Rebuilding Time? Naw.. just adding on

Let’s face it, winning in baseball is easy science when you get right down to it – you have to consistently score more runs than you give up. 

Consistently score – that’s the key.

To win the division anymore, an NLCD team typically needs to score 125 more runs than they allow in any given year.

That being said, the last place team in the division will typically allow 125 more runs than they score. In 2007, the Pirates gave up 122 and took home the trophy for last place as a result.

Pittsburgh Pirates CEO Frank Coonelly recently told Sports Illustrated:

‘"I’m intent on making this club a winner.” Coonelly, a former MLB bigwig, said in a recent interview with SI.com. "I do not intend to make it 16 or 17” straight losing years."’

Obviously it’s considerably easier to be a .500 team than it is to win the division because all that takes is typically scoring 25 more runs than you allow in the year.

So if it generally takes 25 more runs scored than allowed to get to .500, and the Pirates were -122 runs last year, how can Coonelly obtain a 147 run swing with the current roster?

Short answer? He can’t.

That is, he can’t without spending more money than the organization has made in profits in the last quarter century or so (see 2007 Chicago Cubs).

Or, by rebuilding and having ordinary luck.

Considering the ghastly run swing Coonelly needs to achieve just to get the Pirates to .500, and further considering the current roster and per win cost of adding top of the rotation starting pitching, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what Frank Coonelly’s design plan is.

He has to infuse starting pitching that can miss bats. Essentially, he needs at least one top of the order starter, but could use two.

A quick look at the 2008 available free agent list tells you Frank Huntington isn’t going to find a Roy Oswalt to add to the roster so he needs to trade to get what he wants.

Enter stage right, Jason Bay.

But wait a minute – if Huntington trades off Bay and his 100 runs and 100 rbis and someone like Steve Pearce replaces him in the lineup, obviously there is going to be a loss in runs scored. So what would the loss be?

If we assume someone like Pearce can contribute at 75% of the average MLB hitter in 2007 who had 100 or more plate appearances, he would generate about 57 runs and 57 rbis in 550 at bats. Obviously Pearce was on track to score more runs and fewer rbis but his playing time was clocked in September so we can’t rely on his stats for a projection.

Instead, we’ll use the 57 and anything Bay’s replacement achieves higher than that is gravy. So Coonelly will immediately see somewhere around a 43 run/rbi deficit losing Bay.

When we consider Matt Morris, Tony Armas, and Zach Duke ran up 236.1 innings pitched and allowed 168 runs scored for a .71 runs allowed per game average (6.40 ERA), the pitcher obtained for Bay would have to record .63 runs per game (5.67 ERA) to swing 43 runs.

But if that pitcher could improve the .63 by 30% more to .44 runs per game average (4.05 ERA), the swing would be 80 runs instead of 43. Runs allowed would drop from 846 in 2007 to 766 in 2008, and runs scored would drop from 724 to 681. The composite difference would then be +4 wins assuming 10 runs per win.

68 wins in 2007 +4 = 72 wins in 2008. That’s a simple way to show you part of the reallocation of resources design Coonelly has in mind.

Obviously Steve Pearce won’t be Jason Bay’s replacement. With the money saved on Bay’s contract, Huntington can afford to obtain a better than replacement level player for Bay, plus upgrade another positions like centerfield, adding relief pitching, and/or a catcher. Reducing the remaining 85 run difference is what will be trickier.

As for Jack Wilson? Look for Huntington to keep him under contract because we still have too many pitchers who pitch to contact.

Related posts:

1. Bucs walk to win
2. Duke @ Miller = sure loss
3. Semi-live game blog; Bucs lose 12th last 18 played
4. Bucs adding sugar to Grapefruit play