Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintClick here to submit your question
The Qs somehow penetrate the all-cement-block media area at the new Pirate City headquarters ...
Q: Dejan, I know it's early yet, but have you noticed any difference in Zach Duke or Paul Maholm since being reunited with pitching coach Jeff Andrews?
Dave Ayoob of Hopewell
KOVACEVIC: You would not want to see any difference in Maholm, I would think. He got better as the 2007 season went along and, for all the criticism that Jim Colborn deserves, he should get some praise for helping Maholm tighten his delivery around June. Although the results fluctuated somewhat, the delivery did not, and it could prove to give him a very solid base.
You are right that it is early, but I cannot help point out here that Maholm has impressed me as much as anyone in this camp. He arrived in superior shape, and he is dropping pitches wherever he wants right now.
As for Duke, judging by the extra attention Andrews paid him the other day -- apparently stressing that he give a little more oomph to all of his stuff -- there remains work to do.
But it bears repeating: I am describing bullpen sessions. No batter. No situations. No crowd. Not at all a baseball-simulating test.
On to a similar note ...
Q: In your piece about Duke, you referred to Andrews as wanting to see more purpose to Duke's pitches. Can you elaborate on that a little more for me?
Phillip Webster of Indianapolis
KOVACEVIC: There really was not much more to it. He just wanted to see a little more of a follow-through from the thought process -- where Duke wants to the ball to go, and how it will get there -- to the act itself. Think of it as realized visualization, I guess.
Again, I caution: Do not read too much into this stuff, either way. It is early spring bullpen work, and sometimes I find myself hesitating to ever describe such activity out of concern that it will be interpreted as being far more meaningful than it actually is.
That goes for Maholm being great, just as it goes for Duke getting help.
Q: When I look at the Pirates lineup, I see at least five players with above-average talent in Jason Bay, Jack Wilson, Freddy Sanchez, Adam LaRoche and Xavier Nady. I would say Jose Bautista is at least average if not better, especially if he plays like he did at the end of last season.
The first three slots of starting pitching should be solid, and the back of the bullpen seems solid. That leaves middle relief and the bench as the weakest spots on this team.
What I do not understand is why this does not translate to at least an average team. Can the middle relief and bench really make such a huge difference in a team? Is there some other reason the whole is less than the sum of the parts? Or are my evaluations just plain wrong?
Tom Kovalcik of Barrington, N.H.
KOVACEVIC: Well, let me start by doing my Stats Geek impersonation here and remove everything from the equation except cold, hard numbers.
Take the best barometer for offensive effectiveness -- that being on-base percentage plus slugging -- then look at the Pirates' everyday eight around the diamond as they compare to the rest of the National League. It would stand to reason that, with 16 teams, a player would have to rank eighth or higher to be considered average, to use your term.
Ronny Paulino finished eighth among catchers, Jack Wilson seventh among shortstops, Xavier Nady seventh among right fielders.
That's it. Where was Freddy Sanchez among second basemen? Ninth.
Were there extenuating circumstances? Sure, and we could go over them all day. But the bottom line is results, and the clear line here -- offensively, anyway -- is that the Pirates' everyday eight ranks below average.
The fact that the Pirates seem set at nearly every position might create the perception to some that they have contender-level talent at most of those, or something close to that. What it really underscores, I think, is the lack of depth in the organization. And it is that trait, I think, that will define the 2008 Pirates.
Picture just one or two of those everyday eight either having a major injury or a major dropoff in expected performance. Then picture the potential solution to that problem.
Q: Just a question about Thing No. 67 yesterday: id you not see the trains across the river? What about the buses on Carson Street?
John Mangan of Overbrook, Pittsburgh
KOVACEVIC: Yeah, I totally blew that list, as you and other readers pointed out.
And this was the doozy: What about the submarine that is nothing less than the Science Center's signature element?
Too much sun can be unhealthy for one's brain.
Thing No. 68 that makes Pittsburgh great: We are one of just 14 cities privileged to be completely documented as part of the Google Earth program.
Big deal, you say?
From there, go to the top right of that little screen and click Street View, then find the little camera that pops up on top of our city. Once inside, click on that little yellow man and take him for a walk.
Unreal. Not only can you see every building from every vantage point, but you also can look straight up at the buildings or even the sky. It's just like taking a walk through Downtown.
You can also plot a precise point-to-point trip on Pittsburgh's public transit, also one of the few American cities where Google makes this possible.
It might be because we have a local Google office, which I guess is emblematic either of some good tech happenings in the region or all of the Mac Geniuses floating around the two big campuses in Oakland now.
Whatever it is, no complaints here. Anytime down here I feel like sitting down in the Eyeball Park on Seventh Street, I am one click away.
Until tomorrow, when we begin the readers' portion of the Pittsburgh feature. There will be another Friday, as we split these in half for the rest of spring training. By all means, please do not hesitate to send yours ...
