It probably became clear to those who watched the White Sox series that the Pirates fielded the equivalent of a AAA starting rotation in the three game set.  Only Tom Gorzelanny iced Sox batters enough to give the Pirates a chance and then the Pirates bullpen was called on which promptly caved in as they did all three games, save Damaso Marte.

The Pirates lack quality pitching and pitching depth - especially the kind that creates fear in the batter - no matter how you view our system.  That’s important because, as I already showed you, there is a strong correlation between baserunners allowed and a team’s winning percentage as you can see again below.  The more confident batters are in the box, the more probable they are to produce at a rate higher than league average.

One of the comments made to me about that baserunners per 9 post was in wondering why I didn’t take it one step further and look at the correlation of runs scored (RS) or runs allowed (RA) to winning percentage in the National League, instead of looking at just the Pirates.  I didn’t do that because the answer is well known around the game - the more you consistently limit runs allowed, the higher the probability is of consistently winning.  It’s a no-brainer.

Since 1969, and not including the short-seasons of 1972, 1981, 1995, eighty-two NL division titles have been won after 86,760 games were played by 466 teams.  Of those titles:

Median RS were 761
Median RA were 644
Median team ERA was 3.58
Median win/loss record was 95-67

The correlation of RS to winning percentage was -0.237

The correlation of RA to winning percentage was 0.635

Notice that the median RS is 761 runs.  The Pirates have scored 761 runs just four times since 1969 - 1979 when they won the World Series, 1991 when they won the division then lost game 7 of the NLCS to the Braves, 1996 when they finished 5th in the division, and 1999 when they finished third.

Yet - other than once - every year since 1969 we have held opponents to 644 runs or less, we’ve been right in the thick of the division race - or better:

Clearly, the path to competitive baseball in the NL is first ground in reducing runs allowed - that requires good pitching and good defense.  Therefore, for the Pirates to become more competitive we have three options to improve our pitching: draft pitchers, sign free agents, or trade for them.

Trading for young pitching is a source that’s quickly drying up.  Ned Colletti had a chance to trade impact prospects at the July deadline last year and backed off as he told Baseball Digest:

“I’m glad I didn’t trade 3 or 4 kids at the deadline. I think that decision will prove to be valuable for a very long time. People ask about the young players all the time. Teams need young players.”

Refusing to deal his pitching prospects to get Johan Santana, Brian Cashman recently told the Associated Press:

“My strong recommendation is that we stick with our young pitching and keep it in-house.”

And some of those who did deal - like Bill Bavasi - are no longer employed.  Clearly times have changed and trading for pitching isn’t going to be the easiest of the three options.  It can be done, and it should be Huntington’s focus in any trades he makes, but it won’t be an easy task.

The second option of drafting and developing pitchers is the best shot a medium size market team like the Pirates have.  The Pirates new regime took two college arms in the first five rounds and now it’s up to them to put their ‘new and improved’ processes in motion to get them signed and get them developed. 

Scheppers has a chance to be an impact talent, however most likely in the pen, and Wilson, while not projected to be an impact talent, might make his way up the ladder to a middle order slot from his current ‘best analysis’ back of the rotation projection.

So the weaker 2008 draft didn’t help our current position other than potentially in the pen.  And none of the remaining ’projected organizational pitchers’ taken in the tenth round on figure to be much help either.  Now that’s not to say we didn’t select the next Zach Duke or Ian Snell - who knows, maybe we did.  But we absolutely did not select anyone who will be the next Cole Hamels either.

So if we want to improve our product on the field short-term (next three years) that only leaves free agents - the most costly avenue there is - or pray our current staff can take it to the next level.

What can we expect from our current staff?  Here’s a comparison of 60 games into 2007 versus about 60 games into 2008:

It’s not a pretty sight by any means.  Duke has brought his ERA down but look at his hit rate of 11.1 hits per nine innings.  Well, that is better than Snell’s but still, all but sure to lead to a higher ERA down the road.  Only Maholm has improved enough to warrant any attention and even his stats suggest an impending implosion.

There just isn’t anyone worthy to carry the “I’m an ace” or “I’m a true #2″ type label.  

So we need to pick up some free agents.  How about someone like John Lackey this winter to anchor the rotation for the next four years?  By 2010 we should be able to have/add Gorzelanny, Maholm, Snell, and Lincoln in the rotation, Moskos, Wilson, and Scheppers to the pen - if signed and healthy - as setup men, Capps closing if still a viable option otherwise swapped with Scheppers, Pat Bresnehan, and Tony Watson could be available in middle relief with John Grabow.

That’s a pretty formidible pen, and not too shabby of a rotation either.  But it would cost money. 

In any case, we need pitching.  One anchor at the top would be a huge start toward becoming competitive again.