Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Baby Boilers no more: Michigan State-Purdue Preview

2009 In Review: Altoona Curve

I've been doing these in order from the bottom to the top, but since Lynchburg is still in the playoffs, I'll skip them in return to them later.

Altoona finished last in the Southern division of the Class AA Eastern League, and it's the first affiliate we've reviewed so far that still bears the stamp of the Littlefield era. The team's lineup featured a ton of non-prospects, like Jonel Pacheco, Jason Delaney, Pedro Lopez and Jeff Corsaletti. And its rotation was filled with soft-tossing Littlefield acquisitions like Danny Moskos, Yoslan Herrera, Jared Hughes, Tony Watson and Derek Hankins.

Despite all that, a number of prospects made their way through Altoona this year, some with more success than others. Obviously, the big-ticket player was Pedro Alvarez, who reeestablished himself as an elite prospect at Altoona after a questionable pro debut at Lynchburg. The Bucs looked at his high strikeout and walk totals at Lynchburg and gambled that, paradoxically, Alvarez would have more success against better pitchers, because those pitchers would fear him less and throw him more balls in the zone. The Pirates appear to have been right--at Altoona, Alvarez walked at about the same rate, struck out a bit less, and hit .333/.419/.590, looking every bit like a future star. This was all the more impressive given that Alvarez got off to a slow start for Altoona, hitting .228/.258/.509 before the All-Star break; he batted .370 the rest of the way. Obviously, hitting .228 is never good, but for a prospect in his first pro year, it's great to see improvement throughout the season.

Elsewhere, Jose Tabata played a big chunk of the year for the Curve and hit pretty well, although his power still hasn't really developed. Most of the other hitting prospects who played for Altoona, though, were disappointing. The defensively challenged Jim Negrych failed to show the stick he'll need to make it to the majors, and he finished the year on the DL. 2007 third-rounder Brian Friday was pedestrian at best, which is unfortunate because, with the recent trades of Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez, there would be space for him in the Pittsburgh middle infield if he played well. Jamie Romak completely fell off the map after a dismal start and wound up back at Lynchburg. Shelby Ford ended up in Altoona only after flopping in Indianapolis. Gorkys Hernandez did little after the Bucs acquired him as one of the key pieces in the Nate McLouth deal. And 40-man roster member Steven Lerud did what he typically does, which is to say he didn't take the step forward he'll need to be anything more than a backup catcher in the bigs.

Fortunately, there were at least a couple real prospects in the pitching staff. Brad Lincoln opened some eyes with a very strong start at Altoona; he struggled a bit after being promoted to Indianapolis, but he still had respectable ratios, so he's probably still on track to make his Pirates debut in 2010. Tim Alderson, acquired for Sanchez, pitched neither well nor badly in a small sample at Altoona. I'm more skeptical of Alderson than most because his strikeout rate has been very low in Class AA, but at age 20, he's still an interesting player. And in the bullpen, Michael Dubee continued to pitch well after destroying Carolina League hitters for half the year.

Some might wonder why I've hardly said anything about Moskos, and the reason is that I simply don't consider ERA to be the only important consideration here. Moskos' 3.74 ERA and his status as a former top pick are the only things he has going for him. He's already 23, his strikeout rate and strikeout-to-walk ratio--both of which are pretty predictive of major-league success--are disastrous, and all his numbers except his ERA are eerily similar to his numbers in 2008, when his ERA was 5.95. To Moskos' credit, he did strike out 27 batters while walking only six in his last five starts this year, but he still has very little to hang his hat on. As far as I'm concerned, he's only a prospect in the loosest sense of the word, and if he's lucky he might be the second lefty out of someone's bullpen someday.

0 recs  |  Comment 33 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

"Third lefty"?

Why would a team even have one?

by JRoth95 on Sep 10, 2009 3:56 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Extrapolating from current trends...

…we’ll probably see a ten-man pen within the next five years.

I wish I were kidding, but I’m not entirely sure I am.

by Vlad on Sep 10, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s kind of what I was getting at, but maybe what I wrote was a little more confusing than it needed to be.

by Charlie on Sep 10, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Makes sense

You need a closer and a white flag guy. Then you need a righty and lefty to pitch in the eighth inning so you can get the platoon advantage. And you need somebody to pitch the sixth and somebody else to pitch the seventh, since if you’re John Russell relievers aren’t allowed to pitch more than one inning. You also need another lefty in case there’s a key at-bat by a lefty hitter earlier than the eighth. And you need a duplicate of the last three guys in case the first three pitched yesterday. That’s ten. This way, you have somebody for every possible role and you never have to think about which reliever to use.

Ideally, though, you’d have twelve relievers in case your starter is struggling in the first three innings. You need a guy to put in to pitch three or so innings, plus another guy in case that guy pitched yesterday. That way you don’t have to sacrifice the game by leaving the starter in to give up fifteen runs in order to save the bullpen. As we all know, saving the bullpen is more important than winning games. I learned that from watching Russell.

by WTM on Sep 10, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think JR's playing a video game

in which you get bonus points at the end of each round for unused pitches.

by JRoth95 on Sep 10, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Unfortunately...

there’s only one way I see the trend of relief pitcher usage changing. The Texas Rangers will have to go a few years without a lot of pitcher injuries.

Nolan Ryan is getting away from the idea of pitch counts with Rangers pitchers…and concentrate on preparation of the pitcher’s arm…and he is definitely one that speaks from experience. Should the Rangers see success…and similar or lower injury rates…other teams may start to pick up the methodology.

by Thunder on Sep 10, 2009 6:50 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't see the connection...

…between pitch counts and expanding bullpens. Just let your relievers pitch a full inning once in a while. Maybe even more than one, if you’re feeling crazy!

by Vlad on Sep 10, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Assume you have your starting pitchers conditioned...

to throw…say 120 pitches…instead of 100. If they are skilled pitchers…they are much more likely to go much deeper into games. Instead of a starter and 3 or 4 relievers in a game…you would probably have more situations with a starter throwing complete games…or just a starter and closer.

Instead…we have relievers coming into games because a starter is out of gas around 100 pitches…and not because he’s been ineffective. If your pitchers are conditioned to throw 120 or 130 pitches…8 relievers in the bullpen becomes overkill.

Bullpens are just as bad. You have guys like Capps who average 15-20 pitches an appearance (or less)…and we see what happens when he gets past 25 pitches…he gets lit up like a Christmas tree. On the other hand…you have guys like Mike Marshall back in the 70s…that AVERAGED over 2 innings an appearance…and pitched in 100 games in a season…even throwing a screwball (supposedly the pitch most dangerous to an arm) Japanese pitchers also throw many more pitches than American pitchers.

Maybe the book (both on pitchers and for managers) needs rewritten.

by Thunder on Sep 10, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the "conditioning" thing...

…is going to prove to be a blind alley. Pitching in general was easier 30 years ago, because teams were willing to punt offense at multiple positions (SS, C, maybe CF or 2B) in favor of a strong defender. How many teams would give Mario Mendoza a starting job nowadays? As a result, a pitcher could coast through a third or more of the lineup in a given game, letting him conserve energy and pitch longer.

But my point above was that pitch counts don’t really have anything to do with reliever usage patterns, which are the real culprit of the expanding pen. Nobody uses pitch counts on relievers – they just reflexively change pitchers every inning out of habit, use closers only in save situations, and sacrifice the platoon advantage when hitting (by using roster spots on PH and platoon partners) in favor of the platoon advantage when pitching (by carrying 2-3 lefty relievers, regardless of quality, and using them immediately whenever a LHB comes up). All of those things could be corrected without looking at pitch counts for starters at all.

by Vlad on Sep 11, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

I though Jack McDowell had a good comment on the expanding use of “situational” relievers:

Bullpen use is tough these days. In my day it was the goal to use as few pitchers as possible in a game. Now everyone is reeled into the “situational” moves which I believe is horrible. When you have to count on 5 pitchers to get THEIR job done every night, there will be far more failures along the way.

When you’ve got to hope that Phil Dumatrait, Joel Hanrahan, Jesse Chavez and Matt Capps all bring their “A game” (such as it is), you’re just making things more difficult for yourself.

by maguro on Sep 11, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Really good comment

I’ve never heard that take before.

I mean, the obvious retort is to ask whether you’d like to count on a mediocre pitcher mastering a larger or a smaller skillset, but I’m not sure it works that way.

To me the biggest mistake about modern, situational handling of the bullpen is that too many skilled lefties get pigeonholed as LOOGYs, reducing their value while making teams reliant on too many 2nd- and 3rd-rate righties.

A bullpen in which Grabow, Hanrahan, Burnett, and Capps can all go 1-2 full innings on a regular basis is far more reliable and preferable to the mix-and-match maguro describes. At that point all you need is a long reliever/spot starter plus a couple warm bodies for blowouts.

by JRoth95 on Sep 11, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I usually don't agree with McDowell...

…but that’s a pretty good point.

by Vlad on Sep 11, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think we know how JR wants to use his pen

I think he just doesn’t have the materials he wishes for, and he’s been unable to make the adjustment.

I would characterize modern orthodoxy as follows (ideally this would be a chart):

1. Starter goes 6.

2A. If the game is close, winning or losing, you put in your 3rd best guy for the 7th and second best guy for the 8th. If you’re winning, closer in the 9th. If you’re still down by a run, the 8th inning guy may stretch to throw the 9th. This breakdown covers maybe half of games, if your starters are pretty good.

2B. If the game isn’t very close (2-3 runs either way), you use your #4 reliever for the 7th and, ideally, 8th. Then, either closer or mop-up guy for the 9th.

2C. If it’s a blowout, you use a long inning guy, or a mop-up guy.

For any of the above situations, you may get a LOOGY in there somewhere. That’s 7 relievers to cover you with starters going 6 most of the time; add one more for another option/extra innings/whatever, and there’s your 8. But the 8th guy is the same as the aforementioned mop-up guy, as long as either your starters go long most of the time and/or the other guys are good enough.

JR’s been in a situation where he rarely gets 5 6-inning starts in a row, let alone 7+ inning starts. So right off the bat, he’s facing more sub-optimal situations. Add to that the low quality of all but 2-3 of his relievers, and his “book” looks more like a guide to conjuring – how to use 3 bad relievers and 2 good one to get across 3.2 innings.

He’s been willing to use some guys (esp. Jackson) for 2 innings, and he’s been willing to use his best non-“closer” (Chavez) in lots of situations, which is actually pretty non-traditional. But otherwise I think he’s been stumped by the problem facing him, and he’s not been willing to go outside the box (I might add that the crappiness of Capps, with the evident unwillingness of the FA to officially unmake him the Closer, has really handcuffed him; he’d probably be doing a lot better if they’d kept Grabow as well – probably their best reliever overall, plus a lefty. That’s a big loss.).

by JRoth95 on Sep 10, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jeebus

Looking at Nolan’s stats, I’m reminded how unreal pitcher-handling was in the day. 333 innings and 26 complete games in a season that wasn’t in the 1960s? I wonder if he’s one of those “REAL men finish their games” types and he’s trying to (gradually) get back to that, ignoring the fact he was an exceptional physical specimen.

It’s also worth pointing out, Nolan didn’t pitch over 152 innings in a year until he was 25. It’s been said that the best place for a young pitcher is long relief, but teams just don’t seem to have that luxury now. If you’re any good at all, you go into the rotation ASAP. Guess that’s what people mean when they say expansion waters down pitching, not necessarily that pitchers themselves are any worse than they were 30 years ago but that they’re often forced into roles they aren’t ready for, and sooner.

by bucdaddy on Sep 11, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's a function of free agency and arbitration.

If you only control a power arm for six years, you don’t want to waste two of them letting him get his feet wet in long relief, and if overusing him as a young pitcher makes him burn out in his late 20s, it’s no skin off your nose.

by Vlad on Sep 11, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

True that

See, for example: Marlins/Dontrelle Willis

by bucdaddy on Sep 11, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know

It is my understanding that teams were destroying young pitchers due to overwork long before free agency became an issue. Also, one does not always have to wait until a player is several years into his career before the negative effects of the overuse become apparent – Mark Fidrych, for instance.

by WestCoastBuc on Sep 11, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or Tom Gorzelanny

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Sep 11, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also see:

Dreifort, Darren.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 11, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

There have always been some incentives to work them hard.

I’m just saying that there are no longer as many real counter-incentives as there once were, in that a pitchers’ distant future performance is even less valuable to teams now than it was in the past.

by Vlad on Sep 11, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If someone wouldn't mind filling me in a bit...

So what’s the deal with Alvarez/LaRoche/Clement? Are we looking to move Alvarez to first because of his lack of defense at third? So what does that mean for Clement? If he’s sticking at third then what do we do with LaRoche? Was he not the focal point of the Bay trade?

And now onto our starting rotation…

Hart doesn’t seem like he’ll stick at the starting rotation. Morton isn’t too great either but will probably be the 5th starter (still better than Hart, no?) So are Lincoln and D. McCutchen looking like solid starters or not quite? McCutchen is nearly 27 already and just hit the bigs. Thankfully Lincoln is only 24 and will be up hopefully next season. And Alderson is only 20 so we can keep him down until he’s ready. Oh and what’s the story with Ohlendorf?

We could use some solid staring and relief pitching. I think our bats will slowly come around. I mean we’ve been able to score runs just our pitching isn’t good enough to keep the game close.

by dulciusEXasperis on Sep 10, 2009 7:04 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Taking those in order...

1) The team wants to leave Alvarez at third. Lots of people are skeptical about them being able to leave him there, because he’s pretty bad.

2) All of our recent trades have been made with the idea of increasing the overall talent in the system, as opposed to finding pieces that fit together perfectly. If we have multiple options at one position, that’s not bad. And if one guy runs away with a spot, we can trade his competition to fill a different need.

3) McCutchen is probably ready to make the back end of a rotation. After Lincoln’s struggles, I’d probably leave him at AAA to start the year.

4) What story with Ohlendorf?

by Vlad on Sep 10, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just like what are the views on him. Can he be a quality mid to back rotation starter?

I’ve heard he could be more suited at a relief position. Just wondering how people feel about him.

by dulciusEXasperis on Sep 10, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Looks like he could be a mid-rotation starter. He was pretty mediocre for a while, but somewhere around mid-season his velocity got back up to the mid-90s and he’s been very good ever since.

by WTM on Sep 10, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah he has been pretty solid second half.

Hope that trend carries over into next season

by dulciusEXasperis on Sep 10, 2009 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

One Question, Two Comments

1. If the Pirates are so insistent about having relievers pitch multiple innings in the minors now, why not have them do the same at the MLB level? I see Diego Moreno pitch 2-3 innings almost every outing for example.

2. I’m a believer in Alderson, but I’m interested to see if the Pirates break their rule of no-touch for six months before tweaking mechanics at all — and even then only tweaking little things. Alderson seems like he would be the perfect example to see how far the Pirates will take those rules.

3. I would leave Lincoln at Triple A until he’s accumulated essentially a full year of innings at the level. I just think he would make adjustments much quicker at the MLB level if he did that because he seems to struggle when going up to the next level before figuring things out again.

by Slizeezyc on Sep 10, 2009 10:03 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

They have relievers pitch multiple innings in the minors...

…not because they think of it as an advantageous usage pattern, but because those pitchers need as many reps as possible to work on developing consistent mechanics and getting a feel for the changeup and such.

by Vlad on Sep 11, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Back in the bad old days under Littlefield, the Pirates had guys like Josh Sharpless and Chris Hernandez pitching an inning at a time, two at most, which gave them about 50 IP over a year. I’m convinced that hurt their development. By contrast, Ron Uviedo last year pitched over 80 innings in relief. The current practice makes far more sense to me.

by WTM on Sep 11, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd still like to see Uviedo used as a full-time starter.

With four good pitches, I think he’s wasted in the pen.

by Vlad on Sep 11, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

I knew that much, but my point is if they are successful at the minor league level doing that (the pitchers that is), then it just seems like connect the dots to let them do the same at the MLB level. Then again, perhaps I’m thinking about this too logically.

by Slizeezyc on Sep 11, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I agree that it'd make sense.

I just wouldn’t expect them to necessarily reach that conclusion, since they’re arriving at the premise from a different route (i.e. this development path is the best way to develop these pitchers into good one-inning relievers).

by Vlad on Sep 11, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.
Start posting about the Pirates »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Around the Division - Second base
Natezack_small
Fun Facts about Milwaukee's Bud Selig Statue
Small
Brad Lincoln
Small
Around the Division - First Base
Small
Anyone sticking up for Nutting should read this...
Small
Roster transition
39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Pittsburghalleghenys_small
SI Report: Pirates in on LHP Hisanori Takahashi
Downsized_1224092216a_small
Roberto movie
Red-necked_tanager_small
Never mind

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

2010 CHONE Standings
FanGraphs on Spilts
2010 Pirates Draft Preview
Bryce Harper Embarks on Old College Try
Those Who Just Missed the BA Prospect Handbook
Mariners sign Ryan Garko
Your dreams of pretending to be Brendan Donnelly will remain unfulfilled
Rocco DeMaro's Broadcast from PirateFest
ESPN: The 17-year nightmare is almost over
Not a Big Deal, but Jackson & Claggett Clear Waivers

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie