New discussion forum; early prediction; rumors

I've received a lot of email asking for the comments to be turned back on but I'm not going to fool around with the spammers and fools here anymore with the ancient blogging platform MLB is making us use.

Instead, I've opened a discussion forum for comment posting and at the end of each post at Bucco Blog, you'll have the chance to travel to the forum and post your comments or talk about the Bucs. I'll also add a link on the right sidebar. I'll keep that forum going until MLB updates the software this winter.

--

Let's look at the Pirates pitching production in 2007 vs. the National League median a bit closer:

	Pirates			NL Lg Ave
	Wins	Loss		Wins	Loss
ERA	2.76	7.00		2.89	6.63
RS	61%	39%		68%	32%
RA	22%	78%		30%	70%

The Pirates ERA was 4.5% lower in wins with 8% fewer runs allowed than the median NL average. That's impressive and should fuel some hope for the average Pirate fan. Don't forget, good pitching also requires good defense.

The 7.00 ERA in losses is a bit of a worry. Obviously Jim Tracy didn't manage his pen well, played too many replacement level pitchers, and, when things went wrong, they went very wrong. For the Pirates, that wrong typically occured on the road as they gave up a league high 5.6 runs per game while at home they were just a tick over average.

So it's no wonder the Bucs had the second fewest number of one run games in the NL on the road. But guess what? Despite the lower number of games, they had the best winning percentage of all NL teams in one run games away at 53%. That's another encouraging stat.

(I'm trying here - I really am.)

Offensively, the Pirates scored 724 runs on the year and the average NL team scored 763. Pessimists will quickly tell you the Bucs faced a lot more mop up relievers in 2007 than in previous years which caused runs scored to skyrocket. And that's true - not since the great sell off in 2003 had the Pirates allowed so many runs late in the year and, as a result, scored a lot of runs late off mop up relievers.

So don't think because we managed scoring 724 runs last year we're really a 724 team - we're not. We're only a 724 run team when we give up 846.

Unfortunately for the fans, that also inflates players averages, especially those who came on to play after June 1st when the runs allowed floodgate opened. Think Nyjer Morgan and Steve Pearce, as examples. We'll know what they can do after 500 at bats in a full year and the money is on it won't be anywhere near where they ended up last year.

It never is.

As I work toward a 2008 projection, I'm seeing a 700 run team before trades with us allowing 830 runs with the pen we have now. That's a 72-90 team. Trade Bay away and, well, we're in deep do-do because that only leaves McLouth and/or Pearce or Nady in left. If McCutchen is rushed up then all we do is add a replacement level bat for Bay leaving Pearce's potential power bat out of the mix. It's a no-win situation no matter how it's played out, not to mention the center field dilemma.

Our pitching is coming around - it's just going to take a few more years before they really pull it together as a group. In the meantime, the losing will continue without significant free agent additions, noteably at third, a few pen guys, a center fielder, and another starter if we could get lucky enough.

And that's assuming we keep Bay and he gets back on track.

--

As for rumors, Neal Huntington might be quickly getting another name: Dave Littlefield Jr. It seems one team that inquired about Bay walked away feeling like Huntington wanted the world. It's early yet so I expect that kind of noise but if it continues, you have to wonder why Huntington even dangled Bay to begin with if he wasn't interested in selling him short as his value clearly indicates he should be.

Paul Maholm rumors are starting up making me wonder if Huntington has open the door on possibly dealing him. Duke's name surfaced in a couple of media reports but he has no real value right now.

Other than that it's all speculation right now and it will be for another week or so until things heat up for us.

--

Go to the Bucco Blog discussion forum to read or post comments.

Update: that site is horrible for hosting a discussion board so I axed it. I'll throw one up this weekend on my buccoblog.com domain instead. Sorry for the problem.