Submit your question about the Pirates.

While Paul Meyer covers the team in Cincinnati and Milwaukee this week, we still take your Qs . . .

---

Q: Hi, Dejan. Terrible news about Matt Capps. Clearly, he had not been the same pitcher over the past two months and, arguably, all year as his velocity is concerned. Did his recent performance lead the Pirates to have Capps examined or had he been complaining of discomfort/range of motion issues?

This does not bode well for the Bucs as they try to crawl their way back toward .500, but at least it seems they diagnosed the shoulder injury before it became a major surgical issue.

Bob Maddamma of Rochester, N.Y.

KOVACEVIC: Well, Bob, the news could have been much worse. There could have been fraying in the cuff or labrum, or outright tears. Be very sure there is a great sigh of relief that it is none of those and that it can be addressed, according to this diagnosis, without surgery.

That is a huge deal: Shoulder surgery is the one pitchers now fear most, as it is the one that creates the greatest uncertainty for healthy returns. Elbow surgery has advanced miles, by comparison, as one can see with the initial return of Brad Lincoln in Hickory.

Did Capps complain?

The answer is no. He threw one hint my direction in this interview back in early May, but he never mentioned discomfort again, not even jokingly, after that. And one can be very sure that he never mentioned it to the Pirates based on his continuing to get used regularly, up to and including the back-to-back appearances that led to the examination.

There always is a debate after these things happen: Should the team have shut him down earlier? Or tested him earlier? Why wait until the pitcher says something?

The bottom line is this: The pitcher has to speak up.

That is not always easy, and not just for pride reasons. Almost all pitchers experience some discomfort from time to time, in elbows and shoulders. They experience dead arm at pretty much the same point every spring. There are aches and pains all over the place, and they surely feel there is a fine line between reporting each of them and being labeled a wuss. (That label gets applied quite freely in the baseball business, you should know.)

And all of the above is especially true for someone such as Capps, who not only is proud but who also never had a significant injury. How is he to know what is serious and what is not, when he should say something and when he should not?

From the team's standpoint, should every pitcher experiencing a consistent loss of velocity have a needle stuck in him? Or even just a non-invasive MRI?

We might reach the point where that is the case someday.

Only this much is certain: When Matt Capps is healthy -- and even for a good chunk of the time when he is not, as 2008 has shown -- he is one of the best closers in Major League Baseball. He and the Pirates have dodged quite a bullet, and there might not be a more significant development for the franchise all summer. He is an enormous part of the franchise's future.

---

Q: My question is about John Russell's tendency to bunt, giving up an out: With a runner on first, I understand moving him over into scoring position, as well as avoiding a double play. But why bunt when the runner is on second? He can't always score on a single, but he often can. And there is no worry about hitting into a double play.

Are there statistics showing this leads to more runs, or is this just a personal preference of Russell's?

Larry Wichterman of McCandless

KOVACEVIC: Very, very clearly, Russell likes the bunt. And he makes no apology for that.

As for your specific scenario, the evidence actually suggests the contrary: Bunts that send a runner from second to third tend to be much more productive than those that push the runner from first to second, as this four-year-old piece from our very own Stats Geek illustrates.

Ironically, of course, it was in this situation Tuesday night that Russell finally elected not to bunt, when Jack Wilson stepped to the plate in the 11th with Xavier Nady at second and nobody out. Not once did Wilson square up, and this on orders from the dugout.

The result: Wilson triples, Pirates win.

The Pirates have shown to be a very good offensive team halfway through 2008, by almost any measure. This includes the ability to handle -- and frustrate -- some very good pitchers. They hit for decent power, they hit pitchers from both sides, and they are No. 2 in the National League with a .280 average with runners in scoring position.

Perhaps bunting with non-pitchers is, as some readers have suggested, overthinking things.

---

Q: Has anyone noticed the records of the Pirates' farm teams? Combining all the teams through yesterday, the PBC and affiliates are a combined 60 games under .500.

Why should Pirates fans have any hope for the future?

Please give me something, DK.

Tim Bowers of Elizabeth

KOVACEVIC: On this count, Tim, you get nothing.

In a normal circumstance, I would tell you that the records of affiliates mean nothing and remind that, under previous management, the minor league teams often had winning records and even playoff success. But the hidden factor therein was that those teams were stocked with over-aged players who had no future in the majors, so the records were as hollow as they could be. At one point in 2006, the Altoona roster was older than that of the Pirates!

Now, there is a stated emphasis on stocking all teams with as many actual prospects as possible, but that obviously will take time. There is not much down there, to be kind.

This does bear watching, though: Although new management insists that by signing only 25-30 of its 50 draft picks, it is pretty much at the industry norm, one might easily counter with the notion that the Pirates should not be doing anything at the industry norm when it comes to this area. They should be pursuing quantity as well as quality, with the draft and in Latin American talent, in the most aggressive possible manner.

---

Q: Dejan, after two days of discussion about people leaving or returning to their seats during inning breaks, I felt that I had to send something in.

I am a former 20-pack holder who chose not to renew my plan this year, and this is one of the biggest reasons. It got to the point I would rather watch the games on TV at home than deal with the crowd at the ballpark. In my case, it was compounded by the fact that my work schedule forced me to go mainly to Saturday night games, which were the worst types of crowds: Bobblehead crowds. Last year, I even tried switching my seats to two that were on an end with no seats in front of us -- Section 139, last row, last two seats -- hoping it would be better. Alas, instead, everyone going up and down the aisle was in our way.

Anyway, more to the point: You illustrated that not much can be done, and I understand that. From the Pirates' point of view, they need people to buy tickets and eat concessions whether they are there for the game or the giveaway. But, in my opinion, several things could be done without going overboard: First, ushers could refuse to seat people during an inning, or at least not stand and wipe down the seats, etc. Second, they could repeat the announcement about waiting for inning breaks to leave or return to your seat later in the game. Currently, it is before the national anthem, when most of the "offenders" aren't in the ballpark yet. Third, if they can display text messages from (inebriated) fans along the facade of the ballpark, certainly they could display the "stay in your seats" message somewhere throughout the game. Any of these things would help keep the ballpark from looking like a Flomax commercial, even if you would always have some percentage of fans ignore all of this.

Also, a question for you: Is it like this at most other ballparks these days? My experiences in Toronto and Cleveland have been vastly different in terms of fans getting up and down, even though I didn't notice any additional efforts on behalf of the team.

Maybe it is a Burgh thing.

Chris Crowe of Greenfield, Pittsburgh

KOVACEVIC: The problem is not as evident in other parks, no. I heard from other readers on this topic, as well, including one who told me that the Seattle Mariners have a policy similar to the Tampa Bay one I described the other day, where the ushers hold stop signs atop the aisles to keep fans from going down the steps until a stoppage.

Is this a Pittsburgh thing?

That seems crazy to suggest when one considers that you are taking your life into your own hands by getting up during action at a Steelers or Penguins game. More likely, it is a byproduct of 15 years of thoroughly irrelevant baseball.

But it also has something to do, for sure, with the culture that is created at the ballpark. If the ushers find it acceptable to take people to their seats during action for the start of the game, if those ushers have no sense to discourage people from walking the aisles later in the game and, most important, if the Pirates' management takes no steps to address it, then all concerned are part of the lingering culture that accepts that the game being played is irrelevant.

Your story, Chris, mirrors one of my own: It was my second or third year as a full season-ticket holder at PNC -- back when I was covering hockey -- when I asked to be moved all the way to a completely remote section in left field. On the very end seats, just like you. Initially, I was told that the section was reserved nightly for groups, but the Pirates, apparently desperate for any 81-game plan they could get, relented and allowed me and my good friend to have two seats there.

I was well removed from the much closer seats I had before, but never did I enjoy watching baseball more than I did those two seasons. (Except when I had much better seats at Three Rivers, that were elevated and never allowed any humans or parrots to interfere with my sightline, but that is another story.)

---

Until tomorrow . . .