I didn't take notes, and I was with three kids, and it was an awful game.  But here are some observations.

Continue reading this post »

Here's my cockamamie idea for radical realignment:  base it on market size, geography, and common or uncommon sense.

Basic premise: Six divisions of 5 teams each.
Interleague play:  Two options.  One is to do away with American/National, and just have MLB, so it's all interdivisional play.  Interleague play becomes a non-issue.  The other option is to split my divisions into AL and NL, and in that case, interleague play every day.  Deal with it.
DH: Either have it or don't, but discuss it in some other thread.  I'm not a purist, but wouldn't care if there was no DH.  But I'd rather have it one way or the other, not both like we do now.
Scheduling: Unbalanced, NFL-style.  Play more games intra-division, and a set number of games against other divisions.  More on that at the bottom.
Why it'll never fly:  MLB doesn't want a division like my AL East.  They don't want the possibility of one team making the playoffs from that division, they want all of them to make it.  In fact, they want my AL East and AL West teams to be the playoff teams every year.  My system is much too fair.  On the other hand, the Yankees and Mets would play 16 times a year or so, instead of six, so maybe they'd go for that tradeoff.

The hardest part was the Western divisions.  To make all division have the same number of teams, the Texas teams are "western".  So let's start there.

NL West, or MLB Mountain Westish
Colorado
Arizona
San Diego
Seattle
Oakland

Oakland and Seattle switch leagues if it's AL/NL.  They don't have the tradition to complain.  Oakland should just move to Sacramento or something, but I don't think that changes anything here.  There are some sub-major but still large markets in northern California, but I don't know if they favor SF or Oakland or LA or who, so I'm open to shuffling these two decks.

AL West or MLB West or Big Money New Money Westernish
LAD
LAA
SF
Houston
Texas

Houston, SF, and LAD switch leagues.  Houston doesn't have the tradition to complain, and SF and LAD are historical carpetbaggers anyway.  They get what they deserve. 

AL East or MLB Big City Fat Cat Rich Guys or Something
NYY
NYM
Philadelphia
Boston
Washington

I don't see the Mets having a huge connection with the NL.  Philly yes, but something's got to give.  One thing about the 15-team division idea is that the Yankees and Boston will always make the playoffs (that's why MLB is floating the idea).  My way, the rich guys can fight for one title and a wildcard.

NL East or MLB Misfit Second Cityish
Atlanta
Florida
CHC
CHWS
Toronto

Splitting Chicago makes the market sizes match up well, even if the Cubs are more popular there.  Toronto might fit better in the Big City Division, but it acts more like it belongs here.

AL Central or MLB Centralish
Detroit
Minnesota
St. Louis
Tampa
Baltimore

STL is an NL Team but preserving league ties really isn't important to me.  It's a new generation.

NL Central or MLB Runts
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Cleveland
KC
Milwaukee

Switching MIL and STL wouldn't bother me, considering MIL's sweetheart parking revenue situation.  That would fix the NL purist objections, and in almost any arrangement these last two divisions should be competitive among all ten teams.

Overall, if it's AL/NL, the bigger markets are heavily on the AL side.  I'm not sure if that's good or bad.  The point was grouping market size, so it would still be the big markets duking it out in one league too.

Playoffs:  If AL/NL, three division winners, one wild card.  If MLB, six division winners, next two best records (so it is possible to have three teams from one division make the playoffs).  Seed the playoff teams by record.  I think MLB really wants 10 playoff teams, but the issues they face with that are pretty much the same under any format.  That is, you can't do it without a playoff bye for two teams.

Schedule could be concocted a number of ways.  Similar to the NFL, you could play your own division a bunch, and three other divisions in a given year.  The following year, you'd play the two divisions you didn't play in the previous year, plus one that you did, and just keep rotation the three other divisions you play.

Year 1:
Intradivision: 4x16=64
Interdivision1: 5x6=30
Interdivision2: 5x6=30
Interdivision3: 5x6=30

Year 2:
Intradivision: 4x16=64
Interdivision4: 5x6=30
Interdivision5: 5x6=30
Interdivision1: 5x6=30
etc.

Or you could play every division, 4 games each, rotating home and away each year.  That way, every team in baseball would come to your town once every two years.

Or... any number of other ways.

Sorry to make yet another FanPost, but the draft is Tuesday and we have an odd number.  Points-based, H2H.  Email azibuck@yahoo.com to get an invite:

Batting

Total Bases (TB) 4
Walks (BB) 2
Stolen Bases (SB) 0.5
Strikeouts (K) -1
At Bats (AB) -1

Pitching
Innings Pitched (IP) 9
Strikeouts (K) 1
Hits Allowed (H) -6
Walks Issued (BB) -2
Home Runs Allowed (HR) -8

I played with the settings in Yahoo to make sure it was hitting/pitching neutral, and so that there were few wacky rankings. I got the idea for the categories, more or less, from this thread at The Hardball Times. I have never played in a league like this and have not ranked any players with it. But as H2H, it will be easy to track in your head as you watch a game/player.

For the overflow league, we could use 2 or 4 more.  Draft will be Tuesday evening.  See this thread, but it's simple points-based H2H.  Email me at azibuck@yahoo.com and I'll send the invite.

 

Batting

Total Bases (TB) 4

Walks (BB) 2

Stolen Bases (SB) 0.5

Strikeouts (K) -1

At Bats (AB) -1

 

Pitching

Innings Pitched (IP) 9

Strikeouts (K) 1

Hits Allowed (H) -6

Walks Issued (BB) -2

Home Runs Allowed (HR) -8

Trogs' league filled up, but I'd like to have a fantasy league with Pirates fans too. It'll be at Yahoo, H2H points-based, hoping for 16 teams. If you're interested, here are the settings:

 

Batting

Total Bases (TB) 4

Walks (BB) 2

Stolen Bases (SB) 0.5

Strikeouts (K) -1

At Bats (AB) -1

 

Pitching

Innings Pitched (IP) 9

Strikeouts (K) 1

Hits Allowed (H) -6

Walks Issued (BB) -2

Home Runs Allowed (HR) -8

 

I played with the settings in Yahoo to make sure it was hitting/pitching neutral, and so that there were few wacky rankings. I got the idea for the categories, more or less, from this thread at The Hardball Times. I have never played in a league like this and have not ranked any players with it. But as H2H, it will be easy to track in your head as you watch a game/player.

Send an email to azibuck at yahoo.com and I'll send you an invite. We'll probably have to open it to the public if we don't get 16, but I want it to be a deep league.

I'd like to do a live draft, but it would have to be soon.

I drove to Auburn for the Spikes game Sunday. Here are some player impressions. The velocities listed here are a combination of the stadium scoreboard and two guns being held by a couple guys behind home plate. For what it's worth, the guns matched each other, and they matched the stadium readout. The stadium "gun" looked like a toy, sort of, but when I was in the area, the readings matched the guns held by the other guys. I'm not much of a chatter, so I don't know who they were, and they weren't sitting together.

Zac Fuesser: Leave this guy off your top 30 prospect lists at your own peril. He sat at 90-91. I didn't see every pitch, but I'm not sure he ever threw a breaking ball. He did throw a few changeups, at around 84 MPH. He has a live arm. He walked 4, but was not hit-the-bull wild - he was just missing. For working within the context of the organization's mandate to command the fastball, I think he did well. He worked the corners and basically threw a fastball and little else for his whole 3.2 innings. I wasn't wowed, but was impressed. Low 90's fastball, check. Seemed to know how to pitch, check. Lefthanded, check. Cross a reliever off your list of prospects and put this guy on it.

Trent Stevenson: Sat at 91-92. He's tall and thin, with kind of a funky delivery.  He's hittable. He didn't generate the swings and misses or weak fouls that Fuesser did, but you can see how scouts project him with his frame. He fielded his position well, making a very athletic play on a chopper to the third base side. Unimpressive, but again, I think it's more about projection with him.

Colton Cain: He only pitching an inning, but threw the fastest ball of the night at 94, which is hard for a lefty. He looked, um, stout. Yeah, stout. Not fat. OK, maybe a little fat. I'd like to see more of him.

Gift Ngoepe: I was hoping to be wowed by him, but unless I missed one, he only saw five pitches in three at bats, which seems weird for a guy that has walked as much as he has. He bounced out to first twice on the first pitch, and whiffed (looking) on three pitches his last at bat. For what it's worth, his swing looks sound. He looks like a ballplayer, not a project. I wouldn't write off his power just yet. He played shortstop, but didn't see the ball much.

Matt Curry: Out of all the college guys, he's the one who looks like he can play. Obviously, he might just be advanced enough to look good at the level, but he just seemed confident at the plate. If he continues to hit he should become a fringe prospect after this year, since he won't turn 22 for another week.

Mel Rojas: He's huge. He didn't do anything awesome, except walk the earth. He's listed at 6-foot-3, but that's his width at the shoulder. He beat out a ball I think the pitcher should have fielded for his first pro hit, but didn't look crazy fast doing it. For that comment, I apologize to Mel Rojas because he has the widest shoulders I've ever seen.  Save your man-crush comments. He's just an impressive-looking motherf!@#$r.

I don't think there's any help for the Pirates bullpen in the Indy bullpen, but they might have some help in the rotation from Virgil Vasquez.  V.V had a very good game in taking a tough loss tonight against Rochester.  Denny Bautista gave up a 3-run HR with the runners belonging to Vasquez.  Briefly, here are the particulars on V.V's night:

99 pitches, 66 for strikes, 8 K, 1 BB, 11 swings and misses plus 3 foul tips (as opposed to foul balls that left the dirt circle around home plate).  He gave up a wind-blown HR to the Wings best player Luke Hughes.

His fastball sat at 88-89, but after starting slowly he threw 10 pitches 90+ and 7of them were in the 6th inning.  He got a lot of swings and misses with his curve, which looked very good.

I'm not "excited" by V.V, as he'll be 27 in a few weeks, but I'm happy to have him in the organization.  I think it's a credit to NH for trying to improve all phases of the organization.  It's great to always look for high-ceiling players to build the org up, but building a wide foundation is also worthwhile, and Vasquez fills that bill.

His K/BB is what you would expect from someone in their third AAA stint, and he wouldn't whiff nearly as many major-leaguers, but he's got enough stuff that I don't think his MLB ERA would stay at Van Benschotian heights if he gets another shot.  It will be nice when he or guys like him are the third or fourth option in AAA instead of the first, but relative to the recent past, he's a welcome relief.  I don't want to overstate it, but NH is just doing his job well when he picks up V.V and keeps Yoslan Herrera at a lower level.

Nothing new on offense or defense -- McCutchen is good at the plate, Bixler somehow manages to hit doubles between K's and bobbles 50% of the balls hit to him, and Shelby Ford doubled to RF and was promptly picked off by the catcher after straying way too far from 2B after McCutchen had squared to bunt but pulled the bat back.

That was also the first time all series McCutchen had squared to bunt.  So much for working on that.

Tonight was the third time in 4 years I was able to watch Gorzelanny pitch for Indy. You can find Fanshots of the games in 2006 and 2008, the former while he was on the way up and spectacular, the latter last year after he was demoted.

These caveats apply: I’m not a scout, I’m a just a guy. I have found the pitch speed indicator at Frontier Field very fair over the years, perhaps even a tick slow*. I know these are one-offs. I’m reporting what I saw each game and using other knowledge gained to try and draw some loose conclusions.

*Tonight, the pitch speed indicator intermittently did not give readings, and a few readings of "41" and the like. I’m inclined to throw out most figures I saw, but the eyeball test makes me think it wasn’t really important tonight anyway. One other note, I missed most of the 2nd inning Gorz pitched, GF (getting food, I had my son with me).

Like last year, Gorz looked good enough for AAA, and there were indications that nothing else has changed either. If the gun is to be trusted, his fastball sat at 87-88. Of the pitches I charted, 6 were 90mph or better 5 were swung on and missed 26 were hit foul or fouled off (I should have distinguished, but didn’t).

In fact, reading last year’s Fanpost pretty much sums up Gorz’s outing this year too. He looks like depth right now, and not really good depth.

Andrew McCutchen again surprised in a disappointing way – his defense. With the tying run on, McCutchen did not track Luke Hughes’ deep drive to the CF wall very confidently, and he hit the wall the same time the ball did, without a leap. The ball dropped for a double. Justin Huber followed with a single up the middle, slow enough to allow Hughes to score from 2nd with the winner. McCutchen got to the ball and may have had a play at the plate but his throw was pretty horrific, up the 3B line. I just watched it on the news and he throws it clear out of the picture as Huber slides in. McCutchen did triple and single, and otherwise looked good at the plate.

I saw Bixler Sunday against the Mets and again tonight, and I think he needs hitting lessons. His front side just collapses as he swings, and he’s all arms.

Pearce didn’t see many breaking balls, but his whiff was on one in the dirt. I’m reading in to it, but I think this is a sign of why AAA numbers can’t always be trusted. The Wings starter, Phil Humber, was recently sent down and was probably working on his own agenda, not really pitching to the batter. With other pitchers in AAA often doing the same, I’d guess Pearce sees enough fastballs to put up numbers in the minors. In the bigs, pitchers will be concentrating on getting him out, or him getting himself out. I can’t prove this, but I can’t understand why else he would only see two breaking balls his first three times up.

Neil Walker doubled from the right side and smoked a single from the left. I didn’t see the double, but the AB before that he K’d and looked awful doing it. Walker, by the way, isn't dead yet -- .261/.333/.500 in May.

For entertainment purposes only, though I'd love to book a couple of these.

The poll question stemmed from a wager I offered Vlad, that Garrett Jones would out-OPS Pearce in Indy.  I figured I'd throw Walker in there too, to see if there were any believers (or other non-believers in Pearce I suppose).

Bonus questions because I find the subjects interesting and because I sense some people think one option is a slam dunk:

What will Andrew McCutchen OPS at Indy in 2009?

• .850 or higher
• .849 or lower

Daniel McCutchen's HR rate in 2009 will be:

• 1.30/9IP or higher (worse)
• 1.20/9IP or lower

The difference between Tom Gorzelanny's AAA and MLB ERA will be (no minimum IP):

• greater than 3.50
• less than 2.50

My own answers are .849 or lower, but I'd love to be wrong.  No real reason, and I'm not down on ACutch, he just hasn't dominated yet.  If he goes over, I'll bet it's due to a spike in power.  His bat speed is no joke.

The DCutch question is from another discussion with Vlad, and I think he will serve up a lot of gopher balls, so I'll take 1.30 or higher.

Based on a feeling as much as his performance, I think Gorzelanny will cement quad-A status with a terrific AAA ERA, and an abysmal MLB one, so greater than 3.50.  I think he needs to remake himself, and he could, but I'll bet it's not soon, and it'll be with another org.  He's got the stuff to routinely beat minor leaguers, but his fastball has lost the zip to be able to just throw it in the bigs.  He's got to (warning, cliche alert) work on his craftiness, and accept becoming a groundballer that relies more on his offspeed stuff.

Poll

OPS, highest to lowest, for Indianapolis in 2009 (minimum 200 PA each):

18%

Steven Pearce, Garrett Jones, Neil Walker

27 votes

19%

Steven Pearce, Neil Walker, Garrett Jones

29 votes

26%

Garrett Jones, Steven Pearce, Neil Walker

40 votes

17%

Garrett Jones, Neil Walker, Steven Pearce

26 votes

10%

Neil Walker, Steven Pearce, Garrett Jones

15 votes

8%

Neil Walker, Garrett Jones, Steven Pearce

13 votes

150 votes | Poll has closed

First, sincere apologies to Charlie and Bucs Dugout for having too much copyrighted material in my original FanPost on this.

In today's PG article on Steve Pearce there are quotes from Don Long and Pearce on the subject of having a plan at the plate.

Long talks about pitch recognition, Pearce talks about launch position and ... well, nonsense.

It sounds like Pearce's "plan" is to get in the box hoping to "feel" right. Presumably, he would then see a baseball (not fastball or breaking ball, etc.) and swing. Things like location, trajectory, and speed don't seem important if Pearce's hands are a "certain way." And just what way is that anyway? I doubt Pearce even knows.

Internal analysis is essential and useful, but it's for practice. Where and how you stand and swing when you're in the box in a game should be rote mechanics. They shouldn't be in your mind at all.

External analysis is also essential and useful -- for the game. It's an analysis that should start before you're in the on-deck circle. When you step in, you should be thinking externally.

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2008/3/15/163346/764

After nearly running away with the regular season title, Charlie's team faltered late but held off the contenders to win the regular season title in the Bucs Dugout H2H fantasy baseball league. Alas, the faltering carried over into the playoffs and Charlie's squad was bounced by JimBibbySweat.

Charlie beat me both times in the regular season, but my lame squad came on in the last few weeks to secure the 6th and final playoffs spot. I won my quarter- and semifinal matches and now face JimBibbySweat in the finals.

Looking back at that link, my draft sucked, but the exceptions were standouts, like Sabathia, Lincecum, and Nate. The bit players I got in the middle-late rounds led my late charge, like Ethier and Overbay. I traded Shields for Aubrey Huff which was as key as anything else.

Congrats on a great season Charlie. I'm not sure I have a definite preference for roto or H2H. Liked them both. I'm pretty certain I'd be good but out of the running if we did roto this year, so I like that aspect of H2H. But I'll probably get pummelled in the finals and will feel just as bad.

 

 

 

 

Dan McCutchen can pitch a little bit. His fastball sits at 91-93. He threw 30 pitches those speeds, and 15 of those were 92. He threw 93mph on his 99th pitch before striking out Brock Peterson with an excellent change. He topped out at 95 (once) and threw 94 a handful of times. He got 16 swings and misses and most were on his low-80s change. He also threw a high-70s breaking ball. He threw strikes. I'm not disappointed Dan McCutchen is in the Pirates system. I don't think he's long for AAA, which is good because he's 25. It's not that I think he'll be super good, just that the talent in the org won't hold him back and he has the stuff to get a shot. I think he just needs some more refinement, probably with his fastball location.

He gave up back to back HR to two lefties, Howie Clark and minor league vet Garrett Jones. Fastball to Clark, breaking ball to Jones who destroyed it. After a mound visit, he retired the next three batters. He reminded me of pretty much all the Twins pitchers not named Liriano that have come through Rochester the last few years, Scott Baker in particular. Low 90's fastball, good stuff but nothing that really wows you. Baker got to the majors faster but has been a league average starter most of the time.

Kind of like his stuff and performance, I don't have much else *concrete* to report. He looked good, not great. The change looks like a plus pitch as 13 of the 16 swinging strikes were on the change.

Note: I just went and read WTM's D. McCutchen page for the first time, which basically says more concisely what I just wrote, but I'll leave it anyway. I wanted to know if McCutchen was throwing a curve or slider. Often, depending on where I sit, I'm not sure whether a guy is throwing a curve, slider or change, especially if their breaking stuff doesn't have severe downward movement. But sitting close today I was able to clearly make out the pitch types. Unfortunately, I noticed something else and I don't think it's good, but maybe someone can comment on it.

First of all, on his very first pitch, the guy I thought of was Wade Miller--throwing with a lot of arm, and across his body at that. I predicted surgery for Miller so much it became a running joke between a friend and me. I was finally right, but Miller had a few excellent years before it happened. We can only hope the same, at least, for McCutchen.

Second, I don't know if I can call it a "tell", but I was able to tell what he threw by watching his delivery. The change and fastball looked the same, though I could tell he slowed his arm down a bit. To a batter it may have been imperceptible as I was viewing from behind the dugout and it just may have been more obvious from that angle. But it looked to me like he really cut off his delivery on the curve. He doesn't seem to finish the pitch and stops his arm quickly. I've read that this is very bad for the arm.

This is a comment from another thread, but my thought on Andrew McCutchen is that he's underwhelming. He had a pretty bad game today, 1-4 with a walk. But the outs were two strikeouts and a GIDP with the game on the line. He smoked one ball in the three games I saw. A bullet off the wall in LF, but it bounced right to the LF and Cutch was thrown out at 2nd. He otherwise didn’t hit the ball with authority and had plenty of swings and misses. Six in the three games I saw, and he wasn’t facing any pitcher of note. Even his fielding wasn’t great. Twice he broke back on balls that landed in front of him, though both were day games for what that’s worth, though the sun never seemed to bother him.

For perspective on that headline, you might want to read at least some of this diary I wrote in June of 2006 when Tom Gorzelanny also struck 10 Red Wings.

Basically, he threw harder then, and harder more often.  I found my game chart from that 2006 game, and first of all, he threw 94mph twice even though in that diary I wrote that he topped out at 93.  But here are some contrasts, and you can make up your own mind about their meaning:

Pitches thrown
August 10, 2008 -- 90
June 14, 2006 -- 100

Pitches 90mph or faster:
2008 -- 9, topping out at 92.  90 total pitches thrown.
2006 -- 42, topping out at 94.  100 total pitches thrown.

Pitches 87-89mph
2008 -- 33
2006 -- 17

Pitches 84-86*
2008 -- 16
2006 -- 5

*Today, those were pretty clearly fastballs, 10 coming in the first two innings.  In 2006, 3 of the 5 were breaking balls.  In 2006 he sat at 91-92 and his offspeed stuff was 78-79, he was consistently in these ranges.  In 2008, he was 88-89 with his fastball, 80-82 with his breaking stuff.  In addition to the lost velocity, I don't think the narrowing of the gap between his pitch types is a good thing at all.

Still, the raw numbers would seem to say he was roughly equally dominant in both games.  Similar to the defense discussions going on about Nate McLouth, I have to rely on my eyes.  The gun could have been off either night.  Or it could be a different gun entirely.  In the interest of full disclosure, it only intermittently gave readings in the 8th inning.  But I believe in velocity and from my experience I trust the Frontier Field gun.

All I can say is he wowed me in 2006.  He just pounded fastballs at 92, 92, 92.  Today, 88, 89, and occasionally mixing in some Morrisesque 85's.  Maybe it was the expectation of (hopefully) seeing 2006 form again makes this just slightly disappointing.  Maybe it was the knowledge that he struggled this year, and that Tracy misused him (I hate the term abuse in this context, but feel free to use it), that did bias me as I kept looking at the pitch speeds.  Maybe it was just watching the game because there's also this:

2008 -- 5 hits, 4 OF flyouts.
2006 -- 2 hits, 2 outfield flyouts, one I wrote as "soft liner".

So all I can say is it felt different, and not in a good way.  The Pirates can use a guy who can pitch, but enthusiasm from last year's 14-win season probably ought to be tempered, at least for rest of this season.  I doubt he can rediscover top form this year.  Maybe with another offseason of rest.

I don't want to waste a lot of time on Marino Salas.  He was OK.  Strangely, he threw 93 warming up, but never topped 91 in the game.  And it wasn't a fluke.  When he entered the game and warmed up the first time, I was jacked.  He looked angry and he was bringing it.  Then a batter came up and he really looked like he backed off.  It was weird. After that warmup I was ready to see 95+ and I saw 91.  I should know this about Pirates bullpen guys -- when I expect more, I should expect less.

Finally, the player that has really stood out so far for me is Mr. Excitement.  I noted the other night his miscommunication with Andrew McCutchen (though Cutch was the CF).  He was also picked off that game, badly.  He was doubled off 2B Saturday night.  Today he lost a ball in the sun, I think.  It was a high fly that he was camped under and didn't even touch.  Strangely, this is marked as the 3-run "double on a fly ball to CF Andrew McCutchen" in the game recap.  Trust me, McCutchen was not involved at all in the play, but he picked the ball up so that's how it was scored.  And on a later adventure that Morgan caught, a guy a few rows back said, "That left fielder doesn't know what the hell he's doing."  Day game tomorrow too, Mr. E.

I watched Ross Ohlendorf lose to the Rochester Red Wings tonight and left intrigued, and hopeful, but not really impressed.  He threw serious gas, and wasn't wild, but he was pretty hittable.  It's esoteric and unprovable, but he looked, well, like he didn't know how to pitch.  Thrower, not a pitcher, that kind of look.

He threw 22 pitches in the first inning, 11 strikes, 11 balls, only one swing and miss.  But he was just getting warmed up.  I missed two of the velocities in the inning, but watching the pitches I can confidently say he didn't throw anything offspeed until the 14th pitch of the inning.  All the fastballs wouldn't be so bad, except he wasn't commanding it, and later showed a pretty good breaking ball, getting a bunch of swings and misses in the 2nd and 3rd innings.  His fastball went from 92 (once) to 96mph.  He gave up a bouncer up the middle for a single, and a sharp grounder to LF for a single.  After picking the runner off 2B, Garrett Jones smoked Ohly's first pitch, a 96mph fastball, toward first.  It broke Mike Cuddyer's foot.

In the 2nd inning Ohlendorf started really letting it fly, but that might not have been so smart.  Again I had him down for only two offspeed pitches out of 21 total.   His fastball went from 93 (once) to 99.  But check this sequence to 22 year-old Trevor Plouffe, the Twins' 1st round pick in 2004:

98 (ball), 96 (strike), 99 (strike), 97 (ball), 94 (foul), 96--double to the gap.  It looked to me like Plouffe had him timed.  He was just behind the next to last pitch, and was pretty clearly sitting dead red on the last, Plouffe drilled it. 

Ohlendorf gave up a single because Nyjer Morgan and Andrew McCutchen didn't communicate and let the ball drop between them when it looked like either could have taken it.  He ended the inning by (finally) throwing an 84mph curve to get Jason Pridie swinging.

Ohlendorf retired the side in the 3rd on 13 pitches, 10 strikes.  Like a message from the baseball Gods, six of the pitches were offspeed, and three of those were swings and misses.  One was a called strike, and the other two were put in play for a soft fly to left and a routine 4-3 grounder.  He dialed the fastball back down to 93-94 most of the inning, only once hitting 96.

In the 4th, he gave up two hits and got two strikeouts.  But again, it was his offspeed stuff that got batters out.  I had him for seven offspeed pitches in the inning, four of them called strikes, and another one swinging for a K.  He clearly can throw it for strikes.  Again, the fastball sat at 93-94 most of the inning, once hitting 97.  But again Plouffe doubled, and again it was drilled like he knew it was coming.  This one was only 93 so he had no trouble catching up to it.  And why wouldn't he?  Plouffe saw 9 pitches his first two AB, all fastballs.

Ohlendorf appeared to be tiring in the 5th, with his fastball sitting 91-92, and he threw mostly breaking balls.  He got into trouble with two singles to lead off the inning, but again was bailed out by bad baseball by the Wings.  By the way, one single was possibly because Mr. Excitement slipped to the ground and had to then let the ball drop in front of him.  It was a liner, but he lost all chance to make the play by spinning his wing tips out of the blocks.  With runners on 1st and 2nd, Serge Santos bunted the first pitch into the air in foul ground on the 3rd base side.  Neil Walker made a spectacular lay-out dive for the putout (seriously great play), and he easily doubled the runner off first who had gone all the way to second for some reason.  Garrett Jones then saw all offspeed--four pitches--but finally figured that out and lined a hard single to right to score a run.  He inexplicably went to 2nd on the throw, which was low and right to the cutoff man who wasn't more than 15 feet from first base.  A brief rundown and suddenly Ohlendorf was out of the inning in 11 pitches.  He really only retired only one batter in the inning.

In the 6th, I... well, look, I was at the game with two eight year-olds and a five year-old, and I needed a beer.  And the only decent beer at Frontier Field is Brooklyn Pennant, but you can only get it at the bar at the end of the LF stands.  We started out completely opposite that and I was lucky to see the inning as I strolled the walkway between the upper and lower stands on the way back to the RF knoll.  He was still throwing 93-94, and the inning ended with a drive to RCF that Matt Kata barely ran down at the wall, hit by, guess who? Trevor Plouffe.

Evan Meek looked pretty good (but...) in the 7th and 8th.  23 of 31 pitches were strikes, and his fastball sat mostly at 93-95 in the 7th, and 94-96 in the 8th, once also hitting 99.  But that was the weird thing about Meek when he was with Pittsburgh -- his fastball varied in speed a lot.  It would be nice if I thought he was doing it intentionally, or was mixing in a cutter, but the complete inconsistency in velocity makes me think he's just got mechanical issues still to work out.  Even here, he threw 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 99.  Nine different speeds in 25 fastballs.  And it wasn't something where he was just building up the velocity as he hit six of those speeds in his last 11 pitches.  He threw well though, he was behind only one batter and threw a pretty good breaking ball in the 78-82mph range.  Five of six offspeed pitches were strikes.  The only hit he gave up was a single that Garrett Jones was very late on but grounded it just fair inside 3B.

I'm hoping to go to at least two of the final three games, so I'm reluctant to say any more than this about McCutchen -- he didn't see more than a couple fastballs, and looked bad swinging over breaking balls, twice for Ks.

Walker didn't look lost or anything, but didn't seem very confident either.  Again, I want to get a few more looks.

Edit: I can't believe I forgot to note the Mr. Excitement hit the first pitch of the game just over the rail near the foul pole in RF for his first HR at any level this year. In the Olympic spirit I think it shouldn't count because it was wind-aided.

I like to keep track of "what could have been."  It's unhealthy.  I look back at the life I've lived much more than how I want to live the rest of it.  Anyway, so it is with baseball.  I follow guys the PBC traded away, and now I can also follow guys we could have traded for.  It seems pretty certain that we could have had Phil Coke and George Kontos instead of Karstens (vomit) and McCutchen.

This post is obviously ill-timed and will probably be ignored, but just because we made a good trade doesn't mean everything else in the world stopped.

George Kontos 1-hit (our crappy) Altoona Curve tonight.  He fanned 13 and walked only one.

I'm one of the few that thought Coke was interesting, and I'll slap a quarter down right now and bet he's in NY this year. Small sample but since moving to the bullpen he's given up 1 hit in two appearances and whiffed 3 in 3 innings.

Bryan Bullington is still giving up runs, but in Buffalo he's struck out 20 and walked only 2 in 16 innings.  In two relief appearances covering 7 innings he's struck out 10 and walked 1.  He may never amount to anything, but I still don't understand why we didn't exhaust all possibilities with him.

And Todd Redmond.

Note to RichieHebner, BD commenter -- I know we've gone at it, but I respect you and what you say.  My only gripe was that you seemed to say the same thing over and over, regardless of what Huntington/Coonelly said or did.

RichieHebner wrote that the Pirates were Coonelly's and MLB's petri dish.  That they were going to try to win on the cheap.  I can't figure out how to search the archives or I'd quote him directly.  The point, I think, was something along the lines of, if not breaking the union, at least gaining greater control back from it.  With that in mind, I present the following from a story in the Tribune-Review.  I think the petri dish experimenting and union-controlling has already begun:

"The sport is not necessarily a loser for owners, though. According to Forbes, Major League Baseball's profits increased 7.7 percent last year to $5.5 billion. The magazine estimates the average team is worth $472 million, a one-year hike of 9.5 percent...

Where is all that money going? Not necessarily to the players. According to Forbes, player costs in Major League Baseball (salaries, bonuses and benefits) have fallen over the past five years from 66 percent of revenue to 56 percent."

I think RichieHebner might be right, but the idea of holding costs down is not unique to the Pirates or Coonelly, apparently.  I think the union will have to stop crying collusion if the owners can convince the media (or maybe the courts) that they are not colluding, more of them are simply growing their own and not involving themselves in suicidal bidding wars.

If the union can be convinced of that, they might become more interested in a salary cap of sorts.  Salary caps mean salary floors.  In the NFL, the players are guaranteed, I believe, 70% of revenues.  If baseball players are only getting 56%, they'll want a bigger piece of the pie.  But it might have to be on the owners terms, or at least at the control of the owners.

Just so I'm (hopefully) clear, I brought RichieHebner up because I think he's right, and since I've been vociferous with my arguments with him, I wanted to set it straight that it wasn't because of what he was saying.

 

In Bull Durham Crash Davis said the difference between .250 and .300 was "just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp… you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes… you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week..."

I know we didn't even win 70 games last year, and 82 itself doesn't mean anything really, so in a sense who cares what the difference is.  But, to paraphrase Crash Davis, the difference between a miserable 16th losing season in a row and a winning team is two wins a month.  One game when your closer doesn't blow a save without letting a ball out of the infield (Torres, v. Milwaukee I think).  One game where your manager doesn't bring in Marty McLeary with the bases loaded.

And so on.  I intended to go through last season and find 12 games that could be perceived as being thrown away by Pittsburgh, but I don't have the energy right now and wanted to post this.  Yes -- I know the same difference applies to 70 and 58!  But I wonder if Huntington isn't including Tracy and DL on his list of underachievers from last year.  Maybe he thinks Russell is worth just five more wins.  If a pitcher was an underachiever, especially Duke or Maholm, and they get even a little better, I can see reason for optimism.

And maybe Huntington thinks he is bold enough to have his cake and eat it too.  To make deals without giving up completely in 2008.  I didn't intend this to answer Charlie's post about the article in the PG, I'm just using that phrase here too.

Really, I'm not even that optimistic about this season, but I do daydream sometimes, and when I do, everything goes right.

I guess my point is that I do think we're closer to 82 wins than most other people think, but the difference between 82 and 90 is much greater than the difference between 82 and 70, or even 65.  And if the org wants to shoot for 82 this year, and still make deals with an eye toward 90+ down the road, I don't think it's that unrealistic.

From Yahoo:

>Mar 20  Paulino (pinched nerve) was placed on the 15-day DL Wednesday, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Recommendation: Paulino won't be able to throw for at least a month and could be out for an additional two or three months once he can pick up a baseball.

Did everyone know this?  I swear I never heard a thing.  A Q about Paulino even led off Dejan's Q&A this morning, and no mention.  He'd never say anything, but what do you suppose DK feels like telling Meyer when something like this happens?  It's not earth-shaking news, but Jesus, it impacts a big question going into this season.

Over at WHYGAVS, Pat mentions Shawn Chacon leaving, with this comment:

"Fun aside for everyone that misses Josh Fogg: aside from win/loss record (which is terribly arbitrary), Chacon's career numbers are pretty similar to Fogg's. And he's younger!" I'm not setting out to prove anyone right or wrong, or to defend either of these guys.  But I had been looking at Fogg's numbers at BBRef during the playoffs and was just trying to see what was there.

I present this because it interested me, and hopefully you.

Fogg and Chacon have arrived at their career figures quite differently.  I'm not going to go in depth with their stats, just use ERA+ to try and show... something.

Chacon's ERA+ by year, and yeah, he was a reliever a lot, but here it is:

2001 105
2002 83
2003 108
2004 69
2005 131
2006 71
2007 110

And now Fogg's:

2002 97
2003 83
2004 93
2005 84
2006 89
2007 97

Fogg tops out at 97 (twice), but never lower than 83.  Chacon is clearly in a good year bad year pattern, so can we stop the relentless bashing and get him back in 2009? (smiley face here)  But seriously, if they're so replaceable, they wouldn't keep getting (well-paying) jobs.  And the notion of replacability seems to be at the core of the criticism of them, and I don't think it applies well to Fogg.

When I was browsing Fogg's figs, I started looking at game logs.  I wanted to look at innings pitched and runs allowed.  It's known that he's not going to K many guys, and he will walk some, and I'm not interested in his dominance, just his effectiveness.

Fogg, in what we all probably think was a pretty bad 2005, gave the Pirates 11 umambiguously good starts, 8 unambiguously bad ones, and 9 mediocre ones.  The team went 9-19 in those starts.  I used old-school, quick and dirty benchmarks.  6 IP and 3 runs or less was good.  5/3 was mediocre, 5/2 was good.  If he didn't go five it was bad, regardless of runs.  The point was, did the team (forgetting the offense generated) have a reasonable chance to win when he left the game, based on how he pitched.  If you disagree with the metrics, do your own diary, I won't get into a hair-splitting contest in the comments.

So in 2005, 20/29 starts were good or mediocre.  For perspective, in 2002, 24/33 were good or mediocre, and in 2007, it was only 18/29.  Yet most people would probably consider 2007 his best year.

Looking at his starts points out a problem I have when most people evaluate this type of pitcher.  All pitchers get compared to some sort of gold standard, like Johan Santana.  But there are always guys who are effective who don't K a lot, and BB more than you'd like.  It's pointless to look at Fogg's Game Scores, for example.  Even on his best day, he'll give up more baserunners, and whiff far fewer than other Game Score kings.  And while we look at hitters' splits (L/R), starting pitchers really don't get that luxury.  The stats are there, but they must face the whole lineup anyway.

Fogg and other non-dominant pitchers may have some sort of platoon-like advantage over certain types of teams or hitters.  I also wouldn't discount the umpire effect.  Fogg might be a dragon slayer -- if the home plate ump is generous with his strike zone.  And most teams, especially NL teams, are not dragons.  If I had the ability (and desire, and time), I'd do a full-blown research project on it.

This is going to sound like veteranosity, and I don't mean it to.  Sort of.  Er, well, I guess I sorta do.  At some point, some pitchers that don't have filthy stuff just "get it."  They understand how to pitch.  They are effective, but with limits.  And Fogg is one of the better of this type, because he's consistent.  His fluctuations in ERA are due to subtle changes in the number of good/bad/mediocre starts.  But basically, in 66% of his starts he gives his team a chance to win.  Some years it may be closer to 60%, other years closer to 70%.  And a particularly horrendous outing or two might skew his season numbers further, because it's unlikely he'll have a particularly dominant outing or two to offset it.

So what?  So... I think Fogg has value, and that Fogg might = Matt Morris.  The number of poor outings they produce is large enough, and sometimes come in spurts, so that we might over-focus on the bad.  The trick is paying Fogg what he's worth, and that's way above the minimum, but well below Mo(rris) money.  And I don't want to debate Fogg's salary either.  I'm just saying he may not be as fungible as some think.

I'm a little worried about Brian Bixler.

The Red Wings crossed me up and started last night's game at 6:35 instead of 7:05, so I missed Bixler's first AB, when he singled.  I did get to see two K's and a weak bounceout, and he looked bad doing that.

I wonder if he hasn't been figured out somewhat.  I looked up his numbers at milb.com and his average has gone down every month, and his K-rate has gone up.  He drew a lot of walks in June (16), but even with that, his OPS dropped:

OPS by month:

April: .884
May:  .854
June:  .823
July:  .633

He's 300 AB into his AAA career and not really pounding down the door to the bigs.  His overall numbers are still good, but his recent performance looks more like a trend than a slump to me.

Bayliss wasn't impressive.  He was especially disappointing relative to when I saw him in Rochester last year and wrote this diary.

He gave up a flyball out, a walk, a deep flyout, and then had his runner cut down stealing in his one inning.  But tracking his velocity was interesting when compared to last year.

In the game last year, he threw his fastball 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 94 mph.  Even better, his change was 77, 78, and 84.  That produced two K's, two groundouts, and a short flyout.

Last night, here were his velocities:

92, 92, 82, 82, 92, 82, 90, 89, 90, 89, 82.

No more than 10 mph difference between fastball and change, and kind of rhythmic.  Compare that to the 14-17mph difference in 2006.

He's a flyball pitcher, but extremely so this year.  

Like a lot of relievers, maybe he's just having a down year.  But he seems to have lost the feel for changing speeds dramatically, which made him so effective in 2006.  I was mildly encouraged by him last year.  This year, he looks like JAG (just another guy).

Torres was sharp, giving up only a double down the RF line to a smoking-hot Brian Buscher and fanning three.  10 of his 21 pitches were either 93 or 94mph.  I wouldn't bother with another rehab appearance, he looks ready now.

The A's have designated Milton Bradley for assignment.

Perhaps they'd enjoy one of our crappy relievers.  Pirates would never go for it, and it would probably be pointless as it wouldn't be very likely he'd re-sign with Pittsburgh, but the Pirates should investigate this for a few reasons.

This is way too forward thinking for Dave Littlefield to do, but if we traded for him, then offered him arbitration, he probably wouldn't sign, and we'd get compensation.

We can afford the $4Mildo.

It might even suit the shadowy management's way of running things.  They get to say, "look, we spent $4M on MB.  Sometimes you have to take risks.  We're risk-takers, and money-spenders, us."  When really, $4M is nothing in this day and age, and Joe Average Fan buys their BS that they were "buyers" of sorts instead of sellers.

He would outproduce anything we're running out there in CF right now, even going on the DL for weeks at a time.

Or they could not offer arbitration and use it as PR, like they're all about "doing things right" and having "classy" ballplayers (that can't play worth a shit).

Really, I think it's a low-risk pickup for whoever wants him.  If I read it the way I think it means, whoever takes him will only be on the hook for what's left of a $4M salary, or a little over $2M.  Nothing.  Even for a malcontent china doll.

He played for Tracy in LA.

Is everyone tiring of Jack Wilson?

From the Post-Gazette game story of Sunday's 13-6 loss:

"Tremendous game," Tracy said of Castillo. "Two highlight-reel plays, and another routine ground ball that he fielded ... you know, like you like to see a player field a routine ground ball."

I may be reading waaay between the lines here, but there are some who think there is no routine play that Jack Wilson won't try to turn into a web gem.  Jack Wilson looks, to me, like he rushes everything.  It's like he's creating the illusion of every play being tough, unless it's hit right at him.

And then there was the thing with Gorzo Friday night, where Gorzo asked him on the field what his problem was after a non-effort by Wilson.  They both said later that "they're on the same page."  My guess is they had a private meeting that went something like this:

Gorz: So you're Jack Wilson.

Wilson: What's that mean to you?

Gorz: I've heard about you, Wilson.

Wilson: What have you heard?

Gorz: That you're a no-good Yankee liar.

Wilson: ... Prove it.

Gorz:  POW! POW! POW! POW!

Stuff that occurred to me:

-P- "Duke changes delivery":

"(Pirates 14-10 win) also featured starter Zach Duke returning to a delivery that's very close to the one he used as a rookie in 2005 when he went 8-2 with a 1.81 earned run average in 14 starts.

Duke has struggled pretty much since.

(Duke and Jim Colborn) looked at videotape of Duke as a rookie and noticed a big change in his delivery, no doubt some of that difference being a tweak Colborn made in it a year ago."

I don't have enough fingers to count the things wrong here.

1. Why did he ever leave the delivery he used as a rookie?

2. I'm not saying this to toot my own horn but rather to lend perspective to the ability of the Pittsburgh coaching staff - I noted in the comments here at Bucs Dugout (and at WHYGAVS) during Duke's previous start that his curveball was different than it was in 2005, that it was more of a side-breaking curve than a downward-breaking one. Here's another quote from the Post-Gazette story:

This tweak in Duke's delivery is supposed to allow him to get more of a downward plane on his pitches.

I also emailed this question to Dejan Kovacevic several weeks ago. How the f(lip) are the Pirates coaches the last to know?

3. They noticed a "big" change in his delivery. Big? Really? Major League Pitching Coach Jim Colborn needed his pitcher to come to him first, and then to look at videotape, to notice a "big" change?

4. I find it curious Paul Meyer just says "no doubt" some of the difference was the mysterious tweak Colborn made. It's curious because every time someone brings it up, Kovacevic quotes Duke throwing cold water all over it - It was nothing. It's imperceptible. It's not an issue.

I'm not even sure of the ultimate point(s) I want to make. Colborn's an idiot. There may be hope for Duke yet. If Colborn "broke" Duke, is he skilled enough to fix him?

-P- Andrew McCutchen is hitting .364 over his last 10 games, with 6 walks and only 4 strikeouts. Neil Walker has four homers in his last three games, and his walk rate isn't truly horrible. This is great. And, well, maybe not.

They could create the illusion of a sound farm system, overflowing with soon-to-be stars. If this year's Drive For 75 is successful, then DL keeps his job another year. Then in 2008 those two (hopefully) succeed in Indy and get a call up. Help is on the way. The future is right around the corner. The Illusion continues.

I liked yesterday's batting order. For the first time all year, Dick Tracy put out a batting lineup that actually made sense, one very close to what bloggers and seamheads have been crying for.  They actually score six runs, three in the first, and Tracy throws cold water all over it (quotes courtesy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette):

"For a short period of time, it behooves us to move him down," Tracy said yesterday morning. "Lately (Jack Wilson)'s not been getting on base. He hasn't drawn any walks.

"It's not the lineup you want to stick with. There are flaws to this one, too. There isn't any base-stealing speed up at the top. Is it perfect? No. But it's something else to try.

"We're just trying to get something going at the top of our lineup [and] see if we can't get something going offensively. It's the one thing right now that is holding our ballclub up."

Yeah, we don't want to "stick with" what works. We don't want baseRUNNERS at the top, we want basestealers that don't get on base.

He'd been batting Bautista 8th most of the time, so simply swapping him and Jack Wilson was genius in itself. By genius I mean obvious. Now if they would just switch Bautista and Sanchez in the field we might have some defense too.