The Sweet Snell of Success

Who is the best pitcher in the National League? That's a question guaranteed to start an argument, but let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that it is Brandon Webb of the Arizona Diamondbacks (11-3, with a 2.50 ERA over 154 IP). Webb has won 22% of his team's 50 victories.

Who is the best pitcher for the Pittsburgh Pirates? The answer to that one should not start an argument. It is Ian Snell, who after tonight's 6-1 victory over the Milwaukee Brewers (seven innings, one earned run, nine strikeouts) is 9-6. Although his ERA is 4.63 (over 119 IP), he has accounted for 25% of his team's 36 victories.

Back on May 20 (see post "Searching for Our Soul in the Heart of Rock and Roll"), the Buccin' Ear had this to say about Snell:

"Tonight the team rebounded with a 9-6 win, beating up Jason Johnson with lots of early offense (a homer and four RBIs for Jason Bay), enough even for Ian Snell, who staggered through five innings to get his third win. His ERA is as beefy as C.C. Sabathia: 5.74. I've heard for a couple of years now how promising this guy is. Enough. He was given a shot in the second half last year, showed little, and is now the fourth best pitcher on a bad staff. Apologists (or optimists) will point to the fact that of the five runs he gave up, only two were earned. Well, that probably says more about the lack of clutch hitting tonight by the Indians (they stranded 12) than Snell's hard luck. The guy threw 105 pitches (about 60% for strikes) and walked five. Most nights that kind of pitching is going to send you off to lather up with Irish Spring a lot earlier than the fifth inning."

I'd like to make like Charles Barkley, who famously said he was misquoted in his autobiography. But those were the observations in this blog then, and the observation now is, Snell has done a lot to prove that he does belong in the Bigs. He still has his bad outings, and he falls prey to big innings too often. Still, he is nowclearly the best pitcher on this bad staff, has lowered his ERA by more than a run in two months, and is probably the only pitcher at this point who would generate any significant interest from another team (not that we're advocating a trade).

The obvious comparison is to Zach Duke, who was lambasted by the Brew Crew last night in an ugly 12-8 loss. Duke now sports an ERA higher than a pint of your best microbrew: 5.50. Back on June 4 (see post "A Mixed Bag"), the Buccin' Ear had this to say about Duke and Snell:

"Duke, who has pitched much better overall than Snell, has shown that he can make adjustments as the game goes on, the mark of a smart pitcher. If he can make a further adjustment in his approach in the early innings, he may return to the form of last season. As it is, he is 4-6 with a 4.23 ERA, not where he or anybody else wants to be at this point, but certainly not a disaster on a team that is 14 games under .500."

This is not to say that the Pirates should give up on Duke, anymore than they should conclude that Snell has arrived as an ace. But surely the question must be raised: what is the reason for Snell's relative success over the past two months and Duke's precipitous decline? Personal observation suggests that Snell's power pitching has given him more room for error than Duke, who relies on location and changes in velocity. He looked like he was pitching batting practice last night, which is what happens when a finesse pitcher can't locate.

Whatever the case may be, the Pirates would do well to start looking for answers in the performances of that small number of players who have been able to achieve success this year, just as they need to seriously reexamine those players who have underachieved. The bromides of RG Jim Tracy just won't cut it anymore.