OnlyBucs

525348594F0F083C0 wrote: If you have a good offense and a good bullpen, then you can win games with ineffective starting pitching.



We'd all love to have what the Nationals and Cubs had in a starting rotation, but that's not the model that a small-mid market team can hope to achieve.  It's been the Pirates model to focus resources on the bullpen, I can assure you that Hudson will help the Pirates win more games than someone like Hammel would have.
I guess he will have to agree to disagree. Why are you understating what Hammel has done? He is a solid pitcher.


A couple of reasons. First that the Cubs chose not to pick up his option and opted for some rather risky starters instead of him. He was signed by KC after the Ventura tragedy, so possibly a knee jerk reaction from KC to fill an unexpected vacancy. I see the Pirates having enough bottom of the rotation options, no need to throw a ton of money at a guy that at best is only marginally better than the rest of that group.



I'm also not sure how well Hammel's numbers will transfer to another team. I also think the Cubs had some freakish luck last year in terms of run prevention. Check this out:



http://www.espn.com/mlb/team/stats/pitc ... order/true





Hammels looks great against the rest of MLB, but looks bad compared to the Cubs pitching staff.

I don't understand how a good starting rotation isn't a small-market model.  We had a very good starting rotation the 3 years we made it to the Wildcard, and a mediocre one the year we won 78.



3/5 of the rotation is homegrown and cost controlled.   Most importantly, the top of the rotation. (The most expensive and difficult to find)



A small-market team can't fill 2/5 of the rotation through free agency and/or trade?  We filled one of those spots through FA (Nova)



If our model is to have a mediocre rotation but a good bullpen, then it must be a new model as of 2016 and that new model is 0 for 1

7B727A6B651F0 wrote: I don't understand how a good starting rotation isn't a small-market model.  We had a very good starting rotation the 3 years we made it to the Wildcard, and a mediocre one the year we won 78.



3/5 of the rotation is homegrown and cost controlled.   Most importantly, the top of the rotation. (The most expensive and difficult to find)



A small-market team can't fill 2/5 of the rotation through free agency and/or trade?  We filled one of those spots through FA (Nova)



If our model is to have a mediocre rotation but a good bullpen, then it must be a new model as of 2016 and that new model is 0 for 1




I agree with you. A stable/reliable rotation can carry a team big time. The Pirates still had a top offense last year despite the down years from some players. I am pretty sure they were 6th in runs in the league, but 9th in ERA and 13th in giving up hits.

Here are the Pirates last three opening day starting rotations.



2016 - Liriano, Cole, Niese, Locke, Nicasio

2015 - Lirianco, Cole, Burnett, Locke, Worley

2014 - Liriano, Cole, Morton, Volquez, Rodriguez



I certainly wouldn't argue that having a strong starting rotation isn't what all teams strive for. But it's also pretty clear that the Pirates don't lose sleep over question marks in the starting rotation on opening day. Based on payroll allocation, the Pirates have been much more willing to concentrate funds on back end bullpen guys, than back of the rotation depth. Granted, this blew up in their face last year, but for the debacle that was 2016, they weren't that far from being competitive. I still see them as only having been 2 favorable breaks away from a WC spot. If Cole were able to come back and pitch effectively and had Glasnow been ready we aren't having these conversations.



The three parties were all at fault last year. Management provided faulty personnel to start the season. Key players didn't show up (Cole & McCutchen). And the coaches looked clueless, the run prevention went from one of the best to one of the worst, Searage and Hurdle have to take some blame for that too.