What?

Recapping/analyzing/ranting about Bucco games of late has been exasperating. Who wants to write about tired pitchers not pitching well, or mental errors of fatigue being made, or a nine game losing streak? Even when the opportunity finally arises to write about a win, I find myself irritated that the bullpen couldn't hold a four run lead to get Ian Snell his tenth win of the season. At some point in time, I mean, come on and get something right aside from the lovely after-game quote of, "All that matters is we won." But hey, at least the Buccos won a game after dropping nine in a row.

Which brings me to the game that's being played as I've been blogging--with one eye on the game and one on the computer screen (the joys of multi-tasking). Matt Morris is on what has been a successful mission to lower his ERA below 5.00, and the Pirates have somehow scored five runs without the presence of the team's two most recent All-Star selections. Apparently the Pirates enjoy playing spoiler, though I'm still watching with my usual cynical eye, wondering how Mr. Tracy/the bullpen/the defense/various mitigating factors will allow the Buccos to blow another 5-1 lead.

Mr. Torres is in the game, it's the eighth inning, and it's the Pirates. But, you know, may as well watch. Who knows what can happen?

Oh, dear, a walk.

And because I can, 2007 season statistics:
Matt Morris: 4.89 ERA, 102 K's, 61 BB's, 1.54 WHIP
Ian Snell: 3.76 ERA, 177 K's, 68 BB's, 1.33 WHIP

I'll never root for my team to lose, I am glad the Pirates are in a position to win this game, but something is clearly off if Matt Morris finishes this season with more wins than Ian Snell. That is all.

And Torres got out of that jam. I reiterate, I'm not looking for my team to lose, and playing spoiler is a heck of a lot better than losing 15 straight games to end the season (really, we'll get a high enough draft pick as it is), but those statistics above exemplify why---

Never mind. Must. Stop. Blogging. Talking. Ranting.

Oh, and seriously, Mr. Morris? 2 for 3 at the plate, 7 strikeouts, and no walks? You seem like a great, affable guy, so if you want to perform like that all of next year, well, you know, maybe I can let my mind wander to wishes coming true over the winter. Just for fun.

Medical Sanity?

Among interesting notes:

--Jason Bay won't start again this season. He probably shouldn't have been playing when he was playing, but still, I take this as good news in that the Pirates are actually not forcing an injured player to play.

--Ian Snell won't make his final start. Given Snell's comments last week about his arm being "kind of sore," after a 92 pitch seven inning gem, I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. While I still think Snell could've used a better choice of words when he stated that someone else could have his final start, "between the lines" of his comments I read a pitcher's desire to protect his most valuable asset--his arm. Really, far better to veer on the side of caution than risk--I'm glad Snell won't be pitching this weekend.

--The Pirates came to their senses and shut down Paul Maholm for the season. They probably should have done this prior to his last two starts (as something clearly wasn't right, and unfortunately, those two awful starts completely and unfortunately screwed with his final statistics for the season).

--While I screamed last night (okay, not exactly, as I don't really scream at a team that's out of contention for anything but the first overall draft pick) when Jim Tracy replaced Freddy Sanchez with Jose Castillo, Sanchez is another player who, if injured, as he appears to be, doesn't need to be playing. Get him healthy.

Perhaps there is no change:

--Gorzelanny was understandably unhappy about his last two starts and wants to win his fifteenth game of the season. All right, fine and dandy, and very understandable. I admire the competitive drive, I really, really love the "I will win and we will win" mentality, and maybe it doesn't matter if he pitches another five or six innings given he's already so far over his previous career high in terms of innings pitched at this point anyway.

But...you had to sense a but, right? But--really--if we're doing things properly in terms of research, do we really need to add unnecessary risk of injury?

At this juncture, of course, I say, let him go for 15 because he deserves to finish a season that's been excellent on a high note. But I also say: next season, let's take the more sensible path with our most valuable players before it reaches the point where research shows you're risking a potential downturn in performance or a greater risk of injury.

In conclusion: In the midst of chatting up the Bucco TV announcers, the new GM spoke of making decisions about obtaining and signing players based on medical tests. Given recent history, the new GM might be advised to consider seriously upgrading the quality of the team's medical staff--and putting systems in place to prevent medical problems before those problems actually occur. Here's to hoping the common sense to shut down injured players prevails throughout the organization in terms of providing players and prospects with everything necessary to maintain good health and to prevent unnecessary problems while providing immediate and prompt treatment for any problems that do occur.

Medical sanity is something the PBC organization could surely use in large, large doses, and a hat tip to the new CEO and GM if an imposition of medical sanity is one of the improvements they strive to put in place by the end of this season and have revamped by the start of next season.

The Only Way to Win...Starting Pitchers Must Exceed Expectations

The Pirates will finish the 2007 season in much the same way they finished the previous fourteen seasons: with yet another losing record. This season's ineptitude, however, prompted change in the form of a new CEO and a new general manager. And while I have no idea what changes to expect or anticipate in terms of the major league club in 2008, I do have the same difficult thought I had prior to the start of the 2007 season.

I don't care who the CEO is. I don't care who the general manager is. I don't care who the manager is. (Okay, actually, none of those statements are really true, as I think all of those people are critically important.) But in terms of on-field success for the 2008 Pittsburgh Pirates, allow me to say that I agree with the new general manager's view about how a team constructed as next year's big league Buccos probably will be can achieve "success." (For this team, please note that "success" could be taking a step in the right direction by achieving mediocrity, and depending on how other NL Central teams improve or regress, mediocrity could mean pennant contention for a few months of the season). The new GM says the players on the team have to "exceed expectations."

Allow me to get specific. There is no way the 2008 Pirates sniff mediocrity unless four of their starting pitchers manage to win at least 15 games and a fifth starter, or two or three guys who combine as a fifth starter, have at least ten wins by season's end.

Say what? Wouldn't that mean the Pirates would have one of the best rotations in the National League? Yes.

There's no other way the Pirates could sniff mediocrity? Sure. Snark alert: They could sign A-Rod for a $80 million two year deal and sell him off for prospects in the middle of the second year. False reality check: Even with A-Rod in the middle of the line-up, the Pirates still require 3 fifteen game winners and 2 ten game winners. Serious reality check: Even in my ridiculous sarcastic world of snark, there's no way the Pirates sign a coveted, above-average pricey free agent this summer, let alone the best player in baseball, not that any of those players would want to sign with the Pirates, anyway, making that whole issue moot until the team wins. The team's only hope for climbing to .500 is to get excellent starting pitching.

Which, of course, prompts the question no one wants to answer. Do the Pirates possess even a snowball's chance of having 4 fifteen game winners?

The sunny-side-up optimist: Sure. Gorzy pitches like he pitched for most of this season and gets slightly more run support. Snell dominates like he did for the first half of the 2007 season and is consistently strong throughout the entire season while also getting better run support than he got in the early half of the 2007 season. Maholm finds the niche he found post All-Star break this season and pitches like that for all of next season. Zach Duke recaptures his pristine rookie form or Matt Morris reverts to being the 20 game winning Matt Morris.

The negative cynical realistic pessimist: No, no way. Haven't we tried this in the past to no avail? Gorzy's way over his prior career high in innings pitched, so he's due for either an injury or a downturn. Snell's over his previous career high in innings pitched, too, and couldn't pitching so many innings this season hinder his ability to make progress in giving up fewer hits and keeping the ball in the park as he did for part of the 2007 season? Maholm--who knows about the bad back, and don't pitchers like him always get off to slow starts? Can we just admit Zach Duke was probably just a flash in the pan and that Matt Morris will go down as David Littlefield's worst acquisition? Can we realize that expecting four of those five guys to win fifteen games is utter, complete insanity and face cold, harsh reality?

The moderate, reasonable view: Are these pitchers, especially the ones who've pitched a lot of innings, going to stay healthy? Are the ones who showed growth this season going to be healthy enough to show growth next season? Will they have the proper relationship with their coaches to make progress? Doesn't history--and not just Bucco history--tell us that it's highly unlikely for everything to go swimmingly for every pitcher at once? Forget insanity and forget stupidity, but isn't it just plainly ignorant, in the sense of lacking knowledge, to assume that 4 of 5 of the starting pitchers can win fifteen games when pitching for a team that finished the previous season as one of the worst in the majors?

I still don't see how the Pirates come close to a .500 record without having 4 of their starting pitchers each win at least 15 games. The Bucco offense scored runs in August and could be less inept than it was in the first half of the season, but it will never be mistaken for a powerhouse. The Pirates need to have four starting pitchers go for at least 200 innings and each win an average of fifteen games (and seventeen and eighteen would be far better than fifteen). Which, of course, brings me to this:

What I Wish For: Gorzy shows no aftereffects of pitching more than 40 innings over his previous career total and picks up right where he left off this season while becoming a legitimate number 1 pitcher. Several people combine to motivate Ian Snell properly by telling him they don't believe he can have a WHIP below 1.20, an ERA under 3, and get 200 strikeouts over the course of a full season, and Snell, also showing no aftereffects of throwing 200 innings for the first time in his career this season, sets about proving a new chorus of naysayers wrong by earning NL top ten WHIP and ERA rates and climbing from top 10 to top 5 in NL strikeouts. Zach Duke and Paul Maholm do what they did so effectively their rookie seasons--pitch lots of innings, get outs, and win many games while having above-average pitching statistics. Matt Morris is a stabilizing and experienced fifth starter who always keeps the team in a game while maintaining at least league average statistics. (I'm also not that particular about who does what, providing at least 4 of the starting pitchers--even if it's someone not named--manage to win at least 15 games.)

The Problem with my Wishes: Aside from being dependent on lots of variables--effective coaching, proper relationships to coaches, health, etc, that is really, really, a lot to demand of any starting rotation.

For this Bucco fan, however, pitching remains fundamental. If the Buccos, somehow, someway, brought 75% of my wishes to life, I might see my team sniffing a .500 record. 80% to 90% of my wishes, and we're talking seriously "exceeding expectations" and about a record, given league-average play in other capacities, that catapult the team from mediocrity to a winning record.

But less than 70% of those wishes fulfilled? Even 60% fulfilled? Much as I hate to say it, even with 60% of those wishes fulfilled, you're probably still looking at a sub .500 record, albeit one probably far closer to .500 than the Pirates have sniffed in quite a long time.

As for 50% or less than 50% of my wishes coming true? Well, I'm not talking about that yet, but suffice to say, such a "come true" rate for my wishes is not likely to result even in mediocrity, let alone a winning season.

High expectations? Unreasonable expectations? Completely inane, outlandish expectations? Well--I'm not calling them expectations; I'm calling them wishes, and there's a difference.

But when the time comes to figure out how the Pirates will ever finish 81-81 or 82-80 or somewhere above that level, the truth remains: Pitching is fundamental. And when the pitchers fundamentally achieve above and beyond expectations, along with the rest of the team meeting expectations for league average MLB play, that's when I expect the Pirates to be a team that wins more games than they lose.

Here's to wishing/dreaming that a profound affectation of "exceeding expectations," for the sake of of both players who want to win and fans who are sick of losing, strikes the entire Pittsburgh starting rotation throughout the course of the 2008 baseball season.

Seriously, why? (Do I still watch?)

This post is in honor of my best friend, who asked me a fantastic question when I bemoaned that the Pirates continued to lose game after game after game. My longtime friend, very wisely, asked, "Seriously, why do you and my parents still torture yourselves like that?" A later conversation that began as I bemoaned that I was tired of the Pirates losing so, so many games prompted the same question, albeit in different words, from my very wise friend. "Why do you still watch?" she asked.

And thus, this post--as I told her it would be--springs to creation as a result of her prompting. Anyhow, seriously, these are the reasons I kept watching the 2007 Pirates, in no particular order.

Freddy Sanchez: The defending batting champion struggled through the start of the season before beginning to mash the ball after the All-Star break. Sanchez isn't just a good player; he's a good player who's also fun to watch. Plus, he actually seems to care. He shows emotion, whether it's smiling after getting a big hit or anger after striking out--and say whatever you will of baseball players who show emotion, but it's one of the reasons I love Freddy Sanchez. Also, on the 2007 Pirates, you really couldn't beat a player who actually possessed the mental and physical capacity to play hit and field at an All-Star level.

Tom Gorzelanny: For most of the season, Gorzy was the team's most consistent pitcher who gave his team a chance to win every time he started a game. It was beautiful to read fans of other teams (cough, Chicago Cubs, before last weekend, anyhow) moaning about having to face "that kid." What was even more beautiful was how "that kid" evolved into a consistently good pitcher who somehow managed to win 14 games on a team that's in the running to finish the year as one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, in all of MLB.

Ian Snell: Seriously, how does a pitcher who's currently ranked in the top ten in the NL in both innings pitched and strikeouts, along with an above league average ERA of 3.76, not manage double-digit victories? Since I'm remembering why I kept watching the Pirates now, just let me say this: When Snell's on, he's really, really good, and his stuff makes him incredibly fun to watch. And even during those games when Snell struggled and I wanted to cuss and yell and rant and moan, Snell was still worth watching. In the midst of his dominant starts, I was seeing potential realized, a gorgeous, wonderful thing; whereas even in the midst of struggles, there was usually a strikeout or an out or something, a small sliver that was still good. Whether it was during a game or reading quotes after a game, Ian Snell was pretty much consistently exciting, and in those many starts of giving up 2 earned runs or less when excitement combined with excellent pitching, that's what I call a recipe to be savored--at least for this fan.

Matt Capps: High heat. Good stuff that can still get better. Excitement. Competitive fire. Controlled emotion. A great interview who was always accessible and very much a stand-up guy. Oh, and very, very young. A guy who at times made fans of other teams (teams actually in playoff contention, too) wish their own closer would get the last three outs of a game with 12 pitches and 12 strikes. Oh, and those 12 pitches and 12 strikes, in addition to being both really, really good, exciting, and invigorating--hopefully they're merely a portend of what will later be. But enjoying the present, imagining the future, and watching batters whiff on high heat, 'twas a very, very pleasurable viewing experience.

Progress and Hopes of Progress: Prior to his back troubles, Paul Maholm had a string of really good starts. Adam Laroche rebounded nicely from his s-l-o-w start to the season. And, of course, other than actual statistical facts, there's always the hope for progress in that, well, maybe, Zach Duke will again, just once, pitch like he did in 2005. Maybe Bullington and JVB will pitch at a level closer to, if not commensurate with, their lofty draft status. Perhaps the players who began last season as AAAA players are now--if not above average MLB players--at least average MLB players. Perhaps a dormant offense will outscore every other team in the majors for a month.


You Never Know: You never know when you'll watch a player who you still don't believe should be in the starting lineup for a decent major league team make a phenomenal catch that saves three runs. You never know when one of those young starting pitchers, or even one of those veteran pitchers your club's former general manager loved to accumulate, will pitch a very good game. You never know what you might see, and because there's a chance you could see something good, most likely something you could never accurately predict or should have dared to dream of anticipating, you just keep watching, even when mired in the midst of another long season of losing.

Of course, as I'd probably admit to my best friend, in addition to my theme of enjoying talented players performing as talented players should and enjoying good showings from the team as a whole and other individual players, I should probably confess that watching the Pirates is probably just a rather insane--and even in the midst of losing, quite cathartic--addiction. And much as there were moments when I wanted to throw in the towel, I still found myself clicking on box scores and flicking on the television.

And really, in these five enjoyable aspects of this 2007 Bucco season, well, these five things provide the answer to my best friend's completely sincere question. Really, those moments when real live big league talent shows out in the form of winning games, no matter how rare, are why it was difficult to stop watching.

Given my moaning and groaning which prompted my best friend's question and this post, however, I'd love for much more real live big league talent to show out in the form of winning a lot more games.

Random Thoughts and Questions

Since we apparently have a new general manager (I'm withholding commentary for the moment), it seems an appropriate time to wonder about Jim Tracy and his coaching staff.

Given that Tracy was put in charge of a team laden with young starting pitchers when he first took this job and given that his team this season has at least been free of Randa and Burnitz, I figure an appropriate question to ask is: Are any of the players appreciably better than they were before Tracy and his coaching staff were placed in their current positions? I likewise figure an appropriate follow-up question is: How much of the growth/development, if any, can be attributed to coaching versus to development that comes as a result of more exposure to the major leagues?

Seriously, any takers out there? Freddy Sanchez won a batting title in 2006, clearly better than his previous 2005 campaign, but one scouting report had pegged him a "potential batting champion" down the line if he followed a normal growth curve. Say what you will, but I have a hard time believing that any specific coaching helped Sanchez win a batting title or hit over .300.

Well, what about the young pitchers? However the last two games of his season go, whether good, mediocre, or awful, his other 31 starts in 2007 showed Ian Snell is a way better pitcher than he was back in 2005 and better this season than he was in 2006. Tom Gorzelanny's statistics this season likewise indicate an upward tick in his development. Paul Maholm had a string of several good second half starts before hurting his back and looked closer to the winning ways he flashed as a rookie. And speaking of flashing rookie form, I'm still waiting for the Zach Duke of 2005 to make another appearance, hopefully one that can last for more than half a season, though at this point I'd enjoy seeing that performance for a game. So, when it comes to the pitchers, do I say Colburn's done good work with Snell and Gorzy that's benefited them? Or do I attribute growth merely to more exposure to the big leagues? Do I blame Colburn for whatever's been inhibiting Zach Duke from coming closer to the pitcher who was good enough to win eight games, legitimately, as a rookie?

But, really, management and coaches, even with young players, must be held accountable to the only standard that matters. Which means that, really, I'm asking the wrong questions. Yes, I'm asking about results in terms of which players are actually appreciably better--I can state Sanchez, Snell, and Gorzy with confidence, and believe that the latter two actually benefited from coaching, at least for periods of time if not continuously--but I'm not asking the only results-oriented question that matters. That question? Did enough players improve enough to turn losses into wins?

As evidenced by the Bucco record, the answer to that question is a cold, hard no. And despite the impressive growth experienced by a few players (whatever their final statistics say, there's been enough evidence to see growth), the good to great growth experienced by a few players hasn't been enough to turn a losing team into even a mediocre .500 team, let alone a winning team.

At some point in time, someone has to be held accountable for those wins and losses for the sake of the players who have shown they do have what it takes to win. That will be the new general manager's job, and in order for the team to win more games than they lose, the new general manager would be advised to seek a new manager and a coaching staff who can rid the clubhouse of the toxicity and complacency losing breeds as well as a manager and coaching staff who will build on the developmental foundations that have already been laid for a few players--and a coaching staff who will know how to lay good foundations for other inexperienced players--while always fielding a lineup that gives players the best possible chance to succeed and the team the greatest likelihood of winning.

A tall order, sure. An order we've seen should probably no longer be entrusted to Jim Tracy and his staff--basically because, at some point, the players themselves need to know that winning, not losing, is the expected norm, and that excellence, not mediocrity, definitely not-let's-be-proud-we-weren't-embarrassed-by-a-contending-team, but only excellence, can be the mindset of the leadership of a team that aspires to accumulate more wins than losses.

Bad Baseball and High Comedy=NL Central Game

Wow. Seriously, just wow. How in the world does a team contending for a pennant play like they did for the first three innings of today's baseball game? (No offense, Cubs fans, I'm very envious of your team's NL Central division-leading mediocrity, and I acknowledge my jealousy with utter sincerity and absolute conviction.) But forget the three innings of ridiculousness from both baseball teams. In today's game, my Pirates specialized in the high, high comedy that results from bad baseball being played.

Examples of high comedy/bad baseball:

--The Pirates' starting pitcher gives up four runs in the bottom of the first inning. This is obviously not the best way to begin a ball game you hope to "spoil."

--Ronny Paulino forgot how many outs there were in an inning. Greg or Lanny (I was too busy laughing to listen) innocently asks Bob Walk, "Doesn't the number of outs matter in terms of what pitch a catcher will call for?" to which Walk vehemently replies, "Yes!" (To which I might add my own exclamation of, "Duh!") After forgetting that there was only one out in the inning and trying to run off the field with only two outs, Paulino promptly proceeds to lose a ball that allows the Cubs to tie the game at 7. As a PBC fan, I should be upset by the clear lack of mental focus and utter lack of basic knowledge of baseball fundamentals, but at this point of the season, I just find myself laughing. Really--what other response is there to something Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan knows good little league teams don't do?

--Look, I love Freddy Sanchez, but today was just not his day. Swinging at pitches way outside the strike zone and making an error on a ball that could've been an inning-ending double play isn't good for anybody, let alone Sanchez. When one of your team's good players is having a horrific day of fundamental baseball, better to enjoy a laugh about the bad baseball being played than get mad at a player who's usually anywhere from pretty good to very good to excellent.

--And speaking of bad baseball: Both team's starting pitchers are gone after having ridiculous ERA's through less than three complete innings of work? When one of these teams is leading the division? At least the Cubs did what a division-leading team should do and won the game, but the pitching performances throughout today's first three innings exemplified really bad baseball.

--Oh, and I can't talk about bad baseball without mentioning Jim Tracy. Maybe Maholm is healthy; maybe he isn't. But I hate the way his season is finishing, and if he isn't absolutely 100% ready to go, he shouldn't be pitching. Period.

Other Amusing Anecdotes from Today's Game:

--The Pirates were able to chase a starter from the game and take a 7-5 lead. I wasn't listening to the announcers, but wouldn't such a comeback (even if it didn't last) be considered encouraging in the fact that the team was able to chase a starter from a game? (Yeah, that was snarky.)

--Maholm didn't pitch well today (an understatement), but that RBI bunt single was the biggest contribution he's made to the team in his last two starts since returning from a stiff back. Which I don't blame on Maholm but on Jim Tracy for continuing to run out a player who probably shouldn't be playing. Yeah, at some point I should probably hold players accountable, too, and not just the manager, but since Tracy's not all that into accountability for anyone, I figure I'll let accountability rest with Tracy and not his players.

Speaking of the Manager:

--I informed Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan that I thought if the players really wanted Tracy and his coaching team back next season that they would be winning games at this point of the season. Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan, like me, doesn't believe that bad baseball teams can morph into good baseball teams, and he doesn't really believe that the players themselves are actually trying to lose games. Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan does believe that the mental errors made by players can be a signal, however subconscious, that they don't want the manager to return. While I don't know if I believe in such subconscious signals or not, and I realize events such as a closer blowing a save and hot hitters cooling off are natural events throughout the course of a baseball season, a part of me does believe that the players would somehow be winning more games, rather than losing lots of games, if they were serious about wanting to "save" or "preserve" their manager's job, so to speak. Silly as it might be to read things into a bad baseball team laden with mostly inexperienced starting pitchers stumbling toward the finish line, what I'm reading into the performance of most of the Bucco players, however unconscious/subconscious/conscious it might be, is that most of the players wouldn't object to a managerial change. At least that's what their overall performance, as well as their home dwelling in the basement of the worst division in the majors, appears to indicate.

The Suckiness/Pain/Hurt/Nightmare of Being a Fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates, Reminder (Loss) #86

You've seen some ugly losses this year. Yet even after your team has been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention (though they were realistically eliminated quite a while back), you can't help but follow Game #152. There's an interesting, potentially good pitching match up in the opposing pitcher with the great ERA whom your incompetent former general manager traded away without getting anything in return facing off against one of your team's best pitchers whose performance over the past two seasons, while still on the learning curve of a young pitcher, at least ensured that your incompetent former general manager never managed to rob his team of another starter by turning this pitcher into a reliever. In addition to the potential duel of the two starting pitchers, there's the knowledge that the Pirates have hit a little better since the beginning of August and that San Diego's hitting is not equal to the level of their top two starting pitchers by any stretch of the imagination. You see a game at a pitcher's ballpark, which should be great for your team's young power pitcher, and you think, well--if your team's going to win any games in this series, it will have to be this game.

1st inning. Your team's off to a great start. Well, not that great, but at least they're not going to be no-hit by the opposing pitcher who's almost no-hit your team in the past. And they score a run. That's good news.

Bottom of the 1st inning: Perhaps due to unfamiliarity with such an uncommon event, your team's starting pitcher doesn't know what to do with a lead. You yearn for all of your team's young pitchers to develop maturity that renders their still-way-too-high first inning ERA's a thing of the past. You wish your catcher would learn how to block balls rather than allow passed balls. The opposing team regains the lead, but your pitcher gets out of the inning giving up 2 runs, only one of which is counted as an earned run. You recall other games this season when this pitcher, whom you can't help but love due to his stuff, potential, and at times really good performances, has completely slammed the door shut after first inning hiccups. Whatever the reason, you hope that this could probably be the case tonight as well.

Top of the 3rd inning: Your team scores runs off the guy with the great ERA and the pristine home ERA. Three runs off this guy in a game is good for your team. You probably can't expect anything more. In fact, you know you shouldn't expect anything more from your team. No matter how "off" fans of the opposing team might feel the pitcher they've nicknamed "Cy" to be, it's still your team, and their record indicates they are a bad baseball team.

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th innings: It's really nice to watch when one of your promising players filled with potential actually fulfills that promise and potential in a game situation. Forget promise, forget potential, forget the fact that stating the truth that the opposition is nowhere close to being the best hitting team in the league, and just relish the fact that on this night, your team's young starting pitcher is just good. As in, tonight, really, really good.

8th inning: You wince when you see Shawn Chacon come into the game to hold a one-run lead. The eighth inning takes too long to play and your manager uses three pitchers, including his closer to obtain the last out, to preserve a one-run lead.

9th inning: Your team's offense is dormant. You feel fairly confident and content with your closer coming into the game, but the fact of the matter is, one long ball could tie the game. You feel your starting pitcher deserves a better fate than that after his performance. Still, your team manages to get to 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth. But there's a double that had the chance to be an out, and then there's a walk from a closer who, really, when he's on, which has been most of the time, just doesn't walk batters. Trouble's brewing. Then there's the walk-off home-run for the opposition and their team celebrating like defeating the Pirates was worthy of celebration, which, of course, defeating the Pirates was a wonderful feat given that the opposition had just won a meaningful baseball game while contending for a pennant and the wild card.

Immediate Aftermath: You watch the opposition celebrate and wonder what it it would have been like for your team not to celebrate a meaningful victory, but just a playing "spoiler" win. You wonder how exciting it could be to be the fan of a team that has a chance to celebrate meaningful wins this late in September. You can't help but be happy for the joyous, celebrating opposing players even as you feel a perhaps greater measure of suckiness/pain/hurt that comes from watching the seemingly unceasing nightmare of good baseball teams continuously finding ways to beat your bad baseball team--even when one of your team's good players gives a great performance.

Reflections on the After Aftermath:

Hopes: Your team's color announcer notes something that you have as well: Your young starting pitcher just pitched a great game against a playoff contender late in September with his best stuff. If your bad baseball team ever morphs into a mediocre team (as you remember the division home of your team with hope), it can probably be taken as a good sign that this pitcher is able to pitch this well this late in the season. And, yes, sure, your closer blew a save, but as you've reminded yourself after a few ugly outings by tonight's starting pitcher and after a few other ugly outings of other young starting pitchers this season, a few ugly starts can be part of the developmental process. Besides, even the game's best pitchers have nights where they're "off," and even great closers occasionally blow a save. You hope Matt Capps, whom you still love for many of the same reasons you love tonight's starting pitcher, learns from this blown save experience exactly what pitches to throw should he ever find himself pitching in a game that's meaningful for his team this late in September. And though of course you dismiss this thought as a delusional dream of grandeur, you can't help but wish that in a season or two, your baseball team is actually playing meaningful games in September.

Aggravations: Seeing the replay of the game's highlights a day later will still sting--it's just a reminder of how far away your team, not individual players, but the team, is from being known as an overall good baseball team. Plus, there's something aggravating about reading the opinions of fans who complain about their team's starting pitcher not getting a win--granted, "Cy" doesn't have the wins his pristine ERA proclaims he should (only 9, which again points out win-loss statistics aren't everything). Your pitcher's already been hung with 4 tough losses this season, and this one won't even go into the "tough loss" category. At least you, a fan of a bad baseball team, can concur with fans of a good baseball team and note that won-loss record is not necessarily the best way to judge the quality of a starting pitcher. The lack of wins is just aggravating when pitchers who pitch well enough to win don't win.

Analyzing the Quotes/Suckiness, Pain, Hurt, and Nightmare Continue:
You discover your team's starting pitcher didn't come out for the eighth, despite having only thrown 92 pitches, because his arm was "kind of sore." He also added he'd never before thrown this many innings. You wince. As a fan of a perennially losing baseball team that's lost many pitchers to injury, you imagine the worst. You want to hope your pitcher was just doing his usual honesty thing where he speaks his mind bluntly, but your mind goes to places that are very, very bad. If his arm is actually sore, you want your manager to forget about his next two starts and just make sure he's healthy and rested for next season. If your manager won't have common sense, then you'd hope your new CEO would have some common sense and do the right thing for the future of the player, team, and whole organization.

But speaking of the future for the team and the whole organization, well, you wish you could do something more than note individual successes to this point (regardless of what happens in the next and last ten games). Like, oh, pitching over 200 innings is good, and so is a top-10 NL strikeout rate. Despite your frustration with the won-loss statistic, 14 wins on a team twenty games under .500 is really good, especially when one takes into consideration games that weren't won. Finding a young closer who throws strikes is good. A one-time batting champion hitting above .300 again and playing really good defense at his position is also good.

But the thing is, the thing made clear by how those opponents celebrated and the dejected way you watched your team leave the field, is that you're tired, drawn out, worn down, and exhausted by this cycle of being forced to look at "encouraging signs" from individuals rather than celebrating victories. And knowing the visceral suckiness/pain/hurt you feel as you watch the nightmare continue to unfold, you can only imagine what the players, especially the ones, mentioned and not mentioned, who've made strides and lots of strides, have to feel when it comes to losing baseball games like yesterday's game.

Like the players, you want the nightmare to end, and you want the nightmare to be replaced by a no longer delusional dream of playing meaningful games--meaningful for your team--in September. But, at least until next spring training, you'll have to settle for maintaining the health of your team's best players, enjoying a great performance by any of your team's players when such an event occurs, and watching other teams, but not your team, celebrate meaningful victories with the giddy joy of young children. Such, unfortunately, is what it entails to be a fan of the 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates.*

(*The asterisk only denotes the year 2007. As a PBC fan, hope springs eternal in the sense of hoping that the suckiness/pain/hurt/nightmare of being a Bucco fan will be replaced by the celebratory joy that fans of good baseball teams enjoy at this time in September. However delusional such a dream of a good baseball team may appear to be to the opposition or to fellow fans, here's to hoping that dream isn't delusional for the new CEO, the GM he hires, and next year's edition of the Pittsburgh Pirates.)

Pitching is Fundamental, Part 2

See yesterday's post about "Pitching is Fundamental" for my thoughts on today's game. That being said, I'm not going to freak out--it was Maholm's first game back after a layoff and for as icky as the statistical line for the game certainly was, it was just that: a mere one-game statistical line. Speaking of pitching being fundamental, I'll take Bryan Bullington's three scoreless innings as something good to note in today's game.

Interestingly or completely not interestingly, prior to this series I wrote a lengthy post that I opted not to publish. I noted that the PBC had an overall record that indicated that they were a bad baseball team but that their record since August 1st indicated that they were trying to morph from a bad baseball team into a merely mediocre baseball team. Here is a brief excerpt from the original, unpublished post:

The Pirates will play the Astros this weekend. While the Astros are currently beneath the Buccos in the standings, they are only 1.5 games behind your fifth-place Pirates. Neither the Pirates nor the Astros are anywhere near being good MLB teams, as evidenced by their records. Given the recent Bucco streak of mediocre play (best record in the NL Central since August, at the top of the mediocre class for five weeks), one might expect a mediocre team to be able to win 2 out of 3 games from the Astros, even on the road.

Except there's a problem. Because here's what bad teams do:
--They can't hit quality MLB pitching. (Roy Oswalt is pitching for the Astros on Friday night.)
--Their "somewhat reliable" (statistically near league average) pitchers can't pitch well enough to counter their team's complete inability to hit quality MLB pitching.
--The other team scores more than runs than they do, and they lose games because that's what bad baseball teams do.
--Overall, they respond to brief and hot winning streaks with much longer and much colder losing streaks, making them a team with a record, oh, give or take, around fifteen games under .500 on a particular day.

Now, here is what mediocre teams do:
--Occasionally, they're able to hit quality (above-average) MLB pitching.
--On still atypical, but not completely only-once-or-twice-a-season-events, their "somewhat reliable" pitchers (e.g. statistically league average) have games where they can at least keep pace with quality (above-average) MLB pitching and perhaps even pitch one game that is close (if not equal) to the "best" of what another team has to offer.
--On such unusual occasions, as in once out of every ten or twelve or fifteen games, rather than once every 85, when their batters hit above average MLB pitching and their pitchers pitch at an above average level, the team scores more runs than the other team and wins enough games to be regarded as a mediocre team rather than as a bad team.
--Overall, they balance out their hot winning streaks with cold losing streaks of approximately the same length, thus resulting in a .500 record, and acknowledgment as a mediocre ball club.

Well, it's now Sunday evening, and the Pirates just lost 2 out of 3 games to the Astros, one of the worst teams in the majors, while making their fifteenth consecutive losing season official. The team's overall record still indicates "bad baseball team," because bad baseball teams lose 2 out of 3 games to one of the worst teams in the majors. Probably because I still dream delusional dreams, however, the team's victory in the first game of this just completed series could be a potential indication that there have been infrequent occasions that could lead to the suggestion that a team with a brutally bad record is actually closer to mediocre than the team's overall won-loss record would indicate.

But that closeness to mediocrity--and remember, mediocrity entails contention for a pennant in the NL Central this summer--is predicated on something else, as clearly seen by the Game 2 and Game 3 losses in this series, and allow me to repeat yesterday's refrain just once more: Pitching truly is fundamental.

Pitching is Fundamental, Official Demarcation of 15 Consecutive Losing Sesaons

Oh, the sweet irony of the veteran pitcher acquired by former GM David Littlefield having a one-inning implosion (aided, of course, by defensive miscues and apparently a sore hand as well) that turned a 5-0 Bucco lead into a 7-5 Houston lead. Seriously, the sweet, sweet, obvious irony of the final 9-7 loss officially marking the fifteenth consecutive losing season for the Pittsburgh Pirates franchise.

And about the game: Pitching is fundamental. Tonight reminded me that it's probably somewhat silly of me to fuss about "too many walks" or "too many baserunners" (granted, these statistics still matter) when one of my team's starting pitchers gives the team a quality start. At least in terms of comparison to giving up many, many runs in one inning, really, starting pitchers who give the team a quality start should not really be at the top of my priority list of worries/things about which to fuss.

Except here's the thing that leads to my internal argument with myself about fussing over "too many walks, "too many baserunners," etc, and that's this: Pitching is fundamental. If any of those starting pitchers can somehow and consistently go beyond the expectation of merely giving you a quality start and actually, truly and consistently maintain a good WHIP and K to BB rates while typically going six innings but more often than not being able to pitch into the seventh or eighth inning, well, put it this way--Doesn't having those starting pitchers do exactly that turn losses like today's demarcation loss into easy wins?

My hope for the starting pitchers to morph first into starters who can be relied upon to give a quality start each time out and then develop into pitchers who can exceed that expectation is for pitchers who, unlike Matt Morris, aren't past their prime, haven't already won 20 games in the majors, and who, due to their age, I can still hold out hope for "growth" and "development." As such, given that Zach Duke has won games in the majors and had a few dominant outings in 2005, his appearance in tonight's game was about the only thing (after the fourth inning debacle) that held much intrigue for me. (Okay, the Paulino/Wilson mashing was entertaining, but not at all intriguing.) Unfortunately, aside from inducing a couple of ground ball outs, Duke didn't appear to resemble the pitcher who--seriously, the statistics bear me out on this--struck out lots of batters in his rookie season. Sure, he was coming off rehabilitation starts and an injury, and the idealistic optimist would note that Duke at least got outs, while the cynical realist would note that he didn't fool anyone and that Ty Wigginton homered off him.

In any case, if your number seven and eight hitters mash home runs against one of the worst teams in the majors and you put up 7 runs, you really should win that ball game. And with quality starting pitching, you've got a much better shot to win the games you have to win in order to have even a mediocre .500 record. And truth told, even good pitchers do have occasional games where they "lose it," and in order to assuage myself (as I have in the past) when the trio of young Bucco starting pitchers have had less-than-stellar-outings, I must remind myself that even a horrific outing or two doesn't necessarily mean a pitcher is "bad" despite a bad outing.

But in the case of tonight's game, which clinched the PBC's fifteenth consecutive losing season, one lesson stands out: Pitching is fundamental. When the top three guys in the starting rotation reach the point where a quality start is the norm but a realistic expectation is beyond a mere quality start and when the last two guys in that rotation can consistently offer the PBC quality starts, that's when I expect the Pirates to win more games than they lose in a season.

As for this season, well, another losing season is officially on the books now, but I'll watch until the end of September with interest. Just to see if maybe, just maybe, there are hopes that the saying "Pitching is fundamental" could, someday soon, result in smiles for Bucco fans not only on days when certain pitchers are pitching, but on every single day, due to an expectation that the team's pitching gives it a chance to win every night. A tall order and tall task? Impossible? Ridiculous to imagine? Ludicrous?

Whatever you think about the impossibility and improbability of rejoicing in the saying that "Pitching is fundamental," that's what it is going to take for the losing seasons to come to an end (in addition, of course, to other fundamentals which will also be addressed at some future point).

Winning's Sweet

Forget anything else. Forget a couple of wild pitches and a few too many walks. Likewise forget that a few too many walks are probably preferable to being taken deep in the estimation of Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan. Forget the general inability of bad baseball teams to hit quality, e.g., above-average MLB pitching to the tune of producing runs. (Lady luck aside in the form of incredible defense, it should be noted that the Astros scored one 1 earned run in 6 innings off the Bucco starting pitcher. Likewise, please note that the Buccos managed one unearned run in 7 innings off Oswalt.)

Sure, you should remember Nyjer Morgan's beautiful catch that saved three runs (a key example that baseball is a team game). You might nod your head and smile at Matt Capps doing what he does best--throw strikes, get outs, and get those outs nice and fast while actually being allowed to earn a save.

But seriously--forget Shawn Chacon coming into the game and doing what he does (give up a run, but at least without relinquishing a lead). Forget Marte actually getting taken deep. Forget Freddy Sanchez making an error at a very inopportune time (neither of which are actually common occurrences).

Instead, I'll leave you without any in-depth analysis, any comments that bad baseball teams playing a close game with each other made me crazy at several points in the game (due to various "do not remember" incidents named above), and just offer this lovely thought: Winning is sweet.

Oh, and also this: Doug Drabek and Bob Walk reminiscing? Call me a completely unrealistic optimist, but I'm kind of hoping this Bucco team, in coming seasons, with, of course, "missing pieces" added and with the further development of certain young players (cough, pitchers, cough), could make the same kind of turnaround that happened when the losing of the mid and late eighties turned into the winning of the early nineties.

Truly, winning is sweet, and winning games leaves me with (cynically, realistically, probably still delusional) dreams of continuing to experience this sweet feeling that comes from my team winning baseball games.

Talk Is Cheap/First Impressions

Based on first impressions, I think I like the new CEO. Aside from not committing to a larger payroll (which will become more of an issue if any of our young players actually and hopefully develop into really, really good players), he said all the things that I wanted to hear. He wants to be aggressive in acquiring talent in the Far East and in Latin and Central America. He'll pay over slot money when it makes sense. He wants to build the culture of a winning team, and he wants players who are passionate about baseball and want to win. Oh, and he's eager to demand accountability. Seriously, he said all the right things.

But honestly, talk is cheap. In terms of other Pittsburgh sports franchises, the current GM of the Pittsburgh Penguins, Ray Shero, as well as current Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin made great first impressions by saying all the right things. In Shero's case, he backed up saying all the right things by forming a team (granted, helped by high end talent) that had one of the best turnarounds in NHL history. As for Tomlin, the jury is still out, but if he guides the Steelers to a winning record this season, that's when I'll be able to say that my first impression of Tomlin being impressive in saying all the right things was a correct first impression.

The PBC aren't the Steelers or the Penguins; they play a different sport in a different league, and they're also mired in years of losing. Coming into an organization in as poor shape as the Buccos, well, it just lessens the value of saying all the right things. Because until I see results, impressive verbal first impressions are meaningless.

Talk is cheap. I'm waiting for the new CEO's actions to tell me if I'm right to be impressed by his introductory comments, or if his introductory comments are just more cheap talk from an organization that's been perennially pitiful for the past fourteen years. I want to be rightfully impressed, but if there's anything that following the Pirates throughout these many years of losing has taught me, it's that talk truly is cheap.

A winning record in 2008? Then I'll revisit this post with an addendum that talk actually isn't cheap. But not until that first winning season comes.

Any guesses as to how much longer we will have to wait for the Pirates to finish a season with an above .500 record?

The Futility of Projections & the New CEO

Projections make me crazy. Let's take a quiz to see if my feeling that projections can be a stunning exercise in futility has at least a little merit. See if you can fill in the name of the appropriate Pittsburgh Pirate for the following questions. (Some questions have multiple answers.)

1. ___________ has the potential to be a third starter in the majors.


2.___________ is the kind of guy who can turn a franchise around.


3.____________ has the potential to be very, very special.


4. ____________ will be a perennial All-Star. You can regularly expect .270-.290 average, 30 home runs, and at least a 100 RBI's.


Ready?

Answer 1: Bryan Bullington (said by David Littlefield when he drafted him with the first overall pick--given Littlefield's record, there are probably other Pirates of whom this has been said as well.

Answer 2: Not to bring up painful memories, but a New York Met said that after a rookie Zach Duke dominated the Mets. Yes, an opposing player said that about one of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Answer 3: Granted, it's Jim Tracy, and he loves the word "special" so much it's highly ingratiating. But I think Tracy has used this word this season to refer to Capps, Snell, Gorzellany, and Maholm, minimally. Sure, I think of "special" as a particularly special "Tracyism" where you wonder exactly what he means, but I think he's saying, these players could turn out to be really, really good. (And yes, he's biased. But we'll get to that point in just a second.)

Answer 4: Um, does Jason Bay's performance this season ring any bells? Sure, Bay's knee is apparently not in good shape, but what about the majority of knowledgeable people who surely didn't believe they were telling tall tales when offering such a projection?

So what's the bottom line about all of these projections? Well, in certain cases, at least at the present moment in time, these projections, all of which probably appeared to be legitimate at the time of the projection, are, at this particular juncture, wrong.

Zach Duke is not currently turning around the Bucco franchise. Jason Bay will fall short of projected and expected numbers. Before surgery and rehabilitation, Bryan Bullington might have been a number 3 starter, but based on first impressions, best-case would appear to be a back-end, rather than middle-of-rotation, starter. In the case of the projections for these three players, it's worth noting that independent (e.g. not PBC affiliated teams) people made a couple of those projections. It was a Met who said what he said about the rookie phenom Duke--a freaking New York Met! Many scouts of opposing teams and lots of fantasy owners made a judgment about expected production from Jason Bay. In cases like these, there wasn't a blind, provincial, pro-PBC bias clouding projections.

In Tracy's case, of course, obviously, there's an obvious bias in referring to some of his young players as potentially being very special. (Ugh, gag me, writing about the “special” Tracyism makes me want to gag.) You don't think Tracy would like to put it on his resume, even after leaving this organization, that he "helped to develop" a couple of young pitchers who later became 20 game winners or that he was the first manager who recognized that Matt Capps had what it took to be a great closer? As a manager, Tracy's got a keen interest in letting his players know he believes in their talent and in developing that talent. Tracy's projections, if they pan out, will reflect well on him, at least in his mind and probably in the minds of others in baseball. But there's no doubt Tracy's projections are biased.

Why, however, am I writing a post about the fact (well known to anyone who's read any of my writing) that projections make me absolutely crazy? When we're projecting what a young player is going to do and waiting for him to fulfill a good projection, good grief. I tend to go stir-crazy and insane waiting for projections to be fulfilled. It's frustrating when good projections don't pan out in the expected time frame, and it's incredibly disappointing when good projections never come to actual fruition. It's always more fun when a "low upside" projection is proven wrong. Yet the bottom line remains that as a fan, I hate playing the projection game due to how futile certain projections pan out to be. Projecting a career trajectory for professional athletes is not how I make a living, and as such, I prefer to play a bit of a waiting game when it comes to projections.

Which brings me to the new CEO the Pirates announced this Thursday. At this point, I could make lots of projections: Oh, it's good that these people quoted in that ESPN insider article speak well of him. Well, at least he's smart. But, on the other hand, he's worked in the MLB front office? He worked closely with Bud Selig, the commissioner I detest? Doesn't hiring a guy like this just mean the Nuttings will continue their usual ways of making quite a nice profit at the hands of gullible fans?

And in the midst of this internal monologue comes the thought that I must remember when a player who’s been projected to be good/great/ “special” isn’t living up to that particular projection, and the thought that comes is, "Wait." In the case of players, of course you can't and shouldn't wait forever--but there's something to be said for not jumping to irrational and erroneous conclusions based on a small sample size. After the thought of "Wait" comes the second and more important thought which should be applied to the new CEO: "Judge the performance.” Does his performance indicate that he’s getting the desired results?

I could make all kinds of projections about what kind of CEO this new guy will be, and I'm pretty sure different people have different opinions. Unfortunately for fans of the team who don't get to dictate (sorry, folks, not until the team loses enough fans to start losing money) what Mr. Nutting does, fans will have to wait. Projections can be fun, interesting, and insightful, to a degree. But projections, good, bad, indifferent, for both players and CEO's, must be judged in line with productivity in terms of actual performance. While we can see hints that point to desirable or undesirable traits, just as scouting young players remains an inexact science, so, too, is projecting the quality of this new CEO an inexact science. Until we actually see how he handles his job, well, you know, that projection about Zach Duke sure was nice, but given Duke's 2007 performance, how much is that projection really worth? (Depending on who you're talking to, the projection can still stand, or it was a mirage, or the truth is somewhere between those two extremes.)

Given the fact that being a PBC fan has made this idealist a bit jaded, cynical, and pessimistic, I'd prefer not to hear all the potentially great things about this new CEO. As Bucco fans can tell you, false hope just sucks, and it's sucked the life out of a franchise that was once a proud winner. That doesn't mean that I only want to hear about the new CEO's negative attributes. Rather, it just means that I want to follow a cautious mold: Sure, share your "gloom and doom" or "glowing and raving" projections but please, as with all projections, take them with one large grain of salt.

When it comes to projections, I'll read them, with interest, the same way I read conflicting scouting and projection reports with interest. But just as I wait (depending on the position, player's age, upside, etc) for awhile before trying to determine which projection was accurate, I can only allow actual performance, rather than projections about anticipated performance, to determine if this new CEO is a step forward or another way of maintaining the same old style that's resulted in a near-record-breaking level of consecutive seasons of losing baseball.

Post-Win Thoughts

Random Thoughts after Today's Win:

--Last week, the propaganda machine had an article up where Freddy Sanchez said the team knew what they would be getting when "Matty Mo" (Matt Morris) pitched--something along the lines of "being in every game." (I'm not a huge fan of linking to the propaganda machine unless I'm mocking some absurdity, and I usually prefer to direct snarky comments at management and ownership rather than the actual players, which is my way of saying: If you really need to, you can find that exact quote for yourself.) What I am really starting to enjoy, however, is the expectation I have when Tom Gorzelanny starts a game. Generally speaking, you know you're getting several innings of quality starting pitching in games Gorzy starts, and you're confident your team has a chance to win every game he pitches. To have that expectation, consistently, is incredibly nice.

When the rest of the Bucco starting pitchers consistently follow suit, that's probably when the Pirates have, minimally, a .500 record, rather than a sub .500 record. So, please, for pitchers who've shown flashes of this ability to pitch solidly on a somewhat consistent basis, how about "somewhat consistent" turning into just "consistent?" Pretty, pretty, please, pitchers?


--There's a saying (I'm not sure to whom to attribute it) that you're never as good as you look when you win or as bad as you look when you lose. I think this case applies quite clearly and consistently in terms of evaluating the 2007 Pirates. The team's sudden mashing offense is probably just an overcorrection of things that went horribly wrong earlier in the season. In terms of other areas of overall play, I think things tend to "even out" over the course of a season. Still, with that "evening out" now apparently occurring, I still think this team should have a .500 record. They're a slightly-less-than-mediocre club that has enough legitimate MLB players that they should have a .500 record playing in the NL Central. The fact that the team is many, many games from a .500 record should stand as an indictment of those in charge.

One reason for the team's poor record, the one the propaganda machine and Jim Tracy will probably feed you, is that young players who are still learning how to play in the big leagues and still developing are, somewhat naturally, inconsistent. And for all but day-one-arrival megastars, the propaganda machine and Tracy would have a point. There are inevitable ups-and-downs that are par for the course in any sport for players that are still developing and learning in the Show.

But the reason for my "indictment" of the organization and Tracy, too, is that I don't believe that inconsistency should be so difficult to overcome that a team can't manage a mediocre, break-even record. Developing young players have to be held accountable, too, and perhaps especially when it comes to basics of fundamental play rather than a current physical inability to hit or locate a particularly difficult pitch, and I haven't seen enough accountability from the higher-ups in this organization. Along with accountability, I haven't seen the expectation, consistently upheld by those at the top, of, "We must win." With the Pirates, it's always great if they win. But winning never appears to be the actual, consistent expectation, and without that expectation, exactly what would be the point of accountability? If there is no expected standard to be attained, how in the world is anyone held accountable for performance?

Others have said that a "losing mindset" has infected the team. And sure, this club is, at best, a mediocre club. But even taking the month of August as a correction for previously out-of-whack individual statistics, the club probably shouldn't be, yet again, among the worst in the majors. They should be within a few games of .500, not miles below .500. They should be "not very good to mediocre" rather than "piss-poor" and "just bad."

Yes, the Pirates are bad, as indicated by their record. But they'd be a lot closer to mediocre (and check out the Comedy Central standings and see with your own eyes that mediocrity means pennant contention in this division) with leadership emanating at the top of the organization that expected to win consistently and demanded accountability, from the guys in suits to the coaches to the players, to meet that expectation to win games consistently.

Up to Old Tricks (Almost)

--I was seriously convinced the Pirates were trying to lose this game. Alas, the Buccos managed to delay the inevitable for at least another two days (tomorrow is an off day, so the soonest the team's 15th consecutive losing season will be assured isn't until the end of Friday's game with the Astros.)

--The Buccos appeared to be up to several of the tricks that have enabled them to have yet another season of a sub .500 record.

--Waste a solid outing by your starting pitcher against the team that's hit more home runs than any other MLB team? Check.

--Get a couple of fine defensive plays but fail to make those fine defensive plays with the game on the line? Check.

--Mr. Manager doesn't give the hook at the right time? Check.

--Get enough hits to get a 4 run lead and then lose the ability to get hits? Check.

--The bullpen is unable to hold a 2 run lead? Check.


--Despite these "old," familiar tricks of a losing team, the post August Pirates made an appearance after the Brewers came back and tied the game at 4.

--Get out of a serious jam with only a tie rather than allowing the opponent their first lead of the game? Check.

--Minimize the damage in those jams? Check.

--Get a timely hit from a player who was more known for striking out and hitting into inning-ending double plays in the miserable pre-August part of the season? Check.

--Get another timely hit from a bench player? Check.

--Allow your closer to earn an actual save? (Okay, that's still not that common, but whatever.) Check.


So, in the end, the Pirates didn't lose a game they shouldn't have lost. The Pirates won a game they should have won. This is progress, and as has been duly noted on this blog many times, I enjoy winning.

Yearning For Mediocrity

--In my previous post, I mentioned what I feel is a legitimate question, given the current ownership group. That question: Does Mr. Nutting even want or desire to field a team that can contend for championships?

--Given that question, however, I figure that I would yet again note the stunning ineptitude of the National League Central Division this year. Because I remain a Pirate fan even as the team approaches their fifteenth consecutive losing season, I'm quite used to inflicting this mild form of "baseball fan torture" (hardly the real thing) upon myself.

--The Brewers have won 74 games. The Pirates have won 64 games. The Brewers have won 10 more games than the Pirates. Yes, the Bucco record remains among the worst in all of the majors. In other divisions, the Brewers and the Cubs are merely mediocre teams who have no business contending for a pennant. But the Brewers and Cubs, along with my team, the Pirates, all play in the NL Central; and in 2007, a mediocre baseball team will be good enough to win the division known throughout baseball as the Comedy Central.

That being said, if I really, really wanted to torture myself, I'd pull up the Bucco record to this point in the season. Painful as it would be, I think I could easily identify ten games that my pathetic Pirates could have won rather than lost. Of course, I could blame the loss on the implosions of the bullpen, the idiocy of the manager, the non-performance of the "marquee for Pittsburgh" (above average MLB players) players, ridiculous personnel decisions, and the like. But the point is, if I really wanted to, I think I could find 10 games that a "mediocre" baseball team could and should have won this season. While I will not be choosing to inflict this pathetic Pirate fan torture upon myself at this juncture of the season (hey, at least Littlefield is gone, right?), I'm guessing that anyone who chose to probably could.

And what I have to say about this yearning for mediocrity--it's seriously sick. Not because I'm wondering how a bad baseball team could win 10 more games and morph into a mediocre baseball team. But because this is what being a fan of the Pirates has left me with--an expectation that mediocrity is good. Sure, mediocrity is better than piss-poor play, and at some point in time, a team, especially one developing from within, doesn't necessarily shoot from bottom of the standings to the top of the standings in one season, but in order for real progress to be made, there needs to be an expectation that mediocrity is not the goal. Sure, a .500 season this year would have been great and would have put my team in a pennant race. But for a team to progress beyond only hanging around in a pennant race in years when a division royally stinks, the expectation has to be that mediocrity is only the starting point, not the finishing point.

And when it comes to the new CEO, the new GM the CEO will hire, and especially when it comes to Mr. Nutting, I want to know--will a vision of excellence, rather than mediocrity, be your vision, and will you hire people who can develop and manage players who can actually begin to fulfill a vision of excellence in terms of winning actual baseball games?

My Question

While the Pirates are still incredibly secretive, this Forbes article provokes a question that I have to ask.

Chuck Greenberg, who will not be the next Bucco CEO, said, "As a Pittsburgh guy and a Pirates fan, I would have loved being part of turning the franchise around and seeing the Pirates win championships again."

Forget my silly, at least slightly insane Pittsburgh provincialism in my initial favoritism for Greenberg--who's never failed at anything, to my knowledge, and who's demonstrated a capability as an owner for running winning teams that are also profitable at the minor league level--and look at the above quote.

Is "winning championships" the mandate that Mr. Nutting will give to his new CEO, Frank Coonelly? Or will the mandate be "profit first" and "at least get the team to .500 so they can stop being embarrassing?"

Is the mandate going to be to build a profitable franchise that consistently earns a profit by winning games and selling out the prettiest ball park in America? (And yes, Mr. Nutting, put a winner there, and fans will come.) Or is the mandate going to be "profit first, and we'll be happy if you would just put a less embarrassing product on the field?"

Vision starts at the top, and mandates start at the top. The new CEO will answer to Mr. Nutting. But the question remains: Does Nutting really want to have a winning team? Is he actually going to give his new CEO the resources and latitude to build a team that can legitimately contend for championships?

Because, as harsh and fatalistic as it is for Bucco fans sick of losing, a new CEO and new GM will not matter much until the dictate and mandate, backed up by reasonable resources from ownership, actually is to build a team that can contend for championships.*

(*And, in the NL Central, as presently constructed, it shouldn't be that difficult to contend for a pennant.)

Media Entertainment

--When it comes to the perennial losing Pirates, apparently it's not just fans at PNC Park who'd like some extra entertainment (the fans at the park appear to prefer concerts, fireworks, and races involving people running in stuffed food costumes). While I can't exactly blame them given the product on the field, the Bucco announcing crew likes to have some entertainment, too.


--My favorite pitcher from childhood, Doug Drabek, will apparently be in the broadcast booth for much of the Pittsburgh-Houston game this Friday night. Hmm...I wonder what Drabek will have to say about the current Pirates? Or will there just be reminiscing about those pennant-winning but playoff-losing teams in 90, 91, and 92? And what does it say that while I'm interested in the game, I'm also interested in hearing from a former Cy Young winner? I suppose listening to a former Cy Young winner espouse about a current game or remember the good 'ol days is preferable to wondering when I will ever again have the privilege of watching a Cy Young winner pitch for my team?


--I can see why the broadcasters love Nyjer Morgan. I love hockey, and Morgan used to play hockey. Plus, he's extroverted, always smiling, and he makes flashy plays. Morgan's made some nice plays with his glove. He's also had some ugly looking strikeouts. While I can understand falling in love with a player's "personality," I don't want personality to be how one judges the quality of a ball player.

Don't get me wrong. It's the "personalities" of my favorite players, in any sport, that, along with their talent, endears them to me enough for them to become my favorites. Whether that's a quietly confident or slightly insane pitcher, or a rookie hockey player who plays defense like a veteran, personality, coupled with talent, usually is involved when I find myself saying or writing or blogging, "He's becoming one of my favorites."

But to make a decision solely based on the "personality" of a player? An athlete can have all the confidence in the world that he's ready for the Show, but that confidence doesn't mean squat until that confidence manifests itself in on-field performance. Which means that, like the announcers, I will enjoy Morgan's energy and smiles, but when it comes to judging him as a player, well--let's just say that consistent on-field performance for the rest of the season is going to matter much more than his apparently charming, gregarious personality ever could. Here's to hoping (or dreaming) that the media covering the team actually remember that off-field personality, for better or worse, should mean squat when it comes to evaluating on-field performance.

Ordinary, Typical Losing

--The Pirates are one game closer to ensuring themselves their fifteenth consecutive losing season. While this season's edition of the Pirates can't be blamed for the previous fourteen years of losing, there comes a time when enough is enough.

--In any case, about tonight's game: the 2007 Pirates do what the 2007 Pirates do when they lose games. They pitch just poorly enough to lose the game. They scatter some hits but strand lots and lots of runners. They "tip their hats" to the opposing team's pitcher. Oh, and they lose the game. On some days, the Pirates pitch really poorly and don't hit at all and are on the losing end of one-sided blowouts. On days like today, the Pirates had chances. Yet the Buccos still did what losing teams do--they lose. And today they lost by a score of 6-1.

--Normally I try to find something "encouraging" even in the midst of a loss (it's typical for a fan of a losing team). I hope Bullington will end up making me eat my words, and I can't argue that today's result was much better than his first big league start, but I'm just not able to see anything "encouraging" when he pitches. Torres apparently returned and gave up hits and runs, also not good. And nobody really got hits when hits were needed. While I'm not saying a healthy Jason Bay (who's been in almost a season-long slump) or a healthy Xavier Nady would have gotten hits against the Brewers' pitcher today, I still think you're more likely to get hits when you have real, live, established, solid MLB players in your lineup. Dismiss it as one of my moods, perhaps, but unlike some losses this season, I couldn't really find anything good in this loss to make me feel that I shouldn't accurately label today's game "just another loss for a perennially losing team."

--I hate losing. At some point in time, I wish the Pirates would reel off a winning streak of several consecutive games. Just so I can remember what it feels like to root for a "winning" baseball team--if only for a period of four or five days, it would be nice.

I Tell Tall Tales

--Writing a blog on a regular basis is a good way to realize how your thoughts, emotions, and beliefs about your favorite athletes and sports teams can change on what might amount to an insanely consistent basis. Examples of this phenomenon include: thinking a player isn't ready for prime time and allowing performance of said player to change your mind, believing a youngster projects as a future star one day and believing he projects as mediocre another day and believing he projects as less than a bust on another day, and, of course, debating if your team is simply not talented or is also underachieving while not being talented or has enough talent that it's obviously underachieving.

--In any case, today's Bucco game enlightened me to the fact that I apparently told a "tall tale" yesterday when I wrote, "I just don't get up for games Matt Morris or Tony Armas pitch." Well, I thought that sentence was true when I wrote it; truthfully, I really did. However, flipping on Gameday and the radio and listening to Armas unexpectedly have several 1-2-3 innings against the Brewers was just, um, pleasant and enjoyable. And even with my favorite Pirate having a 1 for 5 day at the plate, the other Buccos getting hits and scoring runs was great. So, too, was the great defense that the Pirates were, again, playing.

--So, in today's 9-0 win against the Brewers, I guess the truth really does come out. I don't even need my baseball team to be a part of a pennant race, just (sigh: yet again) playing spoilers in a pennant race to be able to enjoy a win. And while it's probably true I don't get as temperamental with Armas or Morris pitching, for better or worse, as I do with the three younger pitchers (especially Snell), I still appreciate a good pitching performance and a solid win from my baseball team. Now, if only the team could win more games than they lose throughout the course of the "six month long" season that (I can still dream delusional dreams) may stretch into October sometime before PNC Park becomes an established old relic of a stadium.

--Final, and typically consistently truthful note: Winning is good. I enjoy winning.

A Lovely Sunday

--I opted to watch football over baseball today (at this early juncture of the football season and with a thrashing of a hated rival, hope is still very vibrant for Steelers Nation), but this sports Sunday was just a really, really nice one for me. Allow me to count the ways.

--Freddy Sanchez. He became my favorite Pirate sometime last season (this whole concept of players who actually perform as their talent level dictates they should, and who have real live big league talent, I really do enjoy watching them). Today's almost-an-inside-the-park-grand-slam was just another example of how much fun it can be to follow the Pirates when Freddy's hot. The four RBI's were also a nice touch.

--The Pirates hit the ball against an apparently washed-up veteran pitcher. Compared to the Bucco performance against certain less-than-mediocre pitchers early in the year, such hitting is encouraging, and if not encouraging, at least pleasant to read about/listen to/watch. What could actually and potentially be encouraging more than just the team getting lots of hits is the fact that two of the recent minor league call-ups got hits today, too.

--One of my (many) complaints with Jim Tracy is his "ideal" vision of a lineup--e.g., my leadoff man must fit into this certain mold. See Rotoworld's recent complaint. On many occasions, Tracy's inflexibility and stubbornness (yes, I realize those two words are synonyms, but I think that's just the extreme of how Tracy more often than not is when comprising a lineup) harm the team because he's not willing to make short-term changes that will result in wins. (There are times, too, when being stubborn, e.g., a not-too-outlandish level of patience with a talented player struggling through adjustments or rehab, can be good, but Tracy's stubborn inflexibility doesn't manifest itself in this good way often enough to counter the ways such a trait negatively impacts the team's won/loss record.) That rant about Tracy aside, and despite the Rotoworld complaint I linked to, it was nice to see Morgan make a fantastic catch and get on base. It was a nice part of a nice win, and I'll enjoy it--but I'm not drawing any surefire conclusions one way or another based on a couple of nice plays in a couple of games.

--As nice as this win was, I feel the need to say that I just don't get excited when Matt Morris pitches. Like, at all. I'm glad when he does his "veteran" thing and "gives the chance a team to win the game," as I'm sure Mr. Tracy will later have told any media who weren't covering the first Steelers game in Cleveland. But the bottom line is, watching Morris pitch isn't exciting. At least when I'm watching Gorzelanny, Snell, and Maholm, I tend to get emotional--e.g., excited, agitated, hopeful, depressed, optimistic, pessimistic, irritated, happy, downright joyous--because I remain delusional enough to hope that those players are only beginning to scratch the surface in terms of developing their talent. But watching Matt Morris pitch at this stage of his career? He seems a decent, affable guy who's no longer the pitcher he once was. But for me to get excited about watching a "serviceable" pitcher give up 4 runs in 6 innings in a game my team manages to win due to an outpouring of offense, well, my team is going to need to be in a pennant race before I can ever get "up" for watching a "serviceable" veteran win games.

--Oh, thanks to the Houston Astros being swept, the Pirates, for today, anyhow, are no longer in last place in the NL Central. The Buccos remain one game out of last place and one game out of fourth place in the Comedy Central. At this point in time, I want the three young starting pitchers to pitch quality starts and get run support enough to win some more games. I'd also appreciate if the players could, you know, play in such a way that their actual potential is revealed (for better or worse, though for certain players, for better, in case the new GM decides it's a good idea to sell a player or two "high"). So, I want player performance and player development to go along with winning games. However, I just can't get up for games Tony Armas or Matt Morris are going to start and while I won't object to a good/serviceable start from either of those pitchers, to put it mildly, I'm not necessarily looking for the Pirates to win the games in which those pitchers start. Though I will never root for the Pirates to lose, if they would lose games started by pitchers who I just don't get "up" for, well, I'm delusionally hopeful the new GM might know how to take advantage of a high draft pick. But as for the rest of the games? Yeah. Unequivocally and emotionally, I'll be pulling for the Pirates to win those games.

--The best news of the day is not that the Pirates will not lose 100 games. (Seriously. Wow. What an achievement. The team won't lose 100 games. Can you imagine that being acceptable in certain other MLB markets for several seasons? Right. Didn't think so.)

--No, the best news of the day: The Pirates won, and while winning is always good, this win had impact. This half-line from the AP recap of the game sums it up perfectly: "The Chicago Cubs fell out of first place." How nice is it when winning makes a difference in the standings? Sure, it's only a mostly last place team playing spoiler, but winning is sweeter when your win means a loss for a divisional foe.

Anonymous Quotes

There have been some fairly interesting anonymous quotes concerning the Pittsburgh GM vacancy floating around baseball.

Courtesy of John Perrotto come some more terrific anonymous quotes. As previously noted on this blog, I like to get an "outside" perspective of my organization.

On NL GM says this: "The Pittsburgh franchise is a sleeping giant. The Pirates have a lot of good young pitching with (Tom) Gorzelanny, (Ian) Snell, (Paul) Maholm, (Zach) Duke and (Matt) Capps. They have a great ballpark and Pittsburgh is an underrated city that players fall in love with once they play there.

"You can win in Pittsburgh, it's not impossible by any means. You're always going to be at a handicap because of the small market but it's not something you can't overcome with a good player development system and a little bit of smarts in how you spend your dollars."

My Thoughts: Which NL GM said that? Is it a real-live competent GM who should still have a job and whose organization has a winning record and legitimate development program? Is it a competent GM who can actually identify talent who believes the Bucco pitchers he named are actually "good young" pitchers (italics mine)? Does someone who actually knows something about baseball actually see a few potentially talented players wearing the uniforms of the Pirates? For real? Seriously?

Secondary Thoughts: How long does it take to build a "good player development system," seriously, and not just to build that system, but to see the fruits of your labor in that area? And a "little bit of smarts in how you spend your dollars" assumes Nutting puts in place a CEO who will hire a GM who can do those things. Hardly an easy task.

For another "outside" perspective, there was a lovely ESPN Insider article this week. I didn't take issue with the assertion that Littlefield was highly incompetent, but I did find myself disputing Law's contention that Paul Maholm was a "marginal fifth starter." Maholm has been much more consistent (and good) in the second half of the season than the first half of the season. While Maholm currently could be considered, as a league-average pitcher, "a marginal fifth starter" on a legitimate World Series contender, a player who has 10 wins and an ERA+ of 102 for one of the worst teams in the majors would likely not be considered a "marginal fifth starter" on any of the teams in the Comedy Central in which the Pirates play the majority of their games. Still, however, to read that "outside the organization" perspective was interesting, even if the view of Maholm apparently contrasts to the quote from the wishes-to-remain-anonymous NL GM.

And as for the last "outside" perspective, it's again taken from Perrotto's article, from an assistant AL GM, who says, "You have nowhere to go but up and I mean nowhere else to go. If you go in there and win, you'll look like a genius because they haven't even had a winning season in 15 years. If you go in there and lose, well, it's not the end of your career by any means because you're not supposed to win there." And such is the rub for Bucco fans. It would be great if a GM could come in and win, but let's be honest and real: who really can sincerely expect that such a consistent onslaught of losing can be reversed in a short time?

And, of course, one question has to be answered, and that's about the ownership. Is Mr. Nutting will to invest what needs to be invested in order to build both a winning AND profitable team in Pittsburgh? Because if Nutting won't invest, all the anonymous quotes in the world about how "attractive" the Pittsburgh GM job is won't matter for naught when it comes to the dream of watching a season, sometime soon, where the Pirates win more games than they lose.

A Sign of Maturity?

Post-game Ian Snell quotes: "I threw a bad slider there but I didn't really think Soriano got all of it. I was surprised it went out. Nate nearly made a great play. He ran a long way and gave it a heckuva effort. It didn't get out by much but it still counts as a home run and two runs."

From the propaganda machine, more Snell quotes, about the same play: "I just told him, 'You almost had it. Don't worry about it."

Compared to earlier in-season rants, this would perhaps appear to be a sliver of a sign of maturity for a delusional Bucco fan.
(Afterthought: Or not. The results were the same, as in another loss, but not nearly as "bad" of a loss. So maybe it's still seriously delusional dreaming.)

Still, the sign of maturity that would be more than a "sliver" would be no need for "stand-up" quotes after opponents hit home runs because opponents stop hitting home runs.

Sigh. There's still a ways to go as far as maturity is concerned, but I'll take any signs of progress I see. It's par for the course for a PBC fan.

Meh

A caveat: I didn't see the game (as I don't have MLB TV). Plus, I followed the game by watching the box score online and by reading blog/board threads. Nevertheless, as a blogger, I offer the following thoughts.

Meh. Seriously, meh.

--Zambrano was either good or the Pirates' hitters were not so good. I'm guessing that Zambrano (in spite of walking batters) was likely helped by the complete ineffectiveness of the Pirates' hitters and, of course, by Jason Bay's sore knee preventing him from playing.

--3 earned runs over 5 innings, not so good. 3 earned runs over 7 innings, kind of/sort of a "quality start," right? While Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan suggested after I criticized Snell's K to BB rate his last outing that perhaps I should want dear Ian to learn how to pitch around hitters rather than try to whiff everyone, I do think there is something to be said for Snell being at his most effective when he is able to strike out a lot of batters. That said, compared to previous outings against the Cubs, and going only by the box score, Snell was neither tremendous enough to get his team a win when they only got 2 hits but in no way horrific. If the Pirates had been able to hit Zambrano (sigh) or hit at all, if the defense had showed up, the Pirates could have won the game. So, who is Snell? Well, today he was a pitcher who lost a game to another team's multimillionaire if moody ace, but, seriously (and I realize this is a pathetic example of "encouragement," but remember, I'm a Bucco fan), for the most part, he's appearing to show himself to be a legitimate MLB pitcher. Not the great pitcher I saw in a few games the first half of this season, not yet, but I mean, the Pirates still had chances to win this game.

--Speaking of those chances, the difference between teams that win versus teams that lose is that winning teams take advantage of opportunities. I believe Mr. Tracy calls this "clutch" hitting, but I just call it as the essential truth that good hitters tend to hit and bad hitters not to hit (August hot streaks aside, the truth tends to come out over 162 games) when "key" or "clutch" situations occur in a game.

--That love/hate relationship with Soriano? Fans of the Cubs must have been loving Soriano tonight; I know I would have been.

--Oh, apparently the Bucco defense, in addition to their offense, wasn't so good this game. Adam Laroche made an error (he really doesn't tend to do that very often, a fact I appreciate). And while you don't want your pitcher letting Soriano hit long fly balls, perhaps that 2 run home run could have been an out, and perhaps without that Laroche error, you somehow manage a 1-1 ball game entering the eighth (and you put in a different pitcher in the eighth inning, and oh, I really should have learned by now to stop playing "what if" with this baseball team). I can't say that the game should have been 1-1 in a game I didn't even see because I know the Cubs tend to hit Snell pretty hard and for all I know it was luck that the score was what it was at the end of the seventh. I'm just saying that as hard as I can be on Snell (due to how good he was in the first half of this season), this is one loss where I have no business fingering the long ball given up by my starting pitcher as anywhere near one of the main issues in this particular loss. Two hits? Defensive plays that could be made? Oh, and of course, the difference between a team that wins more games than it loses and a team that loses more games than it wins.

--Jason Bay's knee is not in good shape. Not good news. How long has this injury lasted? All season? When, I presume, it can be repaired in the offseason, will Jason Bay return to being Jason Bay? As a friend of an opposing team recently asked me, "What's wrong with him?" Well, apparently, he's been playing hurt.

--"Meh" is a better reaction than what I felt after Thursday's debacle, but I still prefer last night's win over today's "meh" (not atrocious, but annoying) loss. Winning beats losing.

News Flash: A Legit MLB Lineup is a Good Thing

--Today was a lovely day on and off the baseball field for the Pirates. Off the baseball field, obviously, because David Littlefield is no longer the team's general manager. But on the baseball field, the Pirates did something they surely didn't do in yesterday's atrocious loss.

--Today's starting lineup featured Freddy Sanchez, Adam Laroche, Jason Bay, and a very hot Jack Wilson--all of whom are legitimate big league players. When you can field a lineup with real live hitters who belong in the major leagues, well, to put it mildly, you're a lot more likely to win games with good big league hitters than without their presence.

--The Bucco hitters combining to score 6 runs would have been nil and void, however, without good MLB pitching. Gorzy went 7 strong innings, didn't give up the only run he would give up until the seventh, made a couple of nice catches on balls that were smoked to him, and basically showed why a team that wants to win games would want Gorzy to start games. Again, it's obvious, but if your starting pitcher is only going to give up 1 earned run in seven innings and your bullpen manages to get out of jams without giving up runs, the team's going to win more games than it loses.

--Random Notes: I am not a fan of the Chicago Cubs, but if I were, I suspect I'd have a strong love/hate relationship with Alfonso Soriano. He brings obvious attributes to a team and certain drawbacks that I would find highly ingratiating if my team were losing to a team as far below .500 as the Pirates are.

--Speaking of which: The fact that the Pirates have a decent record against the Cubs irritates me. Clearly, as the respective records of each club show, the Cubs are clearly a superior team to the Pirates. Yet when the Pirates field a legitimate MLB lineup, headlined by a good starting pitcher, the Pirates have shown themselves to be capable of beating the Cubs. I know baseball is a game where so many games get played that even really bad teams can occasionally beat really good teams, but the fact that the Pirates really can beat the Cubs on certain days is just highly exasperating. I suppose former GM Littlefield was exasperated by this fact as well, but truth told, the Pirates are still unable to field a legitimate MLB lineup headlined by a good starting pitcher day each and every day. And while the players are responsible for their performance on the field, it's the job of the organization to ensure that the best, or in the case of the sad-sack Pirates, legit MLB players, are in the lineup for all 162 games of a season.

--Random Thoughts: I like the hot-hitting version of Jack Wilson. While I think it's silly to talk about "upside" of established players, Wilson's hot streak does reveal something I'd like to make Jim Tracy aware of: Wilson is a superior shortstop to Cesar Iztirus. In addition to Jack getting hits, I also like when rookies get hits, the players who are supposed to hit the ball hit the ball, the starting pitcher pitches well enough to earn his 14th win, the bullpen holds a lead, and the Pirates win a game. I like winning.

--Well, At Least That's Not Us Moment of the Day: No Pirates have been linked to steroids or HGH (by the way, just an ugh to all of that stuff--it does spoil the sport in some sense for me--but that's a whole other post). While I'd love to believe it's because the players on my baseball team, even if they're not very good, don't bother with steroids or HGH, I wonder if there's another reason Pirates really haven't been linked to steroid or HGH usage. Seriously, the Pirates have been irrelevant for so long that who, really, is going to care (outside of PBC fans and the organization itself) if a Pirate were to be linked to steroids and/or HGH? While of course it's better if your players are clean, the fact that no one has even sniffed around to dig up dirt on any of your players does, I think, reveal just how putrid and pathetic the Pittsburgh Pirates have become in what will soon be their fifteenth consecutive year of losing baseball.

(Reflection on last piece: Wow, despite the Littlefield firing, I remain a cynical pessimist. Even when a bad story could sort of reflect somewhat decently on the Pirates, I turn it into a negative. It's going to take awhile, Mr. Nutting, before I believe your words today about "restoring a culture of pride" and expecting "excellence on and off the baseball field." Don't get me wrong; I like the words, but I need to see some concrete actions to back up such words before this cynical pessimism will become merely pessimistic rather than completely cynical and ridiculously jaded.)