I am NOT a fan of Bob Smizik. However, I read his stuff about the Pirates (because I read everything in the local media about the Pirates).
His current article is titled "About Those Pirate Bullpens." In it, he slams the notion that Huntington has put together a series of effective bullpens, essentially from scratch..... and he presents a reasonably comprehensive set of numbers, indicating how Pirate bullpens have ranked, to provide a basis for his negative assessment.
Now I'm not a Huntington fan either (as I believe I've made clear on this board). But I had a perception (like most Pirate fans, I think) that Huntington HAS assembled some pretty decent bullpens, certainly on the cheap. In judging NH, I had always put his bullpens on the plus side of the ledger, along with the plan he put in place, and his drafting strategy (talent over signability).
However, the numbers in Smizik's article indicate that Pirate bullpens under NH have been consistently bad. The article was a real "eye-opener" for me..... leading me toward a conclusion that I have been giving Huntington too much credit for his bullpen building.
[url=http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/sports/bob-smiziks-blog/31316-bullpen]About those Pirates bullpens[/url]
After examining the numbers presented by Smizik, my tentative conclusion is that the best which can be said about NH's Pirate bullpens is that they have improved from really bad to just bad. As always, I welcome opposing views. On the other hand, I think it would add more value if responders could set aside disdain for Smizik and focus on the objective data which he presented.