Why We Lost to the Reds

The Pirates of Penance checks in with a muted note of happiness: The Pirates win tonight, over the Reds, 9-3. The win is notable on several fronts: 1) It's only the 12th win of the season for the woeful Buccos. They have averaged two wins a week thus far, so they are already halfway to their quota, and it's only Tuesday! 2) The win comes at the expense of an old rival that has gotten off a surprisingly good start (23-17 after tonight's loss). 3) The offensive fireworks were led by Jeromy Burnitz, the expensive offseason acquisition who had hit a miserable .185 coming into the contest. 4) Paul Maholm, the much-touted rookie who has gotten off to a bad start on the mound, pitched into the eighth inning. Good starts have been few and far between for this pitching staff in 2006.

Well, we'll take it, even if it is just one win and the team is still 15 games below .500. The arrival in town of the Reds offers a chance to look at two once-proud franchises that have lost a bit, if not most, of their luster since 1980 (see previous blog for details on the decline of the Pirates). The Reds, of course, were probably the best team of the '70s, going to four World Series and winning three. Like the Pirates, they staggered a bit in the '80s, but they won another ring in 1990. Since then, success has been spotty, and they haven't recorded a winning season since 2000. They have won just one division title since the World Series triumph (1995), although they were probably robbed of one in the strike-obliterated season of '94 and lost a one-game playoff in 1999.

Still, that record positively glows when it is compared to the numbers posted by the Pirates. Why? Well, to start with the most recent teams, the Reds simply hit better than the Pirates, particularly in terms of power. For example, in 2005, three Reds players -- Ken Griffey Jr., Adam Dunn and Austin Kearns -- combined to hit 93 homers. The Pirates as a team hit 139 dingers.

In 2005, the Pirates ranked 12th in the league in home runs, on-base percentage and slugging percentage. It is too early to project where they will land in 2006, but there is precious little evidence that they are on course to improve in any of those categories. The players signed to protect their young slugger Jason Bay are either ineffectual (Burnitz) or hurt (Sean Casey and Joe Randa). In addition, they are terrible again at getting on base. The team has three players so far in 2006 (Bay, .418), Jack Wilson (.360) and Craig Wilson (.355) with superior OBPs. After Craig Wilson (among players with enough ABs to qualify), the fourth spot is occupied by Jose Castillo with an abysmal OBP of .311. The aforementioned Burnitz has an almost comically bad OBP of .236.

The Reds have also been able to put together some decent, certainly not great, pitching, led by Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang. They have four pitchers (Arroyo, Harang, Elizardo Ramirez and Brandon Claussen) who have combined for 28 starts, and none has an ERA over 5.00. Doesn't sound like much, but compare that with the Pirates' staff, of whom so much was expected. Going into tonight's game, Zach Duke, Maholm, Victor Santos, Ian Snell and Oliver Perez had combined for 38 starts and only Duke had an ERA under 5.00, although Maholm's will dip slightly below that line after Tuesday's game.

The issues go beyond this horrible year, however. As discussed in the previous blog, after the season-ending playoff loss to the Braves, the Pirates jettisoned every big-name player on their 1992 roster except Andy Van Slyke. Since 1993, the list of players who have performed at an above-average level for any significant period of time for the Pirates is exceedingly short. My list would include only Van Slyke, Jeff King, Jason Kendall, Brian Giles and, possibly, Denny Neagle. The Reds? On a succession of simply OK teams, they still managed to field Barry Larkin, Jose Rijo, Hal Morris, Reggie Sanders, Jeff Brantley, Sean Casey, Ken Griffey Jr., Danny Graves and Dunn. They also had numerous short-term contributions from the likes of Greg Vaughn and Pete Harnisch.

The larger question for the Pirates, to be considered in the next blog, is why so many players have performed poorly or merely passably in Pittsburgh and then have gone on to success with other teams.