think that it makes more sense than continuing to add to Nut-fuckers piggy-bank.

I wouldn't mind Drew he would improve the MI but with Barmes back this thought already passed.

And I agree with others Morales is not worth the money or loss of a pick. Also I don't see any other solution worth giving up value for at 1B out there.