Conversation:
Me: The Boston Red Sox's number 1 through number 5 pitchers are all better than any of the Pittsburgh Pirates' starting pitchers.
Lapsed (due to horrific play) but Lifelong Baseball Fan: Even Snell? Didn't he have good statistics?
Me: The Red Sox pitchers won games.
Lapsed but Lifelong Baseball Fan: Well look who Snell pitched for and look who they pitched for.
Me: Snell's run support was, like, 80th, in the league, and that's counting the couple of games where the Pirates put up a lot of runs.
(Editor's Note: 80th was evidently hyperbole, but if you fuss with this page, you really can have quite a bit of fun. If combing through depressing stats during another playoff-free offseason is your thing, of course.)
Lapsed but Lifelong Baseball Fan: Seriously? All their pitchers are better than ours?
Me: (dubiously) Fine. I don't really follow the American League (editor's note: too many really good baseball teams tend to make me incredibly bitter), so I'll look up the 2007 statistics online.
Here is what I discovered, using only pretty "basic" statistics because I'm lazy:
Josh Beckett: Record: 20-7, ERA 3.27, K 194, BB 40 WHIP 1.14. BAA: .245 DIPS:3.04
Commentary: Yeah. To state the starkly obvious, the Pirates had no starting pitcher close to the statistics of the majors' only 20 game winner.
Curt Schilling: Record: 9-8 ERA: 3.87, K 101 BB 23 WHIP 1.25 BAA .275 DIPS:4.06
Commentary: While his statistics are obviously not as pristine as Beckett's, and although two starting Bucco pitchers (barely) bested him when it comes to ERA, look at the BB rate. Even missing time this season, Curt Schilling is still Curt freaking Schilling. Argue as an optimistic (or delusional, depending on one's perspective) hopeful might that you might want the upside of a young pitcher with room for growth, at this present moment and in another statement of the seriously obvious, there's no starting Bucco pitcher who'd be able to take a number 2 job off Curt Schilling.
Daisuke Matsuzaka: Record: 15-12, ERA: 4.40, K 201 BB 80 WHIP 1.32, BAA .246 DIPS: 4.09
Commentary: Lots of strikeouts, and too many walks. Speaking only in terms of statistics, his statistics seem somewhat equivalent to those of year-long Ian Snell or of Tom Gorzelanny prior to his final three starts. Snell and Gorzy both edged him in ERA, but Matsuzaka holds an advantage over both in K's and in BAA. Still, depending on the identity and composition of the opposing team, in something that sort of shocked me, you might have wanted to pick and choose among Matsuzaka, Snell, and Gorzy.
Tim Wakefield: W: 17-12, ERA: 4.76, K: 110 BB:64 WHIP:1.35, BAA:.264 DIPS: 4.61
Commentary: An ERA that eerily resembles Ian Snell's 2006 ERA. Still, the WHIP is basically a match of Snell's and the BAA is the same. Considering only two statistics, if you wanted an ERA a full run lower and more strikeouts, you wanted the 2007 Ian Snell over the 2007 Tim Wakefield. But if you're considering "crafty veteran" intangibles not possessed by most youthful Bucco players, Tim Wakefield's 2007 statistics indicate he still knew how to pitch this season.
So, there you have it. The best two pitchers for the Pittsburgh Pirates this season would have been, at best, the third and fourth starting pitchers for the 96-game winning Boston Red Sox. The Pirates' best two pitchers in 2007 would have been, most likely, at best, back-of-the-rotation starters for a team that wins 96 games. However, it's highly likely that Tom Gorzelanny would have won at least 15 games, and it's pretty likely Ian Snell would have finished with a win-loss record above .500.
Just for hilarity, let's look at run support in 2007:
Beckett: 6.59
Schilling: 4.29
Matsuzaka: 5.72
Wakefield: 5.76
I'll let you guess which Bucco pitcher averaged 4.02 run support per nine innings versus 5.40 run support per nine innings, figures which ranked 42nd out of 45 eligible NL pitchers and which ranked 17th of 45 eligible NL pitchers. (Hint: It has a lot to do with the won-loss disparity between the two pitchers, though it should also be noted that the bullpen was definitely not kind to the pitcher who, according to the statistics, received more run support, although the bullpen wasn't exactly kind to the other pitcher, either.)
As a blogger/writer, I know I'm supposed to wrap some "tidy bow" to summarize this piece, but really, there's not much of a summary I can offer.
Depressing: Two of the best players for the 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates, their 2 best starting pitchers, would not and should not be the best two starting pitchers for a team that wins 96 games, based on their 2007 performance, as indicated only by statistics sans won-loss records.
Theoretically Uplifting: Two of the best players on the 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates, their 2 best starting pitchers, could play a legitimate role, one that doesn't involve merely watching and cheering, on a team that wins 96 games.
Realistically: Two of the best performers for the 2007 Pirates are not what was wrong with the 2007 team. Provided that the twin miracles of good health and no regression occur, the 2 pitchers could (a huge could, given those two previous variables I have come to count as miracles when it comes to Pirate pitchers) improve upon statistically good seasons.
Anyhow, though, I just thought of this piece as an eye-opener: Look at the statistics of the Red Sox's top 2 pitchers and think about the progress that would have to be made by Pittsburgh's top 2 pitchers. Take a gander at the Red Sox's three and four guys and think about what would need to happen to pitchers assuming the 3 and 4 spots in the Pittsburgh rotation.
From the cold, hard perspective (note Schilling still managed a winning record, albeit barely, despite low run support), look at just how good the pitching really is for a team that wins 96 games.
As for hitting? Not even going there. At least not until it comes time for "player profiles" and answering that dreaded but enlightening question of "What role would such a player, statistically speaking, have on a team that wins 90 games?"
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
A Different Form of Post Season Analysis
Among other things that I haven't yet gotten around to writing (preoccupation with other things) are after-the-season analysis of the play of various Pittsburgh Pirates.
When I actually bother to do this, I want to frame my analysis in a slightly different way.
1. Statistics. The "old-school" statistics and some modern sabermetric statistics will be posted to view actual performance in 2007 (and in some cases, prior seasons, for track record purposes).
2. The question that I want to answer: What role would a player at this position, with this statistical line, have on a team that wins 90 games? (I realize that there were two NL playoff teams that didn't win 90 games this season; still, I want to examine what role such a player would have on one of the teams that wins 90 games.) There are two purposes for asking such a question. First, one can realize the harsh (but of course known) truth that most Bucco players wouldn't have a role to play on a team that wins 90 games. Secondarily, however, one can see the value of such a player to a team that wants to win 90 games. And if the Buccos are considering trading some of their more established talent, seeing the value of a great #6 or #7 hitter, a specialist reliever, or a solid mid-to-back-of-the-rotation pitcher to a 90-game winning team helps you to "price" your own player in such a way that you know his worth to a club that earns 90 victories and thus have a concept of the return that must be expected for such a player.
3. Conjecture. Conjecture is what a blog is all about, right? In any case, conjecture might look at past performance or projected future performance. Will a player's value decrease or increase? How will such an increase or decrease in a player's value determine if you should "sell high" or "hold" the player? And, of course, given the title of this section, you can expect to read about "intangibles" or even "favorite player" affectations because, hey, that's part of what conjecture is.
For example, let's take this player (not a Pirate, as the statistical line will soon make obvious):
1. G:34 IP:241.0 H:238 ER:94 HR:20 BB:37 SO:209 W:19 L:7
WHIP: 1.14 BAA: .259 OBP: .292 SLG: .392 OPS: .682
ERA: 3.21 K/BB: 5.65 K/9: 7.81 FIP: 3.27 VORP: 65.2 PRC: 128
2. He was an ace for a team that won 96 games and won their division. A preseason fantasy outlook had him primed for a "career year," and lo and behold, take a gander at the above statistics. He is the number 1 starter for a team that wins 90 games unless that team is blessed with another pitcher who possesses the same superb strikeout, walk, and WHIP rates, and then that team has two legitimate number 1 pitchers.
3. He's definitely enjoyed a "career" year this season, but he's still only 26 and primed for several more "career" years. For pitching like this, you gladly pay $8,750,000 a year, his salary in 2007. And since this is the conjecture section, his stuff is beheld with the eyes to be dynamite, and he's pure pleasure to watch on the mound.
Oh, the player in question is 26-year-old CC Sabathia, who lost Game 1 to the the Boston Red Sox tonight and whose stuff--even in the midst of the loss--still made me drool. I figured I'd give Bucco fans a chance to see the analysis and outlook for a legitimate big-time, big league star.
I've been tossing around what these pieces will look like in my head, and I have an idea: the non-2007 version of Jason Bay can start for a team that wins 90 games, a few other position players have various different roles to play on 90 game winning teams (not the roles for which they're slated on the Pirates) and perhaps 3 or 4 pitchers could find a place on a team that wins 90 games.
But it's all about proper value, and the question I'm most curious about is the one that will sting the most, but is most necessary to examine, and that's the question so absurd that non-Bucco fans reading this blog are probably working hard to refrain from too much uproarious laughter: What role would this ballplayer, based on performance alone, have on a major league baseball team that wins 90 games?
It should be interesting to consider, that's all.
When I actually bother to do this, I want to frame my analysis in a slightly different way.
1. Statistics. The "old-school" statistics and some modern sabermetric statistics will be posted to view actual performance in 2007 (and in some cases, prior seasons, for track record purposes).
2. The question that I want to answer: What role would a player at this position, with this statistical line, have on a team that wins 90 games? (I realize that there were two NL playoff teams that didn't win 90 games this season; still, I want to examine what role such a player would have on one of the teams that wins 90 games.) There are two purposes for asking such a question. First, one can realize the harsh (but of course known) truth that most Bucco players wouldn't have a role to play on a team that wins 90 games. Secondarily, however, one can see the value of such a player to a team that wants to win 90 games. And if the Buccos are considering trading some of their more established talent, seeing the value of a great #6 or #7 hitter, a specialist reliever, or a solid mid-to-back-of-the-rotation pitcher to a 90-game winning team helps you to "price" your own player in such a way that you know his worth to a club that earns 90 victories and thus have a concept of the return that must be expected for such a player.
3. Conjecture. Conjecture is what a blog is all about, right? In any case, conjecture might look at past performance or projected future performance. Will a player's value decrease or increase? How will such an increase or decrease in a player's value determine if you should "sell high" or "hold" the player? And, of course, given the title of this section, you can expect to read about "intangibles" or even "favorite player" affectations because, hey, that's part of what conjecture is.
For example, let's take this player (not a Pirate, as the statistical line will soon make obvious):
1. G:34 IP:241.0 H:238 ER:94 HR:20 BB:37 SO:209 W:19 L:7
WHIP: 1.14 BAA: .259 OBP: .292 SLG: .392 OPS: .682
ERA: 3.21 K/BB: 5.65 K/9: 7.81 FIP: 3.27 VORP: 65.2 PRC: 128
2. He was an ace for a team that won 96 games and won their division. A preseason fantasy outlook had him primed for a "career year," and lo and behold, take a gander at the above statistics. He is the number 1 starter for a team that wins 90 games unless that team is blessed with another pitcher who possesses the same superb strikeout, walk, and WHIP rates, and then that team has two legitimate number 1 pitchers.
3. He's definitely enjoyed a "career" year this season, but he's still only 26 and primed for several more "career" years. For pitching like this, you gladly pay $8,750,000 a year, his salary in 2007. And since this is the conjecture section, his stuff is beheld with the eyes to be dynamite, and he's pure pleasure to watch on the mound.
Oh, the player in question is 26-year-old CC Sabathia, who lost Game 1 to the the Boston Red Sox tonight and whose stuff--even in the midst of the loss--still made me drool. I figured I'd give Bucco fans a chance to see the analysis and outlook for a legitimate big-time, big league star.
I've been tossing around what these pieces will look like in my head, and I have an idea: the non-2007 version of Jason Bay can start for a team that wins 90 games, a few other position players have various different roles to play on 90 game winning teams (not the roles for which they're slated on the Pirates) and perhaps 3 or 4 pitchers could find a place on a team that wins 90 games.
But it's all about proper value, and the question I'm most curious about is the one that will sting the most, but is most necessary to examine, and that's the question so absurd that non-Bucco fans reading this blog are probably working hard to refrain from too much uproarious laughter: What role would this ballplayer, based on performance alone, have on a major league baseball team that wins 90 games?
It should be interesting to consider, that's all.
In Search of an Authoritative Manager
Since other things have been preoccupying me lately, I've offered no commentary about recent Bucco happenings that pleased me. The total housecleaning that rid the Pirates of Creech and Graham, in addition to this year's coaching staff, was something that had to happen. And for once, something that had to happen actually happened.
Which brings me to the start of another Bucco offseason. The baseball playoffs are underway which of course means the Pittsburgh Pirates are no longer playing baseball. In addition to hiring a new scouting director and director of player development, the Buccos will need a new skipper for next year. Since several other blogs love to speculate about various candidates (and believe me, I enjoy reading all that speculation) for the vacant Pittsburgh managerial position, I thought rather than list names of potential candidates, I'd list the qualities I see as crucial for the next manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates to possess.
Allow me to begin with yet another teaching analogy (three years spent in a middle school classroom will do this to you, be forewarned). As a teacher, I learned about four different types of "classroom management" profiles. A teacher who profiles as "laissez-faire" is a teacher who places few "demands or controls" students and is more concerned for their emotional well-being than being concerned that they learn anything. An "indifferent" teacher places few demands on students and thus the classroom lacks discipline. An "indifferent" teacher is also generally disinterested, and rarely puts any time into preparing lessons for the class, and students can sense their teacher's indifference. Just as "laissez-faire" and "indifferent" were definitely not the profiles to achieve success in a classroom of children, so too did Jim Tracy's managing style, what I believe to be a hybrid of "laissez-faire" and "indifferent," was not a way to achieve success with a fairly young and inexperienced team.
However, based on the blogs I regularly read, I believe some Bucco fans are mistakenly screaming for Tracy's antithesis--which would be an "authoritarian" manager. In education, an "authoritarian" teacher is described as one who places "firm controls and limits" on students (which, admittedly, sounds pretty good, especially if a classroom lacks discipline in the first place). Yet an "authoritarian" teacher is also one who expects swift obedience without explaining the rationale behind decisions, allows no room for communication, and gives no indication of caring about the students they teach. Given the past two years under Jim Tracy's at best laissez-faire and at worst indifferent management style, it is understandable why some Bucco fans are yearning for an authoritarian manager who will crack a whip and constantly hold players accountable.
Except--here's the thing. Both students and baseball players can be held accountable with reasonable discipline. While reasonable discipline might involve cracking an occasional whip, in the classroom, an "authoritative" teacher is the one who firmly establishes expectations and consequences for the failure to meet those expectations while also clearly communicating the rationale behind those expectations and consequences. An "authoritative" teacher shows their care for students by clearly communicating to students when expectations have been exceeded or reached and remains in clear communication when expectations are not being reached. In the vast majority of American classrooms, an "authoritative" teacher is the type of instructor most likely to get the best results in terms of classroom culture and student achievement.
While I understand the thirst for an authoritarian figure who will show his "passion" by losing his temper, getting into fights, and publicly calling out every player who fails to meet expectations, the Buccos do not need an authoritarian manager. The Pirates need an authoritative manager. The Pirates will need an authoritative manager regardless of whether the team trades a few high profile players this offseason or if the team remains pretty much the same.
Why do the Pirates require an authoritative manager? If the team is going to trade away any assets this offseason, a "rebuilding" phase will occur. A "rebuilding" team--e.g. a young and inexperienced one--will need a manager who can hold players accountable while also clearly communicating with them. An authoritarian manager who may occasionally excite the players will also frustrate young and inexperienced players due to a lack of communication skills. In order for young and inexperienced players to improve, they need to be managed and coached in such a way that they know what they need to improve and how they can improve. A passionate, fiery authoritarian manager may rouse one player from his doldrums, but overall, such an authoritarian manager would likely do more harm than good due to an inability to communicate clearly with, and thus coach, the majority of the team's players.
While I pay little heed to the sparkling and lengthy adverbs with which the new Bucco general manager continually peppers his speech (readers of this blog know Mr. Huntington and I are probably a little similar, verbiage wise), I will break down what Mr. Huntington should be looking for in a manager in one word: Authoritative. Authoritative enough to be able to hold his players accountable for their conduct on and off the field. Authoritative enough to be able to communicate clearly with every player on the team, which means learning that one motivation method (a public call out) may work great for one player but that another motivation method (a more private rebuke) is necessary for another player. Authoritative enough to lead a major league team and authoritative enough to allow players to assume leadership responsibilities at the right time. Authoritative enough to respond to progressions, setbacks, regressions, wins, and losses, with the right combination of rationality and emotion. Authoritative enough to demonstrate to his players his care by thorough preparation for spring training and games and authoritative enough to demand his players continuously prepare themselves in the same professional manner. Authoritative enough to demand the bottom line results in terms of winning games and yet be able to work out all the steps, good and bad, that will help a club become a winning baseball team.
With that being said, what would my short list for an "authoritative" manager resemble?
1. I want a manager. I want someone with managerial (but not necessarily major league) managerial experience. While I'm sure there are successful first-time managers who don't make the mistakes of going too authoritarian or too laissez-faire to compensate for their inexperience, I don't want to take the unnecessary risk of entrusting a young and inexperienced team to a person who's inexperienced in management. Management is different than coaching third base, and I want to hire a manager who has a track record of success in his role as a manager of a baseball team.
2. I do not want authoritarian, laissez-faire, or indifferent managers, no matter how successful the big-league or minor-league teams they previously managed were. An authoritarian figure who can't communicate and lacks coaching and tactical skills will not help young players learn how to improve. A laissez-faire manager could work quite well on a veteran team full of very good to great players, but a laissez-faire manager is not going to fly with a young and inexperienced team. The Pirates need to find a manager who's experienced success using an authoritative style--clear communication, clear instruction, and clear accountability.
3. Someone who is passionate and who cares. And yes, an authoritative manager can be someone who is passionate and who cares--and that might mean there are very specific occasions, rather than weekly or daily occasions, when he finds himself raising his voice.
Given this list, you can probably guess what I don't want:
1. Passionate, emotional men who played the game but don't have a clue how to communicate with the current generation of players, have no tactical knowledge of how to manage games, and have no instructional skills. A complete lack of communication skills and basic intelligence are also, obviously, not desirable traits.
2. Experienced coaches with a track record of success gained through managing teams very different than will be the 2008 Pirates.
Clearing Up Any Confusion:
1. Passion and emotion are necessary, but the next manager must apply his passion and emotion in the right directions--in clearly communicating his expectations to his players, ensuring his coaching staff provides the proper preseason and in-season instruction to meet those expectations, and demanding accountability while also holding himself accountable for preparation--rather than applying his passion and emotion to showcasing how passionate and emotional he is and only being Jim Tracy's antithesis in personality but not in terms of bottom-line results.
2. Basically speaking, the Pirates are still going to have a fairly young pitching staff next season. Outside of a few arbitration eligible players, the Pirates are going to have several players still making entry-level salaries next season. When thinking about a manager, you have to have a manager who will be able to push the right buttons to help a young starting pitcher achieve consistency and to help a position player avoid defensive mental lapses. You have to have a manager with the sense to know the appropriate time to give a pitcher the hook, and you must have a manager who has the right combination of patience, impatience, accountability, high standards--to have the sense to bench a player or allow him to work out of his slump and to give a pitcher the freedom to respond to a poor outing with a good one. You have to have a manager who can communicate with his team and reach his team and teach his team and lead his team. You have to have a manager who can know his players and a manager whom the inexperienced players will respect and heed.
So, without any name-dropping, the one attribute that stands out, above all else, when it comes to next season's manager, is that he must be authoritative.
Get an authoritative manager, and, hopefully, that hire will eventually demonstrate why the "authoritative" style is often regarded as the best of all management styles.
Which brings me to the start of another Bucco offseason. The baseball playoffs are underway which of course means the Pittsburgh Pirates are no longer playing baseball. In addition to hiring a new scouting director and director of player development, the Buccos will need a new skipper for next year. Since several other blogs love to speculate about various candidates (and believe me, I enjoy reading all that speculation) for the vacant Pittsburgh managerial position, I thought rather than list names of potential candidates, I'd list the qualities I see as crucial for the next manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates to possess.
Allow me to begin with yet another teaching analogy (three years spent in a middle school classroom will do this to you, be forewarned). As a teacher, I learned about four different types of "classroom management" profiles. A teacher who profiles as "laissez-faire" is a teacher who places few "demands or controls" students and is more concerned for their emotional well-being than being concerned that they learn anything. An "indifferent" teacher places few demands on students and thus the classroom lacks discipline. An "indifferent" teacher is also generally disinterested, and rarely puts any time into preparing lessons for the class, and students can sense their teacher's indifference. Just as "laissez-faire" and "indifferent" were definitely not the profiles to achieve success in a classroom of children, so too did Jim Tracy's managing style, what I believe to be a hybrid of "laissez-faire" and "indifferent," was not a way to achieve success with a fairly young and inexperienced team.
However, based on the blogs I regularly read, I believe some Bucco fans are mistakenly screaming for Tracy's antithesis--which would be an "authoritarian" manager. In education, an "authoritarian" teacher is described as one who places "firm controls and limits" on students (which, admittedly, sounds pretty good, especially if a classroom lacks discipline in the first place). Yet an "authoritarian" teacher is also one who expects swift obedience without explaining the rationale behind decisions, allows no room for communication, and gives no indication of caring about the students they teach. Given the past two years under Jim Tracy's at best laissez-faire and at worst indifferent management style, it is understandable why some Bucco fans are yearning for an authoritarian manager who will crack a whip and constantly hold players accountable.
Except--here's the thing. Both students and baseball players can be held accountable with reasonable discipline. While reasonable discipline might involve cracking an occasional whip, in the classroom, an "authoritative" teacher is the one who firmly establishes expectations and consequences for the failure to meet those expectations while also clearly communicating the rationale behind those expectations and consequences. An "authoritative" teacher shows their care for students by clearly communicating to students when expectations have been exceeded or reached and remains in clear communication when expectations are not being reached. In the vast majority of American classrooms, an "authoritative" teacher is the type of instructor most likely to get the best results in terms of classroom culture and student achievement.
While I understand the thirst for an authoritarian figure who will show his "passion" by losing his temper, getting into fights, and publicly calling out every player who fails to meet expectations, the Buccos do not need an authoritarian manager. The Pirates need an authoritative manager. The Pirates will need an authoritative manager regardless of whether the team trades a few high profile players this offseason or if the team remains pretty much the same.
Why do the Pirates require an authoritative manager? If the team is going to trade away any assets this offseason, a "rebuilding" phase will occur. A "rebuilding" team--e.g. a young and inexperienced one--will need a manager who can hold players accountable while also clearly communicating with them. An authoritarian manager who may occasionally excite the players will also frustrate young and inexperienced players due to a lack of communication skills. In order for young and inexperienced players to improve, they need to be managed and coached in such a way that they know what they need to improve and how they can improve. A passionate, fiery authoritarian manager may rouse one player from his doldrums, but overall, such an authoritarian manager would likely do more harm than good due to an inability to communicate clearly with, and thus coach, the majority of the team's players.
While I pay little heed to the sparkling and lengthy adverbs with which the new Bucco general manager continually peppers his speech (readers of this blog know Mr. Huntington and I are probably a little similar, verbiage wise), I will break down what Mr. Huntington should be looking for in a manager in one word: Authoritative. Authoritative enough to be able to hold his players accountable for their conduct on and off the field. Authoritative enough to be able to communicate clearly with every player on the team, which means learning that one motivation method (a public call out) may work great for one player but that another motivation method (a more private rebuke) is necessary for another player. Authoritative enough to lead a major league team and authoritative enough to allow players to assume leadership responsibilities at the right time. Authoritative enough to respond to progressions, setbacks, regressions, wins, and losses, with the right combination of rationality and emotion. Authoritative enough to demonstrate to his players his care by thorough preparation for spring training and games and authoritative enough to demand his players continuously prepare themselves in the same professional manner. Authoritative enough to demand the bottom line results in terms of winning games and yet be able to work out all the steps, good and bad, that will help a club become a winning baseball team.
With that being said, what would my short list for an "authoritative" manager resemble?
1. I want a manager. I want someone with managerial (but not necessarily major league) managerial experience. While I'm sure there are successful first-time managers who don't make the mistakes of going too authoritarian or too laissez-faire to compensate for their inexperience, I don't want to take the unnecessary risk of entrusting a young and inexperienced team to a person who's inexperienced in management. Management is different than coaching third base, and I want to hire a manager who has a track record of success in his role as a manager of a baseball team.
2. I do not want authoritarian, laissez-faire, or indifferent managers, no matter how successful the big-league or minor-league teams they previously managed were. An authoritarian figure who can't communicate and lacks coaching and tactical skills will not help young players learn how to improve. A laissez-faire manager could work quite well on a veteran team full of very good to great players, but a laissez-faire manager is not going to fly with a young and inexperienced team. The Pirates need to find a manager who's experienced success using an authoritative style--clear communication, clear instruction, and clear accountability.
3. Someone who is passionate and who cares. And yes, an authoritative manager can be someone who is passionate and who cares--and that might mean there are very specific occasions, rather than weekly or daily occasions, when he finds himself raising his voice.
Given this list, you can probably guess what I don't want:
1. Passionate, emotional men who played the game but don't have a clue how to communicate with the current generation of players, have no tactical knowledge of how to manage games, and have no instructional skills. A complete lack of communication skills and basic intelligence are also, obviously, not desirable traits.
2. Experienced coaches with a track record of success gained through managing teams very different than will be the 2008 Pirates.
Clearing Up Any Confusion:
1. Passion and emotion are necessary, but the next manager must apply his passion and emotion in the right directions--in clearly communicating his expectations to his players, ensuring his coaching staff provides the proper preseason and in-season instruction to meet those expectations, and demanding accountability while also holding himself accountable for preparation--rather than applying his passion and emotion to showcasing how passionate and emotional he is and only being Jim Tracy's antithesis in personality but not in terms of bottom-line results.
2. Basically speaking, the Pirates are still going to have a fairly young pitching staff next season. Outside of a few arbitration eligible players, the Pirates are going to have several players still making entry-level salaries next season. When thinking about a manager, you have to have a manager who will be able to push the right buttons to help a young starting pitcher achieve consistency and to help a position player avoid defensive mental lapses. You have to have a manager with the sense to know the appropriate time to give a pitcher the hook, and you must have a manager who has the right combination of patience, impatience, accountability, high standards--to have the sense to bench a player or allow him to work out of his slump and to give a pitcher the freedom to respond to a poor outing with a good one. You have to have a manager who can communicate with his team and reach his team and teach his team and lead his team. You have to have a manager who can know his players and a manager whom the inexperienced players will respect and heed.
So, without any name-dropping, the one attribute that stands out, above all else, when it comes to next season's manager, is that he must be authoritative.
Get an authoritative manager, and, hopefully, that hire will eventually demonstrate why the "authoritative" style is often regarded as the best of all management styles.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
What?
Recapping/analyzing/ranting about Bucco games of late has been exasperating. Who wants to write about tired pitchers not pitching well, or mental errors of fatigue being made, or a nine game losing streak? Even when the opportunity finally arises to write about a win, I find myself irritated that the bullpen couldn't hold a four run lead to get Ian Snell his tenth win of the season. At some point in time, I mean, come on and get something right aside from the lovely after-game quote of, "All that matters is we won." But hey, at least the Buccos won a game after dropping nine in a row.
Which brings me to the game that's being played as I've been blogging--with one eye on the game and one on the computer screen (the joys of multi-tasking). Matt Morris is on what has been a successful mission to lower his ERA below 5.00, and the Pirates have somehow scored five runs without the presence of the team's two most recent All-Star selections. Apparently the Pirates enjoy playing spoiler, though I'm still watching with my usual cynical eye, wondering how Mr. Tracy/the bullpen/the defense/various mitigating factors will allow the Buccos to blow another 5-1 lead.
Mr. Torres is in the game, it's the eighth inning, and it's the Pirates. But, you know, may as well watch. Who knows what can happen?
Oh, dear, a walk.
And because I can, 2007 season statistics:
Matt Morris: 4.89 ERA, 102 K's, 61 BB's, 1.54 WHIP
Ian Snell: 3.76 ERA, 177 K's, 68 BB's, 1.33 WHIP
I'll never root for my team to lose, I am glad the Pirates are in a position to win this game, but something is clearly off if Matt Morris finishes this season with more wins than Ian Snell. That is all.
And Torres got out of that jam. I reiterate, I'm not looking for my team to lose, and playing spoiler is a heck of a lot better than losing 15 straight games to end the season (really, we'll get a high enough draft pick as it is), but those statistics above exemplify why---
Never mind. Must. Stop. Blogging. Talking. Ranting.
Oh, and seriously, Mr. Morris? 2 for 3 at the plate, 7 strikeouts, and no walks? You seem like a great, affable guy, so if you want to perform like that all of next year, well, you know, maybe I can let my mind wander to wishes coming true over the winter. Just for fun.
Which brings me to the game that's being played as I've been blogging--with one eye on the game and one on the computer screen (the joys of multi-tasking). Matt Morris is on what has been a successful mission to lower his ERA below 5.00, and the Pirates have somehow scored five runs without the presence of the team's two most recent All-Star selections. Apparently the Pirates enjoy playing spoiler, though I'm still watching with my usual cynical eye, wondering how Mr. Tracy/the bullpen/the defense/various mitigating factors will allow the Buccos to blow another 5-1 lead.
Mr. Torres is in the game, it's the eighth inning, and it's the Pirates. But, you know, may as well watch. Who knows what can happen?
Oh, dear, a walk.
And because I can, 2007 season statistics:
Matt Morris: 4.89 ERA, 102 K's, 61 BB's, 1.54 WHIP
Ian Snell: 3.76 ERA, 177 K's, 68 BB's, 1.33 WHIP
I'll never root for my team to lose, I am glad the Pirates are in a position to win this game, but something is clearly off if Matt Morris finishes this season with more wins than Ian Snell. That is all.
And Torres got out of that jam. I reiterate, I'm not looking for my team to lose, and playing spoiler is a heck of a lot better than losing 15 straight games to end the season (really, we'll get a high enough draft pick as it is), but those statistics above exemplify why---
Never mind. Must. Stop. Blogging. Talking. Ranting.
Oh, and seriously, Mr. Morris? 2 for 3 at the plate, 7 strikeouts, and no walks? You seem like a great, affable guy, so if you want to perform like that all of next year, well, you know, maybe I can let my mind wander to wishes coming true over the winter. Just for fun.
Medical Sanity?
Among interesting notes:
--Jason Bay won't start again this season. He probably shouldn't have been playing when he was playing, but still, I take this as good news in that the Pirates are actually not forcing an injured player to play.
--Ian Snell won't make his final start. Given Snell's comments last week about his arm being "kind of sore," after a 92 pitch seven inning gem, I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. While I still think Snell could've used a better choice of words when he stated that someone else could have his final start, "between the lines" of his comments I read a pitcher's desire to protect his most valuable asset--his arm. Really, far better to veer on the side of caution than risk--I'm glad Snell won't be pitching this weekend.
--The Pirates came to their senses and shut down Paul Maholm for the season. They probably should have done this prior to his last two starts (as something clearly wasn't right, and unfortunately, those two awful starts completely and unfortunately screwed with his final statistics for the season).
--While I screamed last night (okay, not exactly, as I don't really scream at a team that's out of contention for anything but the first overall draft pick) when Jim Tracy replaced Freddy Sanchez with Jose Castillo, Sanchez is another player who, if injured, as he appears to be, doesn't need to be playing. Get him healthy.
Perhaps there is no change:
--Gorzelanny was understandably unhappy about his last two starts and wants to win his fifteenth game of the season. All right, fine and dandy, and very understandable. I admire the competitive drive, I really, really love the "I will win and we will win" mentality, and maybe it doesn't matter if he pitches another five or six innings given he's already so far over his previous career high in terms of innings pitched at this point anyway.
But...you had to sense a but, right? But--really--if we're doing things properly in terms of research, do we really need to add unnecessary risk of injury?
At this juncture, of course, I say, let him go for 15 because he deserves to finish a season that's been excellent on a high note. But I also say: next season, let's take the more sensible path with our most valuable players before it reaches the point where research shows you're risking a potential downturn in performance or a greater risk of injury.
In conclusion: In the midst of chatting up the Bucco TV announcers, the new GM spoke of making decisions about obtaining and signing players based on medical tests. Given recent history, the new GM might be advised to consider seriously upgrading the quality of the team's medical staff--and putting systems in place to prevent medical problems before those problems actually occur. Here's to hoping the common sense to shut down injured players prevails throughout the organization in terms of providing players and prospects with everything necessary to maintain good health and to prevent unnecessary problems while providing immediate and prompt treatment for any problems that do occur.
Medical sanity is something the PBC organization could surely use in large, large doses, and a hat tip to the new CEO and GM if an imposition of medical sanity is one of the improvements they strive to put in place by the end of this season and have revamped by the start of next season.
--Jason Bay won't start again this season. He probably shouldn't have been playing when he was playing, but still, I take this as good news in that the Pirates are actually not forcing an injured player to play.
--Ian Snell won't make his final start. Given Snell's comments last week about his arm being "kind of sore," after a 92 pitch seven inning gem, I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. While I still think Snell could've used a better choice of words when he stated that someone else could have his final start, "between the lines" of his comments I read a pitcher's desire to protect his most valuable asset--his arm. Really, far better to veer on the side of caution than risk--I'm glad Snell won't be pitching this weekend.
--The Pirates came to their senses and shut down Paul Maholm for the season. They probably should have done this prior to his last two starts (as something clearly wasn't right, and unfortunately, those two awful starts completely and unfortunately screwed with his final statistics for the season).
--While I screamed last night (okay, not exactly, as I don't really scream at a team that's out of contention for anything but the first overall draft pick) when Jim Tracy replaced Freddy Sanchez with Jose Castillo, Sanchez is another player who, if injured, as he appears to be, doesn't need to be playing. Get him healthy.
Perhaps there is no change:
--Gorzelanny was understandably unhappy about his last two starts and wants to win his fifteenth game of the season. All right, fine and dandy, and very understandable. I admire the competitive drive, I really, really love the "I will win and we will win" mentality, and maybe it doesn't matter if he pitches another five or six innings given he's already so far over his previous career high in terms of innings pitched at this point anyway.
But...you had to sense a but, right? But--really--if we're doing things properly in terms of research, do we really need to add unnecessary risk of injury?
At this juncture, of course, I say, let him go for 15 because he deserves to finish a season that's been excellent on a high note. But I also say: next season, let's take the more sensible path with our most valuable players before it reaches the point where research shows you're risking a potential downturn in performance or a greater risk of injury.
In conclusion: In the midst of chatting up the Bucco TV announcers, the new GM spoke of making decisions about obtaining and signing players based on medical tests. Given recent history, the new GM might be advised to consider seriously upgrading the quality of the team's medical staff--and putting systems in place to prevent medical problems before those problems actually occur. Here's to hoping the common sense to shut down injured players prevails throughout the organization in terms of providing players and prospects with everything necessary to maintain good health and to prevent unnecessary problems while providing immediate and prompt treatment for any problems that do occur.
Medical sanity is something the PBC organization could surely use in large, large doses, and a hat tip to the new CEO and GM if an imposition of medical sanity is one of the improvements they strive to put in place by the end of this season and have revamped by the start of next season.
The Only Way to Win...Starting Pitchers Must Exceed Expectations
The Pirates will finish the 2007 season in much the same way they finished the previous fourteen seasons: with yet another losing record. This season's ineptitude, however, prompted change in the form of a new CEO and a new general manager. And while I have no idea what changes to expect or anticipate in terms of the major league club in 2008, I do have the same difficult thought I had prior to the start of the 2007 season.
I don't care who the CEO is. I don't care who the general manager is. I don't care who the manager is. (Okay, actually, none of those statements are really true, as I think all of those people are critically important.) But in terms of on-field success for the 2008 Pittsburgh Pirates, allow me to say that I agree with the new general manager's view about how a team constructed as next year's big league Buccos probably will be can achieve "success." (For this team, please note that "success" could be taking a step in the right direction by achieving mediocrity, and depending on how other NL Central teams improve or regress, mediocrity could mean pennant contention for a few months of the season). The new GM says the players on the team have to "exceed expectations."
Allow me to get specific. There is no way the 2008 Pirates sniff mediocrity unless four of their starting pitchers manage to win at least 15 games and a fifth starter, or two or three guys who combine as a fifth starter, have at least ten wins by season's end.
Say what? Wouldn't that mean the Pirates would have one of the best rotations in the National League? Yes.
There's no other way the Pirates could sniff mediocrity? Sure. Snark alert: They could sign A-Rod for a $80 million two year deal and sell him off for prospects in the middle of the second year. False reality check: Even with A-Rod in the middle of the line-up, the Pirates still require 3 fifteen game winners and 2 ten game winners. Serious reality check: Even in my ridiculous sarcastic world of snark, there's no way the Pirates sign a coveted, above-average pricey free agent this summer, let alone the best player in baseball, not that any of those players would want to sign with the Pirates, anyway, making that whole issue moot until the team wins. The team's only hope for climbing to .500 is to get excellent starting pitching.
Which, of course, prompts the question no one wants to answer. Do the Pirates possess even a snowball's chance of having 4 fifteen game winners?
The sunny-side-up optimist: Sure. Gorzy pitches like he pitched for most of this season and gets slightly more run support. Snell dominates like he did for the first half of the 2007 season and is consistently strong throughout the entire season while also getting better run support than he got in the early half of the 2007 season. Maholm finds the niche he found post All-Star break this season and pitches like that for all of next season. Zach Duke recaptures his pristine rookie form or Matt Morris reverts to being the 20 game winning Matt Morris.
The negative cynical realistic pessimist: No, no way. Haven't we tried this in the past to no avail? Gorzy's way over his prior career high in innings pitched, so he's due for either an injury or a downturn. Snell's over his previous career high in innings pitched, too, and couldn't pitching so many innings this season hinder his ability to make progress in giving up fewer hits and keeping the ball in the park as he did for part of the 2007 season? Maholm--who knows about the bad back, and don't pitchers like him always get off to slow starts? Can we just admit Zach Duke was probably just a flash in the pan and that Matt Morris will go down as David Littlefield's worst acquisition? Can we realize that expecting four of those five guys to win fifteen games is utter, complete insanity and face cold, harsh reality?
The moderate, reasonable view: Are these pitchers, especially the ones who've pitched a lot of innings, going to stay healthy? Are the ones who showed growth this season going to be healthy enough to show growth next season? Will they have the proper relationship with their coaches to make progress? Doesn't history--and not just Bucco history--tell us that it's highly unlikely for everything to go swimmingly for every pitcher at once? Forget insanity and forget stupidity, but isn't it just plainly ignorant, in the sense of lacking knowledge, to assume that 4 of 5 of the starting pitchers can win fifteen games when pitching for a team that finished the previous season as one of the worst in the majors?
I still don't see how the Pirates come close to a .500 record without having 4 of their starting pitchers each win at least 15 games. The Bucco offense scored runs in August and could be less inept than it was in the first half of the season, but it will never be mistaken for a powerhouse. The Pirates need to have four starting pitchers go for at least 200 innings and each win an average of fifteen games (and seventeen and eighteen would be far better than fifteen). Which, of course, brings me to this:
What I Wish For: Gorzy shows no aftereffects of pitching more than 40 innings over his previous career total and picks up right where he left off this season while becoming a legitimate number 1 pitcher. Several people combine to motivate Ian Snell properly by telling him they don't believe he can have a WHIP below 1.20, an ERA under 3, and get 200 strikeouts over the course of a full season, and Snell, also showing no aftereffects of throwing 200 innings for the first time in his career this season, sets about proving a new chorus of naysayers wrong by earning NL top ten WHIP and ERA rates and climbing from top 10 to top 5 in NL strikeouts. Zach Duke and Paul Maholm do what they did so effectively their rookie seasons--pitch lots of innings, get outs, and win many games while having above-average pitching statistics. Matt Morris is a stabilizing and experienced fifth starter who always keeps the team in a game while maintaining at least league average statistics. (I'm also not that particular about who does what, providing at least 4 of the starting pitchers--even if it's someone not named--manage to win at least 15 games.)
The Problem with my Wishes: Aside from being dependent on lots of variables--effective coaching, proper relationships to coaches, health, etc, that is really, really, a lot to demand of any starting rotation.
For this Bucco fan, however, pitching remains fundamental. If the Buccos, somehow, someway, brought 75% of my wishes to life, I might see my team sniffing a .500 record. 80% to 90% of my wishes, and we're talking seriously "exceeding expectations" and about a record, given league-average play in other capacities, that catapult the team from mediocrity to a winning record.
But less than 70% of those wishes fulfilled? Even 60% fulfilled? Much as I hate to say it, even with 60% of those wishes fulfilled, you're probably still looking at a sub .500 record, albeit one probably far closer to .500 than the Pirates have sniffed in quite a long time.
As for 50% or less than 50% of my wishes coming true? Well, I'm not talking about that yet, but suffice to say, such a "come true" rate for my wishes is not likely to result even in mediocrity, let alone a winning season.
High expectations? Unreasonable expectations? Completely inane, outlandish expectations? Well--I'm not calling them expectations; I'm calling them wishes, and there's a difference.
But when the time comes to figure out how the Pirates will ever finish 81-81 or 82-80 or somewhere above that level, the truth remains: Pitching is fundamental. And when the pitchers fundamentally achieve above and beyond expectations, along with the rest of the team meeting expectations for league average MLB play, that's when I expect the Pirates to be a team that wins more games than they lose.
Here's to wishing/dreaming that a profound affectation of "exceeding expectations," for the sake of of both players who want to win and fans who are sick of losing, strikes the entire Pittsburgh starting rotation throughout the course of the 2008 baseball season.
I don't care who the CEO is. I don't care who the general manager is. I don't care who the manager is. (Okay, actually, none of those statements are really true, as I think all of those people are critically important.) But in terms of on-field success for the 2008 Pittsburgh Pirates, allow me to say that I agree with the new general manager's view about how a team constructed as next year's big league Buccos probably will be can achieve "success." (For this team, please note that "success" could be taking a step in the right direction by achieving mediocrity, and depending on how other NL Central teams improve or regress, mediocrity could mean pennant contention for a few months of the season). The new GM says the players on the team have to "exceed expectations."
Allow me to get specific. There is no way the 2008 Pirates sniff mediocrity unless four of their starting pitchers manage to win at least 15 games and a fifth starter, or two or three guys who combine as a fifth starter, have at least ten wins by season's end.
Say what? Wouldn't that mean the Pirates would have one of the best rotations in the National League? Yes.
There's no other way the Pirates could sniff mediocrity? Sure. Snark alert: They could sign A-Rod for a $80 million two year deal and sell him off for prospects in the middle of the second year. False reality check: Even with A-Rod in the middle of the line-up, the Pirates still require 3 fifteen game winners and 2 ten game winners. Serious reality check: Even in my ridiculous sarcastic world of snark, there's no way the Pirates sign a coveted, above-average pricey free agent this summer, let alone the best player in baseball, not that any of those players would want to sign with the Pirates, anyway, making that whole issue moot until the team wins. The team's only hope for climbing to .500 is to get excellent starting pitching.
Which, of course, prompts the question no one wants to answer. Do the Pirates possess even a snowball's chance of having 4 fifteen game winners?
The sunny-side-up optimist: Sure. Gorzy pitches like he pitched for most of this season and gets slightly more run support. Snell dominates like he did for the first half of the 2007 season and is consistently strong throughout the entire season while also getting better run support than he got in the early half of the 2007 season. Maholm finds the niche he found post All-Star break this season and pitches like that for all of next season. Zach Duke recaptures his pristine rookie form or Matt Morris reverts to being the 20 game winning Matt Morris.
The negative cynical realistic pessimist: No, no way. Haven't we tried this in the past to no avail? Gorzy's way over his prior career high in innings pitched, so he's due for either an injury or a downturn. Snell's over his previous career high in innings pitched, too, and couldn't pitching so many innings this season hinder his ability to make progress in giving up fewer hits and keeping the ball in the park as he did for part of the 2007 season? Maholm--who knows about the bad back, and don't pitchers like him always get off to slow starts? Can we just admit Zach Duke was probably just a flash in the pan and that Matt Morris will go down as David Littlefield's worst acquisition? Can we realize that expecting four of those five guys to win fifteen games is utter, complete insanity and face cold, harsh reality?
The moderate, reasonable view: Are these pitchers, especially the ones who've pitched a lot of innings, going to stay healthy? Are the ones who showed growth this season going to be healthy enough to show growth next season? Will they have the proper relationship with their coaches to make progress? Doesn't history--and not just Bucco history--tell us that it's highly unlikely for everything to go swimmingly for every pitcher at once? Forget insanity and forget stupidity, but isn't it just plainly ignorant, in the sense of lacking knowledge, to assume that 4 of 5 of the starting pitchers can win fifteen games when pitching for a team that finished the previous season as one of the worst in the majors?
I still don't see how the Pirates come close to a .500 record without having 4 of their starting pitchers each win at least 15 games. The Bucco offense scored runs in August and could be less inept than it was in the first half of the season, but it will never be mistaken for a powerhouse. The Pirates need to have four starting pitchers go for at least 200 innings and each win an average of fifteen games (and seventeen and eighteen would be far better than fifteen). Which, of course, brings me to this:
What I Wish For: Gorzy shows no aftereffects of pitching more than 40 innings over his previous career total and picks up right where he left off this season while becoming a legitimate number 1 pitcher. Several people combine to motivate Ian Snell properly by telling him they don't believe he can have a WHIP below 1.20, an ERA under 3, and get 200 strikeouts over the course of a full season, and Snell, also showing no aftereffects of throwing 200 innings for the first time in his career this season, sets about proving a new chorus of naysayers wrong by earning NL top ten WHIP and ERA rates and climbing from top 10 to top 5 in NL strikeouts. Zach Duke and Paul Maholm do what they did so effectively their rookie seasons--pitch lots of innings, get outs, and win many games while having above-average pitching statistics. Matt Morris is a stabilizing and experienced fifth starter who always keeps the team in a game while maintaining at least league average statistics. (I'm also not that particular about who does what, providing at least 4 of the starting pitchers--even if it's someone not named--manage to win at least 15 games.)
The Problem with my Wishes: Aside from being dependent on lots of variables--effective coaching, proper relationships to coaches, health, etc, that is really, really, a lot to demand of any starting rotation.
For this Bucco fan, however, pitching remains fundamental. If the Buccos, somehow, someway, brought 75% of my wishes to life, I might see my team sniffing a .500 record. 80% to 90% of my wishes, and we're talking seriously "exceeding expectations" and about a record, given league-average play in other capacities, that catapult the team from mediocrity to a winning record.
But less than 70% of those wishes fulfilled? Even 60% fulfilled? Much as I hate to say it, even with 60% of those wishes fulfilled, you're probably still looking at a sub .500 record, albeit one probably far closer to .500 than the Pirates have sniffed in quite a long time.
As for 50% or less than 50% of my wishes coming true? Well, I'm not talking about that yet, but suffice to say, such a "come true" rate for my wishes is not likely to result even in mediocrity, let alone a winning season.
High expectations? Unreasonable expectations? Completely inane, outlandish expectations? Well--I'm not calling them expectations; I'm calling them wishes, and there's a difference.
But when the time comes to figure out how the Pirates will ever finish 81-81 or 82-80 or somewhere above that level, the truth remains: Pitching is fundamental. And when the pitchers fundamentally achieve above and beyond expectations, along with the rest of the team meeting expectations for league average MLB play, that's when I expect the Pirates to be a team that wins more games than they lose.
Here's to wishing/dreaming that a profound affectation of "exceeding expectations," for the sake of of both players who want to win and fans who are sick of losing, strikes the entire Pittsburgh starting rotation throughout the course of the 2008 baseball season.
Seriously, why? (Do I still watch?)
This post is in honor of my best friend, who asked me a fantastic question when I bemoaned that the Pirates continued to lose game after game after game. My longtime friend, very wisely, asked, "Seriously, why do you and my parents still torture yourselves like that?" A later conversation that began as I bemoaned that I was tired of the Pirates losing so, so many games prompted the same question, albeit in different words, from my very wise friend. "Why do you still watch?" she asked.
And thus, this post--as I told her it would be--springs to creation as a result of her prompting. Anyhow, seriously, these are the reasons I kept watching the 2007 Pirates, in no particular order.
Freddy Sanchez: The defending batting champion struggled through the start of the season before beginning to mash the ball after the All-Star break. Sanchez isn't just a good player; he's a good player who's also fun to watch. Plus, he actually seems to care. He shows emotion, whether it's smiling after getting a big hit or anger after striking out--and say whatever you will of baseball players who show emotion, but it's one of the reasons I love Freddy Sanchez. Also, on the 2007 Pirates, you really couldn't beat a player who actually possessed the mental and physical capacity to play hit and field at an All-Star level.
Tom Gorzelanny: For most of the season, Gorzy was the team's most consistent pitcher who gave his team a chance to win every time he started a game. It was beautiful to read fans of other teams (cough, Chicago Cubs, before last weekend, anyhow) moaning about having to face "that kid." What was even more beautiful was how "that kid" evolved into a consistently good pitcher who somehow managed to win 14 games on a team that's in the running to finish the year as one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, in all of MLB.
Ian Snell: Seriously, how does a pitcher who's currently ranked in the top ten in the NL in both innings pitched and strikeouts, along with an above league average ERA of 3.76, not manage double-digit victories? Since I'm remembering why I kept watching the Pirates now, just let me say this: When Snell's on, he's really, really good, and his stuff makes him incredibly fun to watch. And even during those games when Snell struggled and I wanted to cuss and yell and rant and moan, Snell was still worth watching. In the midst of his dominant starts, I was seeing potential realized, a gorgeous, wonderful thing; whereas even in the midst of struggles, there was usually a strikeout or an out or something, a small sliver that was still good. Whether it was during a game or reading quotes after a game, Ian Snell was pretty much consistently exciting, and in those many starts of giving up 2 earned runs or less when excitement combined with excellent pitching, that's what I call a recipe to be savored--at least for this fan.
Matt Capps: High heat. Good stuff that can still get better. Excitement. Competitive fire. Controlled emotion. A great interview who was always accessible and very much a stand-up guy. Oh, and very, very young. A guy who at times made fans of other teams (teams actually in playoff contention, too) wish their own closer would get the last three outs of a game with 12 pitches and 12 strikes. Oh, and those 12 pitches and 12 strikes, in addition to being both really, really good, exciting, and invigorating--hopefully they're merely a portend of what will later be. But enjoying the present, imagining the future, and watching batters whiff on high heat, 'twas a very, very pleasurable viewing experience.
Progress and Hopes of Progress: Prior to his back troubles, Paul Maholm had a string of really good starts. Adam Laroche rebounded nicely from his s-l-o-w start to the season. And, of course, other than actual statistical facts, there's always the hope for progress in that, well, maybe, Zach Duke will again, just once, pitch like he did in 2005. Maybe Bullington and JVB will pitch at a level closer to, if not commensurate with, their lofty draft status. Perhaps the players who began last season as AAAA players are now--if not above average MLB players--at least average MLB players. Perhaps a dormant offense will outscore every other team in the majors for a month.
You Never Know: You never know when you'll watch a player who you still don't believe should be in the starting lineup for a decent major league team make a phenomenal catch that saves three runs. You never know when one of those young starting pitchers, or even one of those veteran pitchers your club's former general manager loved to accumulate, will pitch a very good game. You never know what you might see, and because there's a chance you could see something good, most likely something you could never accurately predict or should have dared to dream of anticipating, you just keep watching, even when mired in the midst of another long season of losing.
Of course, as I'd probably admit to my best friend, in addition to my theme of enjoying talented players performing as talented players should and enjoying good showings from the team as a whole and other individual players, I should probably confess that watching the Pirates is probably just a rather insane--and even in the midst of losing, quite cathartic--addiction. And much as there were moments when I wanted to throw in the towel, I still found myself clicking on box scores and flicking on the television.
And really, in these five enjoyable aspects of this 2007 Bucco season, well, these five things provide the answer to my best friend's completely sincere question. Really, those moments when real live big league talent shows out in the form of winning games, no matter how rare, are why it was difficult to stop watching.
Given my moaning and groaning which prompted my best friend's question and this post, however, I'd love for much more real live big league talent to show out in the form of winning a lot more games.
And thus, this post--as I told her it would be--springs to creation as a result of her prompting. Anyhow, seriously, these are the reasons I kept watching the 2007 Pirates, in no particular order.
Freddy Sanchez: The defending batting champion struggled through the start of the season before beginning to mash the ball after the All-Star break. Sanchez isn't just a good player; he's a good player who's also fun to watch. Plus, he actually seems to care. He shows emotion, whether it's smiling after getting a big hit or anger after striking out--and say whatever you will of baseball players who show emotion, but it's one of the reasons I love Freddy Sanchez. Also, on the 2007 Pirates, you really couldn't beat a player who actually possessed the mental and physical capacity to play hit and field at an All-Star level.
Tom Gorzelanny: For most of the season, Gorzy was the team's most consistent pitcher who gave his team a chance to win every time he started a game. It was beautiful to read fans of other teams (cough, Chicago Cubs, before last weekend, anyhow) moaning about having to face "that kid." What was even more beautiful was how "that kid" evolved into a consistently good pitcher who somehow managed to win 14 games on a team that's in the running to finish the year as one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, in all of MLB.
Ian Snell: Seriously, how does a pitcher who's currently ranked in the top ten in the NL in both innings pitched and strikeouts, along with an above league average ERA of 3.76, not manage double-digit victories? Since I'm remembering why I kept watching the Pirates now, just let me say this: When Snell's on, he's really, really good, and his stuff makes him incredibly fun to watch. And even during those games when Snell struggled and I wanted to cuss and yell and rant and moan, Snell was still worth watching. In the midst of his dominant starts, I was seeing potential realized, a gorgeous, wonderful thing; whereas even in the midst of struggles, there was usually a strikeout or an out or something, a small sliver that was still good. Whether it was during a game or reading quotes after a game, Ian Snell was pretty much consistently exciting, and in those many starts of giving up 2 earned runs or less when excitement combined with excellent pitching, that's what I call a recipe to be savored--at least for this fan.
Matt Capps: High heat. Good stuff that can still get better. Excitement. Competitive fire. Controlled emotion. A great interview who was always accessible and very much a stand-up guy. Oh, and very, very young. A guy who at times made fans of other teams (teams actually in playoff contention, too) wish their own closer would get the last three outs of a game with 12 pitches and 12 strikes. Oh, and those 12 pitches and 12 strikes, in addition to being both really, really good, exciting, and invigorating--hopefully they're merely a portend of what will later be. But enjoying the present, imagining the future, and watching batters whiff on high heat, 'twas a very, very pleasurable viewing experience.
Progress and Hopes of Progress: Prior to his back troubles, Paul Maholm had a string of really good starts. Adam Laroche rebounded nicely from his s-l-o-w start to the season. And, of course, other than actual statistical facts, there's always the hope for progress in that, well, maybe, Zach Duke will again, just once, pitch like he did in 2005. Maybe Bullington and JVB will pitch at a level closer to, if not commensurate with, their lofty draft status. Perhaps the players who began last season as AAAA players are now--if not above average MLB players--at least average MLB players. Perhaps a dormant offense will outscore every other team in the majors for a month.
You Never Know: You never know when you'll watch a player who you still don't believe should be in the starting lineup for a decent major league team make a phenomenal catch that saves three runs. You never know when one of those young starting pitchers, or even one of those veteran pitchers your club's former general manager loved to accumulate, will pitch a very good game. You never know what you might see, and because there's a chance you could see something good, most likely something you could never accurately predict or should have dared to dream of anticipating, you just keep watching, even when mired in the midst of another long season of losing.
Of course, as I'd probably admit to my best friend, in addition to my theme of enjoying talented players performing as talented players should and enjoying good showings from the team as a whole and other individual players, I should probably confess that watching the Pirates is probably just a rather insane--and even in the midst of losing, quite cathartic--addiction. And much as there were moments when I wanted to throw in the towel, I still found myself clicking on box scores and flicking on the television.
And really, in these five enjoyable aspects of this 2007 Bucco season, well, these five things provide the answer to my best friend's completely sincere question. Really, those moments when real live big league talent shows out in the form of winning games, no matter how rare, are why it was difficult to stop watching.
Given my moaning and groaning which prompted my best friend's question and this post, however, I'd love for much more real live big league talent to show out in the form of winning a lot more games.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Random Thoughts and Questions
Since we apparently have a new general manager (I'm withholding commentary for the moment), it seems an appropriate time to wonder about Jim Tracy and his coaching staff.
Given that Tracy was put in charge of a team laden with young starting pitchers when he first took this job and given that his team this season has at least been free of Randa and Burnitz, I figure an appropriate question to ask is: Are any of the players appreciably better than they were before Tracy and his coaching staff were placed in their current positions? I likewise figure an appropriate follow-up question is: How much of the growth/development, if any, can be attributed to coaching versus to development that comes as a result of more exposure to the major leagues?
Seriously, any takers out there? Freddy Sanchez won a batting title in 2006, clearly better than his previous 2005 campaign, but one scouting report had pegged him a "potential batting champion" down the line if he followed a normal growth curve. Say what you will, but I have a hard time believing that any specific coaching helped Sanchez win a batting title or hit over .300.
Well, what about the young pitchers? However the last two games of his season go, whether good, mediocre, or awful, his other 31 starts in 2007 showed Ian Snell is a way better pitcher than he was back in 2005 and better this season than he was in 2006. Tom Gorzelanny's statistics this season likewise indicate an upward tick in his development. Paul Maholm had a string of several good second half starts before hurting his back and looked closer to the winning ways he flashed as a rookie. And speaking of flashing rookie form, I'm still waiting for the Zach Duke of 2005 to make another appearance, hopefully one that can last for more than half a season, though at this point I'd enjoy seeing that performance for a game. So, when it comes to the pitchers, do I say Colburn's done good work with Snell and Gorzy that's benefited them? Or do I attribute growth merely to more exposure to the big leagues? Do I blame Colburn for whatever's been inhibiting Zach Duke from coming closer to the pitcher who was good enough to win eight games, legitimately, as a rookie?
But, really, management and coaches, even with young players, must be held accountable to the only standard that matters. Which means that, really, I'm asking the wrong questions. Yes, I'm asking about results in terms of which players are actually appreciably better--I can state Sanchez, Snell, and Gorzy with confidence, and believe that the latter two actually benefited from coaching, at least for periods of time if not continuously--but I'm not asking the only results-oriented question that matters. That question? Did enough players improve enough to turn losses into wins?
As evidenced by the Bucco record, the answer to that question is a cold, hard no. And despite the impressive growth experienced by a few players (whatever their final statistics say, there's been enough evidence to see growth), the good to great growth experienced by a few players hasn't been enough to turn a losing team into even a mediocre .500 team, let alone a winning team.
At some point in time, someone has to be held accountable for those wins and losses for the sake of the players who have shown they do have what it takes to win. That will be the new general manager's job, and in order for the team to win more games than they lose, the new general manager would be advised to seek a new manager and a coaching staff who can rid the clubhouse of the toxicity and complacency losing breeds as well as a manager and coaching staff who will build on the developmental foundations that have already been laid for a few players--and a coaching staff who will know how to lay good foundations for other inexperienced players--while always fielding a lineup that gives players the best possible chance to succeed and the team the greatest likelihood of winning.
A tall order, sure. An order we've seen should probably no longer be entrusted to Jim Tracy and his staff--basically because, at some point, the players themselves need to know that winning, not losing, is the expected norm, and that excellence, not mediocrity, definitely not-let's-be-proud-we-weren't-embarrassed-by-a-contending-team, but only excellence, can be the mindset of the leadership of a team that aspires to accumulate more wins than losses.
Given that Tracy was put in charge of a team laden with young starting pitchers when he first took this job and given that his team this season has at least been free of Randa and Burnitz, I figure an appropriate question to ask is: Are any of the players appreciably better than they were before Tracy and his coaching staff were placed in their current positions? I likewise figure an appropriate follow-up question is: How much of the growth/development, if any, can be attributed to coaching versus to development that comes as a result of more exposure to the major leagues?
Seriously, any takers out there? Freddy Sanchez won a batting title in 2006, clearly better than his previous 2005 campaign, but one scouting report had pegged him a "potential batting champion" down the line if he followed a normal growth curve. Say what you will, but I have a hard time believing that any specific coaching helped Sanchez win a batting title or hit over .300.
Well, what about the young pitchers? However the last two games of his season go, whether good, mediocre, or awful, his other 31 starts in 2007 showed Ian Snell is a way better pitcher than he was back in 2005 and better this season than he was in 2006. Tom Gorzelanny's statistics this season likewise indicate an upward tick in his development. Paul Maholm had a string of several good second half starts before hurting his back and looked closer to the winning ways he flashed as a rookie. And speaking of flashing rookie form, I'm still waiting for the Zach Duke of 2005 to make another appearance, hopefully one that can last for more than half a season, though at this point I'd enjoy seeing that performance for a game. So, when it comes to the pitchers, do I say Colburn's done good work with Snell and Gorzy that's benefited them? Or do I attribute growth merely to more exposure to the big leagues? Do I blame Colburn for whatever's been inhibiting Zach Duke from coming closer to the pitcher who was good enough to win eight games, legitimately, as a rookie?
But, really, management and coaches, even with young players, must be held accountable to the only standard that matters. Which means that, really, I'm asking the wrong questions. Yes, I'm asking about results in terms of which players are actually appreciably better--I can state Sanchez, Snell, and Gorzy with confidence, and believe that the latter two actually benefited from coaching, at least for periods of time if not continuously--but I'm not asking the only results-oriented question that matters. That question? Did enough players improve enough to turn losses into wins?
As evidenced by the Bucco record, the answer to that question is a cold, hard no. And despite the impressive growth experienced by a few players (whatever their final statistics say, there's been enough evidence to see growth), the good to great growth experienced by a few players hasn't been enough to turn a losing team into even a mediocre .500 team, let alone a winning team.
At some point in time, someone has to be held accountable for those wins and losses for the sake of the players who have shown they do have what it takes to win. That will be the new general manager's job, and in order for the team to win more games than they lose, the new general manager would be advised to seek a new manager and a coaching staff who can rid the clubhouse of the toxicity and complacency losing breeds as well as a manager and coaching staff who will build on the developmental foundations that have already been laid for a few players--and a coaching staff who will know how to lay good foundations for other inexperienced players--while always fielding a lineup that gives players the best possible chance to succeed and the team the greatest likelihood of winning.
A tall order, sure. An order we've seen should probably no longer be entrusted to Jim Tracy and his staff--basically because, at some point, the players themselves need to know that winning, not losing, is the expected norm, and that excellence, not mediocrity, definitely not-let's-be-proud-we-weren't-embarrassed-by-a-contending-team, but only excellence, can be the mindset of the leadership of a team that aspires to accumulate more wins than losses.
Bad Baseball and High Comedy=NL Central Game
Wow. Seriously, just wow. How in the world does a team contending for a pennant play like they did for the first three innings of today's baseball game? (No offense, Cubs fans, I'm very envious of your team's NL Central division-leading mediocrity, and I acknowledge my jealousy with utter sincerity and absolute conviction.) But forget the three innings of ridiculousness from both baseball teams. In today's game, my Pirates specialized in the high, high comedy that results from bad baseball being played.
Examples of high comedy/bad baseball:
--The Pirates' starting pitcher gives up four runs in the bottom of the first inning. This is obviously not the best way to begin a ball game you hope to "spoil."
--Ronny Paulino forgot how many outs there were in an inning. Greg or Lanny (I was too busy laughing to listen) innocently asks Bob Walk, "Doesn't the number of outs matter in terms of what pitch a catcher will call for?" to which Walk vehemently replies, "Yes!" (To which I might add my own exclamation of, "Duh!") After forgetting that there was only one out in the inning and trying to run off the field with only two outs, Paulino promptly proceeds to lose a ball that allows the Cubs to tie the game at 7. As a PBC fan, I should be upset by the clear lack of mental focus and utter lack of basic knowledge of baseball fundamentals, but at this point of the season, I just find myself laughing. Really--what other response is there to something Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan knows good little league teams don't do?
--Look, I love Freddy Sanchez, but today was just not his day. Swinging at pitches way outside the strike zone and making an error on a ball that could've been an inning-ending double play isn't good for anybody, let alone Sanchez. When one of your team's good players is having a horrific day of fundamental baseball, better to enjoy a laugh about the bad baseball being played than get mad at a player who's usually anywhere from pretty good to very good to excellent.
--And speaking of bad baseball: Both team's starting pitchers are gone after having ridiculous ERA's through less than three complete innings of work? When one of these teams is leading the division? At least the Cubs did what a division-leading team should do and won the game, but the pitching performances throughout today's first three innings exemplified really bad baseball.
--Oh, and I can't talk about bad baseball without mentioning Jim Tracy. Maybe Maholm is healthy; maybe he isn't. But I hate the way his season is finishing, and if he isn't absolutely 100% ready to go, he shouldn't be pitching. Period.
Other Amusing Anecdotes from Today's Game:
--The Pirates were able to chase a starter from the game and take a 7-5 lead. I wasn't listening to the announcers, but wouldn't such a comeback (even if it didn't last) be considered encouraging in the fact that the team was able to chase a starter from a game? (Yeah, that was snarky.)
--Maholm didn't pitch well today (an understatement), but that RBI bunt single was the biggest contribution he's made to the team in his last two starts since returning from a stiff back. Which I don't blame on Maholm but on Jim Tracy for continuing to run out a player who probably shouldn't be playing. Yeah, at some point I should probably hold players accountable, too, and not just the manager, but since Tracy's not all that into accountability for anyone, I figure I'll let accountability rest with Tracy and not his players.
Speaking of the Manager:
--I informed Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan that I thought if the players really wanted Tracy and his coaching team back next season that they would be winning games at this point of the season. Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan, like me, doesn't believe that bad baseball teams can morph into good baseball teams, and he doesn't really believe that the players themselves are actually trying to lose games. Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan does believe that the mental errors made by players can be a signal, however subconscious, that they don't want the manager to return. While I don't know if I believe in such subconscious signals or not, and I realize events such as a closer blowing a save and hot hitters cooling off are natural events throughout the course of a baseball season, a part of me does believe that the players would somehow be winning more games, rather than losing lots of games, if they were serious about wanting to "save" or "preserve" their manager's job, so to speak. Silly as it might be to read things into a bad baseball team laden with mostly inexperienced starting pitchers stumbling toward the finish line, what I'm reading into the performance of most of the Bucco players, however unconscious/subconscious/conscious it might be, is that most of the players wouldn't object to a managerial change. At least that's what their overall performance, as well as their home dwelling in the basement of the worst division in the majors, appears to indicate.
Examples of high comedy/bad baseball:
--The Pirates' starting pitcher gives up four runs in the bottom of the first inning. This is obviously not the best way to begin a ball game you hope to "spoil."
--Ronny Paulino forgot how many outs there were in an inning. Greg or Lanny (I was too busy laughing to listen) innocently asks Bob Walk, "Doesn't the number of outs matter in terms of what pitch a catcher will call for?" to which Walk vehemently replies, "Yes!" (To which I might add my own exclamation of, "Duh!") After forgetting that there was only one out in the inning and trying to run off the field with only two outs, Paulino promptly proceeds to lose a ball that allows the Cubs to tie the game at 7. As a PBC fan, I should be upset by the clear lack of mental focus and utter lack of basic knowledge of baseball fundamentals, but at this point of the season, I just find myself laughing. Really--what other response is there to something Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan knows good little league teams don't do?
--Look, I love Freddy Sanchez, but today was just not his day. Swinging at pitches way outside the strike zone and making an error on a ball that could've been an inning-ending double play isn't good for anybody, let alone Sanchez. When one of your team's good players is having a horrific day of fundamental baseball, better to enjoy a laugh about the bad baseball being played than get mad at a player who's usually anywhere from pretty good to very good to excellent.
--And speaking of bad baseball: Both team's starting pitchers are gone after having ridiculous ERA's through less than three complete innings of work? When one of these teams is leading the division? At least the Cubs did what a division-leading team should do and won the game, but the pitching performances throughout today's first three innings exemplified really bad baseball.
--Oh, and I can't talk about bad baseball without mentioning Jim Tracy. Maybe Maholm is healthy; maybe he isn't. But I hate the way his season is finishing, and if he isn't absolutely 100% ready to go, he shouldn't be pitching. Period.
Other Amusing Anecdotes from Today's Game:
--The Pirates were able to chase a starter from the game and take a 7-5 lead. I wasn't listening to the announcers, but wouldn't such a comeback (even if it didn't last) be considered encouraging in the fact that the team was able to chase a starter from a game? (Yeah, that was snarky.)
--Maholm didn't pitch well today (an understatement), but that RBI bunt single was the biggest contribution he's made to the team in his last two starts since returning from a stiff back. Which I don't blame on Maholm but on Jim Tracy for continuing to run out a player who probably shouldn't be playing. Yeah, at some point I should probably hold players accountable, too, and not just the manager, but since Tracy's not all that into accountability for anyone, I figure I'll let accountability rest with Tracy and not his players.
Speaking of the Manager:
--I informed Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan that I thought if the players really wanted Tracy and his coaching team back next season that they would be winning games at this point of the season. Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan, like me, doesn't believe that bad baseball teams can morph into good baseball teams, and he doesn't really believe that the players themselves are actually trying to lose games. Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan does believe that the mental errors made by players can be a signal, however subconscious, that they don't want the manager to return. While I don't know if I believe in such subconscious signals or not, and I realize events such as a closer blowing a save and hot hitters cooling off are natural events throughout the course of a baseball season, a part of me does believe that the players would somehow be winning more games, rather than losing lots of games, if they were serious about wanting to "save" or "preserve" their manager's job, so to speak. Silly as it might be to read things into a bad baseball team laden with mostly inexperienced starting pitchers stumbling toward the finish line, what I'm reading into the performance of most of the Bucco players, however unconscious/subconscious/conscious it might be, is that most of the players wouldn't object to a managerial change. At least that's what their overall performance, as well as their home dwelling in the basement of the worst division in the majors, appears to indicate.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Suckiness/Pain/Hurt/Nightmare of Being a Fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates, Reminder (Loss) #86
You've seen some ugly losses this year. Yet even after your team has been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention (though they were realistically eliminated quite a while back), you can't help but follow Game #152. There's an interesting, potentially good pitching match up in the opposing pitcher with the great ERA whom your incompetent former general manager traded away without getting anything in return facing off against one of your team's best pitchers whose performance over the past two seasons, while still on the learning curve of a young pitcher, at least ensured that your incompetent former general manager never managed to rob his team of another starter by turning this pitcher into a reliever. In addition to the potential duel of the two starting pitchers, there's the knowledge that the Pirates have hit a little better since the beginning of August and that San Diego's hitting is not equal to the level of their top two starting pitchers by any stretch of the imagination. You see a game at a pitcher's ballpark, which should be great for your team's young power pitcher, and you think, well--if your team's going to win any games in this series, it will have to be this game.
1st inning. Your team's off to a great start. Well, not that great, but at least they're not going to be no-hit by the opposing pitcher who's almost no-hit your team in the past. And they score a run. That's good news.
Bottom of the 1st inning: Perhaps due to unfamiliarity with such an uncommon event, your team's starting pitcher doesn't know what to do with a lead. You yearn for all of your team's young pitchers to develop maturity that renders their still-way-too-high first inning ERA's a thing of the past. You wish your catcher would learn how to block balls rather than allow passed balls. The opposing team regains the lead, but your pitcher gets out of the inning giving up 2 runs, only one of which is counted as an earned run. You recall other games this season when this pitcher, whom you can't help but love due to his stuff, potential, and at times really good performances, has completely slammed the door shut after first inning hiccups. Whatever the reason, you hope that this could probably be the case tonight as well.
Top of the 3rd inning: Your team scores runs off the guy with the great ERA and the pristine home ERA. Three runs off this guy in a game is good for your team. You probably can't expect anything more. In fact, you know you shouldn't expect anything more from your team. No matter how "off" fans of the opposing team might feel the pitcher they've nicknamed "Cy" to be, it's still your team, and their record indicates they are a bad baseball team.
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th innings: It's really nice to watch when one of your promising players filled with potential actually fulfills that promise and potential in a game situation. Forget promise, forget potential, forget the fact that stating the truth that the opposition is nowhere close to being the best hitting team in the league, and just relish the fact that on this night, your team's young starting pitcher is just good. As in, tonight, really, really good.
8th inning: You wince when you see Shawn Chacon come into the game to hold a one-run lead. The eighth inning takes too long to play and your manager uses three pitchers, including his closer to obtain the last out, to preserve a one-run lead.
9th inning: Your team's offense is dormant. You feel fairly confident and content with your closer coming into the game, but the fact of the matter is, one long ball could tie the game. You feel your starting pitcher deserves a better fate than that after his performance. Still, your team manages to get to 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth. But there's a double that had the chance to be an out, and then there's a walk from a closer who, really, when he's on, which has been most of the time, just doesn't walk batters. Trouble's brewing. Then there's the walk-off home-run for the opposition and their team celebrating like defeating the Pirates was worthy of celebration, which, of course, defeating the Pirates was a wonderful feat given that the opposition had just won a meaningful baseball game while contending for a pennant and the wild card.
Immediate Aftermath: You watch the opposition celebrate and wonder what it it would have been like for your team not to celebrate a meaningful victory, but just a playing "spoiler" win. You wonder how exciting it could be to be the fan of a team that has a chance to celebrate meaningful wins this late in September. You can't help but be happy for the joyous, celebrating opposing players even as you feel a perhaps greater measure of suckiness/pain/hurt that comes from watching the seemingly unceasing nightmare of good baseball teams continuously finding ways to beat your bad baseball team--even when one of your team's good players gives a great performance.
Reflections on the After Aftermath:
Hopes: Your team's color announcer notes something that you have as well: Your young starting pitcher just pitched a great game against a playoff contender late in September with his best stuff. If your bad baseball team ever morphs into a mediocre team (as you remember the division home of your team with hope), it can probably be taken as a good sign that this pitcher is able to pitch this well this late in the season. And, yes, sure, your closer blew a save, but as you've reminded yourself after a few ugly outings by tonight's starting pitcher and after a few other ugly outings of other young starting pitchers this season, a few ugly starts can be part of the developmental process. Besides, even the game's best pitchers have nights where they're "off," and even great closers occasionally blow a save. You hope Matt Capps, whom you still love for many of the same reasons you love tonight's starting pitcher, learns from this blown save experience exactly what pitches to throw should he ever find himself pitching in a game that's meaningful for his team this late in September. And though of course you dismiss this thought as a delusional dream of grandeur, you can't help but wish that in a season or two, your baseball team is actually playing meaningful games in September.
Aggravations: Seeing the replay of the game's highlights a day later will still sting--it's just a reminder of how far away your team, not individual players, but the team, is from being known as an overall good baseball team. Plus, there's something aggravating about reading the opinions of fans who complain about their team's starting pitcher not getting a win--granted, "Cy" doesn't have the wins his pristine ERA proclaims he should (only 9, which again points out win-loss statistics aren't everything). Your pitcher's already been hung with 4 tough losses this season, and this one won't even go into the "tough loss" category. At least you, a fan of a bad baseball team, can concur with fans of a good baseball team and note that won-loss record is not necessarily the best way to judge the quality of a starting pitcher. The lack of wins is just aggravating when pitchers who pitch well enough to win don't win.
Analyzing the Quotes/Suckiness, Pain, Hurt, and Nightmare Continue:
You discover your team's starting pitcher didn't come out for the eighth, despite having only thrown 92 pitches, because his arm was "kind of sore." He also added he'd never before thrown this many innings. You wince. As a fan of a perennially losing baseball team that's lost many pitchers to injury, you imagine the worst. You want to hope your pitcher was just doing his usual honesty thing where he speaks his mind bluntly, but your mind goes to places that are very, very bad. If his arm is actually sore, you want your manager to forget about his next two starts and just make sure he's healthy and rested for next season. If your manager won't have common sense, then you'd hope your new CEO would have some common sense and do the right thing for the future of the player, team, and whole organization.
But speaking of the future for the team and the whole organization, well, you wish you could do something more than note individual successes to this point (regardless of what happens in the next and last ten games). Like, oh, pitching over 200 innings is good, and so is a top-10 NL strikeout rate. Despite your frustration with the won-loss statistic, 14 wins on a team twenty games under .500 is really good, especially when one takes into consideration games that weren't won. Finding a young closer who throws strikes is good. A one-time batting champion hitting above .300 again and playing really good defense at his position is also good.
But the thing is, the thing made clear by how those opponents celebrated and the dejected way you watched your team leave the field, is that you're tired, drawn out, worn down, and exhausted by this cycle of being forced to look at "encouraging signs" from individuals rather than celebrating victories. And knowing the visceral suckiness/pain/hurt you feel as you watch the nightmare continue to unfold, you can only imagine what the players, especially the ones, mentioned and not mentioned, who've made strides and lots of strides, have to feel when it comes to losing baseball games like yesterday's game.
Like the players, you want the nightmare to end, and you want the nightmare to be replaced by a no longer delusional dream of playing meaningful games--meaningful for your team--in September. But, at least until next spring training, you'll have to settle for maintaining the health of your team's best players, enjoying a great performance by any of your team's players when such an event occurs, and watching other teams, but not your team, celebrate meaningful victories with the giddy joy of young children. Such, unfortunately, is what it entails to be a fan of the 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates.*
(*The asterisk only denotes the year 2007. As a PBC fan, hope springs eternal in the sense of hoping that the suckiness/pain/hurt/nightmare of being a Bucco fan will be replaced by the celebratory joy that fans of good baseball teams enjoy at this time in September. However delusional such a dream of a good baseball team may appear to be to the opposition or to fellow fans, here's to hoping that dream isn't delusional for the new CEO, the GM he hires, and next year's edition of the Pittsburgh Pirates.)
1st inning. Your team's off to a great start. Well, not that great, but at least they're not going to be no-hit by the opposing pitcher who's almost no-hit your team in the past. And they score a run. That's good news.
Bottom of the 1st inning: Perhaps due to unfamiliarity with such an uncommon event, your team's starting pitcher doesn't know what to do with a lead. You yearn for all of your team's young pitchers to develop maturity that renders their still-way-too-high first inning ERA's a thing of the past. You wish your catcher would learn how to block balls rather than allow passed balls. The opposing team regains the lead, but your pitcher gets out of the inning giving up 2 runs, only one of which is counted as an earned run. You recall other games this season when this pitcher, whom you can't help but love due to his stuff, potential, and at times really good performances, has completely slammed the door shut after first inning hiccups. Whatever the reason, you hope that this could probably be the case tonight as well.
Top of the 3rd inning: Your team scores runs off the guy with the great ERA and the pristine home ERA. Three runs off this guy in a game is good for your team. You probably can't expect anything more. In fact, you know you shouldn't expect anything more from your team. No matter how "off" fans of the opposing team might feel the pitcher they've nicknamed "Cy" to be, it's still your team, and their record indicates they are a bad baseball team.
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th innings: It's really nice to watch when one of your promising players filled with potential actually fulfills that promise and potential in a game situation. Forget promise, forget potential, forget the fact that stating the truth that the opposition is nowhere close to being the best hitting team in the league, and just relish the fact that on this night, your team's young starting pitcher is just good. As in, tonight, really, really good.
8th inning: You wince when you see Shawn Chacon come into the game to hold a one-run lead. The eighth inning takes too long to play and your manager uses three pitchers, including his closer to obtain the last out, to preserve a one-run lead.
9th inning: Your team's offense is dormant. You feel fairly confident and content with your closer coming into the game, but the fact of the matter is, one long ball could tie the game. You feel your starting pitcher deserves a better fate than that after his performance. Still, your team manages to get to 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth. But there's a double that had the chance to be an out, and then there's a walk from a closer who, really, when he's on, which has been most of the time, just doesn't walk batters. Trouble's brewing. Then there's the walk-off home-run for the opposition and their team celebrating like defeating the Pirates was worthy of celebration, which, of course, defeating the Pirates was a wonderful feat given that the opposition had just won a meaningful baseball game while contending for a pennant and the wild card.
Immediate Aftermath: You watch the opposition celebrate and wonder what it it would have been like for your team not to celebrate a meaningful victory, but just a playing "spoiler" win. You wonder how exciting it could be to be the fan of a team that has a chance to celebrate meaningful wins this late in September. You can't help but be happy for the joyous, celebrating opposing players even as you feel a perhaps greater measure of suckiness/pain/hurt that comes from watching the seemingly unceasing nightmare of good baseball teams continuously finding ways to beat your bad baseball team--even when one of your team's good players gives a great performance.
Reflections on the After Aftermath:
Hopes: Your team's color announcer notes something that you have as well: Your young starting pitcher just pitched a great game against a playoff contender late in September with his best stuff. If your bad baseball team ever morphs into a mediocre team (as you remember the division home of your team with hope), it can probably be taken as a good sign that this pitcher is able to pitch this well this late in the season. And, yes, sure, your closer blew a save, but as you've reminded yourself after a few ugly outings by tonight's starting pitcher and after a few other ugly outings of other young starting pitchers this season, a few ugly starts can be part of the developmental process. Besides, even the game's best pitchers have nights where they're "off," and even great closers occasionally blow a save. You hope Matt Capps, whom you still love for many of the same reasons you love tonight's starting pitcher, learns from this blown save experience exactly what pitches to throw should he ever find himself pitching in a game that's meaningful for his team this late in September. And though of course you dismiss this thought as a delusional dream of grandeur, you can't help but wish that in a season or two, your baseball team is actually playing meaningful games in September.
Aggravations: Seeing the replay of the game's highlights a day later will still sting--it's just a reminder of how far away your team, not individual players, but the team, is from being known as an overall good baseball team. Plus, there's something aggravating about reading the opinions of fans who complain about their team's starting pitcher not getting a win--granted, "Cy" doesn't have the wins his pristine ERA proclaims he should (only 9, which again points out win-loss statistics aren't everything). Your pitcher's already been hung with 4 tough losses this season, and this one won't even go into the "tough loss" category. At least you, a fan of a bad baseball team, can concur with fans of a good baseball team and note that won-loss record is not necessarily the best way to judge the quality of a starting pitcher. The lack of wins is just aggravating when pitchers who pitch well enough to win don't win.
Analyzing the Quotes/Suckiness, Pain, Hurt, and Nightmare Continue:
You discover your team's starting pitcher didn't come out for the eighth, despite having only thrown 92 pitches, because his arm was "kind of sore." He also added he'd never before thrown this many innings. You wince. As a fan of a perennially losing baseball team that's lost many pitchers to injury, you imagine the worst. You want to hope your pitcher was just doing his usual honesty thing where he speaks his mind bluntly, but your mind goes to places that are very, very bad. If his arm is actually sore, you want your manager to forget about his next two starts and just make sure he's healthy and rested for next season. If your manager won't have common sense, then you'd hope your new CEO would have some common sense and do the right thing for the future of the player, team, and whole organization.
But speaking of the future for the team and the whole organization, well, you wish you could do something more than note individual successes to this point (regardless of what happens in the next and last ten games). Like, oh, pitching over 200 innings is good, and so is a top-10 NL strikeout rate. Despite your frustration with the won-loss statistic, 14 wins on a team twenty games under .500 is really good, especially when one takes into consideration games that weren't won. Finding a young closer who throws strikes is good. A one-time batting champion hitting above .300 again and playing really good defense at his position is also good.
But the thing is, the thing made clear by how those opponents celebrated and the dejected way you watched your team leave the field, is that you're tired, drawn out, worn down, and exhausted by this cycle of being forced to look at "encouraging signs" from individuals rather than celebrating victories. And knowing the visceral suckiness/pain/hurt you feel as you watch the nightmare continue to unfold, you can only imagine what the players, especially the ones, mentioned and not mentioned, who've made strides and lots of strides, have to feel when it comes to losing baseball games like yesterday's game.
Like the players, you want the nightmare to end, and you want the nightmare to be replaced by a no longer delusional dream of playing meaningful games--meaningful for your team--in September. But, at least until next spring training, you'll have to settle for maintaining the health of your team's best players, enjoying a great performance by any of your team's players when such an event occurs, and watching other teams, but not your team, celebrate meaningful victories with the giddy joy of young children. Such, unfortunately, is what it entails to be a fan of the 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates.*
(*The asterisk only denotes the year 2007. As a PBC fan, hope springs eternal in the sense of hoping that the suckiness/pain/hurt/nightmare of being a Bucco fan will be replaced by the celebratory joy that fans of good baseball teams enjoy at this time in September. However delusional such a dream of a good baseball team may appear to be to the opposition or to fellow fans, here's to hoping that dream isn't delusional for the new CEO, the GM he hires, and next year's edition of the Pittsburgh Pirates.)
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Pitching is Fundamental, Part 2
See yesterday's post about "Pitching is Fundamental" for my thoughts on today's game. That being said, I'm not going to freak out--it was Maholm's first game back after a layoff and for as icky as the statistical line for the game certainly was, it was just that: a mere one-game statistical line. Speaking of pitching being fundamental, I'll take Bryan Bullington's three scoreless innings as something good to note in today's game.
Interestingly or completely not interestingly, prior to this series I wrote a lengthy post that I opted not to publish. I noted that the PBC had an overall record that indicated that they were a bad baseball team but that their record since August 1st indicated that they were trying to morph from a bad baseball team into a merely mediocre baseball team. Here is a brief excerpt from the original, unpublished post:
The Pirates will play the Astros this weekend. While the Astros are currently beneath the Buccos in the standings, they are only 1.5 games behind your fifth-place Pirates. Neither the Pirates nor the Astros are anywhere near being good MLB teams, as evidenced by their records. Given the recent Bucco streak of mediocre play (best record in the NL Central since August, at the top of the mediocre class for five weeks), one might expect a mediocre team to be able to win 2 out of 3 games from the Astros, even on the road.
Except there's a problem. Because here's what bad teams do:
--They can't hit quality MLB pitching. (Roy Oswalt is pitching for the Astros on Friday night.)
--Their "somewhat reliable" (statistically near league average) pitchers can't pitch well enough to counter their team's complete inability to hit quality MLB pitching.
--The other team scores more than runs than they do, and they lose games because that's what bad baseball teams do.
--Overall, they respond to brief and hot winning streaks with much longer and much colder losing streaks, making them a team with a record, oh, give or take, around fifteen games under .500 on a particular day.
Now, here is what mediocre teams do:
--Occasionally, they're able to hit quality (above-average) MLB pitching.
--On still atypical, but not completely only-once-or-twice-a-season-events, their "somewhat reliable" pitchers (e.g. statistically league average) have games where they can at least keep pace with quality (above-average) MLB pitching and perhaps even pitch one game that is close (if not equal) to the "best" of what another team has to offer.
--On such unusual occasions, as in once out of every ten or twelve or fifteen games, rather than once every 85, when their batters hit above average MLB pitching and their pitchers pitch at an above average level, the team scores more runs than the other team and wins enough games to be regarded as a mediocre team rather than as a bad team.
--Overall, they balance out their hot winning streaks with cold losing streaks of approximately the same length, thus resulting in a .500 record, and acknowledgment as a mediocre ball club.
Well, it's now Sunday evening, and the Pirates just lost 2 out of 3 games to the Astros, one of the worst teams in the majors, while making their fifteenth consecutive losing season official. The team's overall record still indicates "bad baseball team," because bad baseball teams lose 2 out of 3 games to one of the worst teams in the majors. Probably because I still dream delusional dreams, however, the team's victory in the first game of this just completed series could be a potential indication that there have been infrequent occasions that could lead to the suggestion that a team with a brutally bad record is actually closer to mediocre than the team's overall won-loss record would indicate.
But that closeness to mediocrity--and remember, mediocrity entails contention for a pennant in the NL Central this summer--is predicated on something else, as clearly seen by the Game 2 and Game 3 losses in this series, and allow me to repeat yesterday's refrain just once more: Pitching truly is fundamental.
Interestingly or completely not interestingly, prior to this series I wrote a lengthy post that I opted not to publish. I noted that the PBC had an overall record that indicated that they were a bad baseball team but that their record since August 1st indicated that they were trying to morph from a bad baseball team into a merely mediocre baseball team. Here is a brief excerpt from the original, unpublished post:
The Pirates will play the Astros this weekend. While the Astros are currently beneath the Buccos in the standings, they are only 1.5 games behind your fifth-place Pirates. Neither the Pirates nor the Astros are anywhere near being good MLB teams, as evidenced by their records. Given the recent Bucco streak of mediocre play (best record in the NL Central since August, at the top of the mediocre class for five weeks), one might expect a mediocre team to be able to win 2 out of 3 games from the Astros, even on the road.
Except there's a problem. Because here's what bad teams do:
--They can't hit quality MLB pitching. (Roy Oswalt is pitching for the Astros on Friday night.)
--Their "somewhat reliable" (statistically near league average) pitchers can't pitch well enough to counter their team's complete inability to hit quality MLB pitching.
--The other team scores more than runs than they do, and they lose games because that's what bad baseball teams do.
--Overall, they respond to brief and hot winning streaks with much longer and much colder losing streaks, making them a team with a record, oh, give or take, around fifteen games under .500 on a particular day.
Now, here is what mediocre teams do:
--Occasionally, they're able to hit quality (above-average) MLB pitching.
--On still atypical, but not completely only-once-or-twice-a-season-events, their "somewhat reliable" pitchers (e.g. statistically league average) have games where they can at least keep pace with quality (above-average) MLB pitching and perhaps even pitch one game that is close (if not equal) to the "best" of what another team has to offer.
--On such unusual occasions, as in once out of every ten or twelve or fifteen games, rather than once every 85, when their batters hit above average MLB pitching and their pitchers pitch at an above average level, the team scores more runs than the other team and wins enough games to be regarded as a mediocre team rather than as a bad team.
--Overall, they balance out their hot winning streaks with cold losing streaks of approximately the same length, thus resulting in a .500 record, and acknowledgment as a mediocre ball club.
Well, it's now Sunday evening, and the Pirates just lost 2 out of 3 games to the Astros, one of the worst teams in the majors, while making their fifteenth consecutive losing season official. The team's overall record still indicates "bad baseball team," because bad baseball teams lose 2 out of 3 games to one of the worst teams in the majors. Probably because I still dream delusional dreams, however, the team's victory in the first game of this just completed series could be a potential indication that there have been infrequent occasions that could lead to the suggestion that a team with a brutally bad record is actually closer to mediocre than the team's overall won-loss record would indicate.
But that closeness to mediocrity--and remember, mediocrity entails contention for a pennant in the NL Central this summer--is predicated on something else, as clearly seen by the Game 2 and Game 3 losses in this series, and allow me to repeat yesterday's refrain just once more: Pitching truly is fundamental.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Pitching is Fundamental, Official Demarcation of 15 Consecutive Losing Sesaons
Oh, the sweet irony of the veteran pitcher acquired by former GM David Littlefield having a one-inning implosion (aided, of course, by defensive miscues and apparently a sore hand as well) that turned a 5-0 Bucco lead into a 7-5 Houston lead. Seriously, the sweet, sweet, obvious irony of the final 9-7 loss officially marking the fifteenth consecutive losing season for the Pittsburgh Pirates franchise.
And about the game: Pitching is fundamental. Tonight reminded me that it's probably somewhat silly of me to fuss about "too many walks" or "too many baserunners" (granted, these statistics still matter) when one of my team's starting pitchers gives the team a quality start. At least in terms of comparison to giving up many, many runs in one inning, really, starting pitchers who give the team a quality start should not really be at the top of my priority list of worries/things about which to fuss.
Except here's the thing that leads to my internal argument with myself about fussing over "too many walks, "too many baserunners," etc, and that's this: Pitching is fundamental. If any of those starting pitchers can somehow and consistently go beyond the expectation of merely giving you a quality start and actually, truly and consistently maintain a good WHIP and K to BB rates while typically going six innings but more often than not being able to pitch into the seventh or eighth inning, well, put it this way--Doesn't having those starting pitchers do exactly that turn losses like today's demarcation loss into easy wins?
My hope for the starting pitchers to morph first into starters who can be relied upon to give a quality start each time out and then develop into pitchers who can exceed that expectation is for pitchers who, unlike Matt Morris, aren't past their prime, haven't already won 20 games in the majors, and who, due to their age, I can still hold out hope for "growth" and "development." As such, given that Zach Duke has won games in the majors and had a few dominant outings in 2005, his appearance in tonight's game was about the only thing (after the fourth inning debacle) that held much intrigue for me. (Okay, the Paulino/Wilson mashing was entertaining, but not at all intriguing.) Unfortunately, aside from inducing a couple of ground ball outs, Duke didn't appear to resemble the pitcher who--seriously, the statistics bear me out on this--struck out lots of batters in his rookie season. Sure, he was coming off rehabilitation starts and an injury, and the idealistic optimist would note that Duke at least got outs, while the cynical realist would note that he didn't fool anyone and that Ty Wigginton homered off him.
In any case, if your number seven and eight hitters mash home runs against one of the worst teams in the majors and you put up 7 runs, you really should win that ball game. And with quality starting pitching, you've got a much better shot to win the games you have to win in order to have even a mediocre .500 record. And truth told, even good pitchers do have occasional games where they "lose it," and in order to assuage myself (as I have in the past) when the trio of young Bucco starting pitchers have had less-than-stellar-outings, I must remind myself that even a horrific outing or two doesn't necessarily mean a pitcher is "bad" despite a bad outing.
But in the case of tonight's game, which clinched the PBC's fifteenth consecutive losing season, one lesson stands out: Pitching is fundamental. When the top three guys in the starting rotation reach the point where a quality start is the norm but a realistic expectation is beyond a mere quality start and when the last two guys in that rotation can consistently offer the PBC quality starts, that's when I expect the Pirates to win more games than they lose in a season.
As for this season, well, another losing season is officially on the books now, but I'll watch until the end of September with interest. Just to see if maybe, just maybe, there are hopes that the saying "Pitching is fundamental" could, someday soon, result in smiles for Bucco fans not only on days when certain pitchers are pitching, but on every single day, due to an expectation that the team's pitching gives it a chance to win every night. A tall order and tall task? Impossible? Ridiculous to imagine? Ludicrous?
Whatever you think about the impossibility and improbability of rejoicing in the saying that "Pitching is fundamental," that's what it is going to take for the losing seasons to come to an end (in addition, of course, to other fundamentals which will also be addressed at some future point).
And about the game: Pitching is fundamental. Tonight reminded me that it's probably somewhat silly of me to fuss about "too many walks" or "too many baserunners" (granted, these statistics still matter) when one of my team's starting pitchers gives the team a quality start. At least in terms of comparison to giving up many, many runs in one inning, really, starting pitchers who give the team a quality start should not really be at the top of my priority list of worries/things about which to fuss.
Except here's the thing that leads to my internal argument with myself about fussing over "too many walks, "too many baserunners," etc, and that's this: Pitching is fundamental. If any of those starting pitchers can somehow and consistently go beyond the expectation of merely giving you a quality start and actually, truly and consistently maintain a good WHIP and K to BB rates while typically going six innings but more often than not being able to pitch into the seventh or eighth inning, well, put it this way--Doesn't having those starting pitchers do exactly that turn losses like today's demarcation loss into easy wins?
My hope for the starting pitchers to morph first into starters who can be relied upon to give a quality start each time out and then develop into pitchers who can exceed that expectation is for pitchers who, unlike Matt Morris, aren't past their prime, haven't already won 20 games in the majors, and who, due to their age, I can still hold out hope for "growth" and "development." As such, given that Zach Duke has won games in the majors and had a few dominant outings in 2005, his appearance in tonight's game was about the only thing (after the fourth inning debacle) that held much intrigue for me. (Okay, the Paulino/Wilson mashing was entertaining, but not at all intriguing.) Unfortunately, aside from inducing a couple of ground ball outs, Duke didn't appear to resemble the pitcher who--seriously, the statistics bear me out on this--struck out lots of batters in his rookie season. Sure, he was coming off rehabilitation starts and an injury, and the idealistic optimist would note that Duke at least got outs, while the cynical realist would note that he didn't fool anyone and that Ty Wigginton homered off him.
In any case, if your number seven and eight hitters mash home runs against one of the worst teams in the majors and you put up 7 runs, you really should win that ball game. And with quality starting pitching, you've got a much better shot to win the games you have to win in order to have even a mediocre .500 record. And truth told, even good pitchers do have occasional games where they "lose it," and in order to assuage myself (as I have in the past) when the trio of young Bucco starting pitchers have had less-than-stellar-outings, I must remind myself that even a horrific outing or two doesn't necessarily mean a pitcher is "bad" despite a bad outing.
But in the case of tonight's game, which clinched the PBC's fifteenth consecutive losing season, one lesson stands out: Pitching is fundamental. When the top three guys in the starting rotation reach the point where a quality start is the norm but a realistic expectation is beyond a mere quality start and when the last two guys in that rotation can consistently offer the PBC quality starts, that's when I expect the Pirates to win more games than they lose in a season.
As for this season, well, another losing season is officially on the books now, but I'll watch until the end of September with interest. Just to see if maybe, just maybe, there are hopes that the saying "Pitching is fundamental" could, someday soon, result in smiles for Bucco fans not only on days when certain pitchers are pitching, but on every single day, due to an expectation that the team's pitching gives it a chance to win every night. A tall order and tall task? Impossible? Ridiculous to imagine? Ludicrous?
Whatever you think about the impossibility and improbability of rejoicing in the saying that "Pitching is fundamental," that's what it is going to take for the losing seasons to come to an end (in addition, of course, to other fundamentals which will also be addressed at some future point).
Winning's Sweet
Forget anything else. Forget a couple of wild pitches and a few too many walks. Likewise forget that a few too many walks are probably preferable to being taken deep in the estimation of Serious, Lifelong Baseball Fan. Forget the general inability of bad baseball teams to hit quality, e.g., above-average MLB pitching to the tune of producing runs. (Lady luck aside in the form of incredible defense, it should be noted that the Astros scored one 1 earned run in 6 innings off the Bucco starting pitcher. Likewise, please note that the Buccos managed one unearned run in 7 innings off Oswalt.)
Sure, you should remember Nyjer Morgan's beautiful catch that saved three runs (a key example that baseball is a team game). You might nod your head and smile at Matt Capps doing what he does best--throw strikes, get outs, and get those outs nice and fast while actually being allowed to earn a save.
But seriously--forget Shawn Chacon coming into the game and doing what he does (give up a run, but at least without relinquishing a lead). Forget Marte actually getting taken deep. Forget Freddy Sanchez making an error at a very inopportune time (neither of which are actually common occurrences).
Instead, I'll leave you without any in-depth analysis, any comments that bad baseball teams playing a close game with each other made me crazy at several points in the game (due to various "do not remember" incidents named above), and just offer this lovely thought: Winning is sweet.
Oh, and also this: Doug Drabek and Bob Walk reminiscing? Call me a completely unrealistic optimist, but I'm kind of hoping this Bucco team, in coming seasons, with, of course, "missing pieces" added and with the further development of certain young players (cough, pitchers, cough), could make the same kind of turnaround that happened when the losing of the mid and late eighties turned into the winning of the early nineties.
Truly, winning is sweet, and winning games leaves me with (cynically, realistically, probably still delusional) dreams of continuing to experience this sweet feeling that comes from my team winning baseball games.
Sure, you should remember Nyjer Morgan's beautiful catch that saved three runs (a key example that baseball is a team game). You might nod your head and smile at Matt Capps doing what he does best--throw strikes, get outs, and get those outs nice and fast while actually being allowed to earn a save.
But seriously--forget Shawn Chacon coming into the game and doing what he does (give up a run, but at least without relinquishing a lead). Forget Marte actually getting taken deep. Forget Freddy Sanchez making an error at a very inopportune time (neither of which are actually common occurrences).
Instead, I'll leave you without any in-depth analysis, any comments that bad baseball teams playing a close game with each other made me crazy at several points in the game (due to various "do not remember" incidents named above), and just offer this lovely thought: Winning is sweet.
Oh, and also this: Doug Drabek and Bob Walk reminiscing? Call me a completely unrealistic optimist, but I'm kind of hoping this Bucco team, in coming seasons, with, of course, "missing pieces" added and with the further development of certain young players (cough, pitchers, cough), could make the same kind of turnaround that happened when the losing of the mid and late eighties turned into the winning of the early nineties.
Truly, winning is sweet, and winning games leaves me with (cynically, realistically, probably still delusional) dreams of continuing to experience this sweet feeling that comes from my team winning baseball games.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Talk Is Cheap/First Impressions
Based on first impressions, I think I like the new CEO. Aside from not committing to a larger payroll (which will become more of an issue if any of our young players actually and hopefully develop into really, really good players), he said all the things that I wanted to hear. He wants to be aggressive in acquiring talent in the Far East and in Latin and Central America. He'll pay over slot money when it makes sense. He wants to build the culture of a winning team, and he wants players who are passionate about baseball and want to win. Oh, and he's eager to demand accountability. Seriously, he said all the right things.
But honestly, talk is cheap. In terms of other Pittsburgh sports franchises, the current GM of the Pittsburgh Penguins, Ray Shero, as well as current Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin made great first impressions by saying all the right things. In Shero's case, he backed up saying all the right things by forming a team (granted, helped by high end talent) that had one of the best turnarounds in NHL history. As for Tomlin, the jury is still out, but if he guides the Steelers to a winning record this season, that's when I'll be able to say that my first impression of Tomlin being impressive in saying all the right things was a correct first impression.
The PBC aren't the Steelers or the Penguins; they play a different sport in a different league, and they're also mired in years of losing. Coming into an organization in as poor shape as the Buccos, well, it just lessens the value of saying all the right things. Because until I see results, impressive verbal first impressions are meaningless.
Talk is cheap. I'm waiting for the new CEO's actions to tell me if I'm right to be impressed by his introductory comments, or if his introductory comments are just more cheap talk from an organization that's been perennially pitiful for the past fourteen years. I want to be rightfully impressed, but if there's anything that following the Pirates throughout these many years of losing has taught me, it's that talk truly is cheap.
A winning record in 2008? Then I'll revisit this post with an addendum that talk actually isn't cheap. But not until that first winning season comes.
Any guesses as to how much longer we will have to wait for the Pirates to finish a season with an above .500 record?
But honestly, talk is cheap. In terms of other Pittsburgh sports franchises, the current GM of the Pittsburgh Penguins, Ray Shero, as well as current Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin made great first impressions by saying all the right things. In Shero's case, he backed up saying all the right things by forming a team (granted, helped by high end talent) that had one of the best turnarounds in NHL history. As for Tomlin, the jury is still out, but if he guides the Steelers to a winning record this season, that's when I'll be able to say that my first impression of Tomlin being impressive in saying all the right things was a correct first impression.
The PBC aren't the Steelers or the Penguins; they play a different sport in a different league, and they're also mired in years of losing. Coming into an organization in as poor shape as the Buccos, well, it just lessens the value of saying all the right things. Because until I see results, impressive verbal first impressions are meaningless.
Talk is cheap. I'm waiting for the new CEO's actions to tell me if I'm right to be impressed by his introductory comments, or if his introductory comments are just more cheap talk from an organization that's been perennially pitiful for the past fourteen years. I want to be rightfully impressed, but if there's anything that following the Pirates throughout these many years of losing has taught me, it's that talk truly is cheap.
A winning record in 2008? Then I'll revisit this post with an addendum that talk actually isn't cheap. But not until that first winning season comes.
Any guesses as to how much longer we will have to wait for the Pirates to finish a season with an above .500 record?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Futility of Projections & the New CEO
Projections make me crazy. Let's take a quiz to see if my feeling that projections can be a stunning exercise in futility has at least a little merit. See if you can fill in the name of the appropriate Pittsburgh Pirate for the following questions. (Some questions have multiple answers.)
1. ___________ has the potential to be a third starter in the majors.
2.___________ is the kind of guy who can turn a franchise around.
3.____________ has the potential to be very, very special.
4. ____________ will be a perennial All-Star. You can regularly expect .270-.290 average, 30 home runs, and at least a 100 RBI's.
Ready?
Answer 1: Bryan Bullington (said by David Littlefield when he drafted him with the first overall pick--given Littlefield's record, there are probably other Pirates of whom this has been said as well.
Answer 2: Not to bring up painful memories, but a New York Met said that after a rookie Zach Duke dominated the Mets. Yes, an opposing player said that about one of the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Answer 3: Granted, it's Jim Tracy, and he loves the word "special" so much it's highly ingratiating. But I think Tracy has used this word this season to refer to Capps, Snell, Gorzellany, and Maholm, minimally. Sure, I think of "special" as a particularly special "Tracyism" where you wonder exactly what he means, but I think he's saying, these players could turn out to be really, really good. (And yes, he's biased. But we'll get to that point in just a second.)
Answer 4: Um, does Jason Bay's performance this season ring any bells? Sure, Bay's knee is apparently not in good shape, but what about the majority of knowledgeable people who surely didn't believe they were telling tall tales when offering such a projection?
So what's the bottom line about all of these projections? Well, in certain cases, at least at the present moment in time, these projections, all of which probably appeared to be legitimate at the time of the projection, are, at this particular juncture, wrong.
Zach Duke is not currently turning around the Bucco franchise. Jason Bay will fall short of projected and expected numbers. Before surgery and rehabilitation, Bryan Bullington might have been a number 3 starter, but based on first impressions, best-case would appear to be a back-end, rather than middle-of-rotation, starter. In the case of the projections for these three players, it's worth noting that independent (e.g. not PBC affiliated teams) people made a couple of those projections. It was a Met who said what he said about the rookie phenom Duke--a freaking New York Met! Many scouts of opposing teams and lots of fantasy owners made a judgment about expected production from Jason Bay. In cases like these, there wasn't a blind, provincial, pro-PBC bias clouding projections.
In Tracy's case, of course, obviously, there's an obvious bias in referring to some of his young players as potentially being very special. (Ugh, gag me, writing about the “special” Tracyism makes me want to gag.) You don't think Tracy would like to put it on his resume, even after leaving this organization, that he "helped to develop" a couple of young pitchers who later became 20 game winners or that he was the first manager who recognized that Matt Capps had what it took to be a great closer? As a manager, Tracy's got a keen interest in letting his players know he believes in their talent and in developing that talent. Tracy's projections, if they pan out, will reflect well on him, at least in his mind and probably in the minds of others in baseball. But there's no doubt Tracy's projections are biased.
Why, however, am I writing a post about the fact (well known to anyone who's read any of my writing) that projections make me absolutely crazy? When we're projecting what a young player is going to do and waiting for him to fulfill a good projection, good grief. I tend to go stir-crazy and insane waiting for projections to be fulfilled. It's frustrating when good projections don't pan out in the expected time frame, and it's incredibly disappointing when good projections never come to actual fruition. It's always more fun when a "low upside" projection is proven wrong. Yet the bottom line remains that as a fan, I hate playing the projection game due to how futile certain projections pan out to be. Projecting a career trajectory for professional athletes is not how I make a living, and as such, I prefer to play a bit of a waiting game when it comes to projections.
Which brings me to the new CEO the Pirates announced this Thursday. At this point, I could make lots of projections: Oh, it's good that these people quoted in that ESPN insider article speak well of him. Well, at least he's smart. But, on the other hand, he's worked in the MLB front office? He worked closely with Bud Selig, the commissioner I detest? Doesn't hiring a guy like this just mean the Nuttings will continue their usual ways of making quite a nice profit at the hands of gullible fans?
And in the midst of this internal monologue comes the thought that I must remember when a player who’s been projected to be good/great/ “special” isn’t living up to that particular projection, and the thought that comes is, "Wait." In the case of players, of course you can't and shouldn't wait forever--but there's something to be said for not jumping to irrational and erroneous conclusions based on a small sample size. After the thought of "Wait" comes the second and more important thought which should be applied to the new CEO: "Judge the performance.” Does his performance indicate that he’s getting the desired results?
I could make all kinds of projections about what kind of CEO this new guy will be, and I'm pretty sure different people have different opinions. Unfortunately for fans of the team who don't get to dictate (sorry, folks, not until the team loses enough fans to start losing money) what Mr. Nutting does, fans will have to wait. Projections can be fun, interesting, and insightful, to a degree. But projections, good, bad, indifferent, for both players and CEO's, must be judged in line with productivity in terms of actual performance. While we can see hints that point to desirable or undesirable traits, just as scouting young players remains an inexact science, so, too, is projecting the quality of this new CEO an inexact science. Until we actually see how he handles his job, well, you know, that projection about Zach Duke sure was nice, but given Duke's 2007 performance, how much is that projection really worth? (Depending on who you're talking to, the projection can still stand, or it was a mirage, or the truth is somewhere between those two extremes.)
Given the fact that being a PBC fan has made this idealist a bit jaded, cynical, and pessimistic, I'd prefer not to hear all the potentially great things about this new CEO. As Bucco fans can tell you, false hope just sucks, and it's sucked the life out of a franchise that was once a proud winner. That doesn't mean that I only want to hear about the new CEO's negative attributes. Rather, it just means that I want to follow a cautious mold: Sure, share your "gloom and doom" or "glowing and raving" projections but please, as with all projections, take them with one large grain of salt.
When it comes to projections, I'll read them, with interest, the same way I read conflicting scouting and projection reports with interest. But just as I wait (depending on the position, player's age, upside, etc) for awhile before trying to determine which projection was accurate, I can only allow actual performance, rather than projections about anticipated performance, to determine if this new CEO is a step forward or another way of maintaining the same old style that's resulted in a near-record-breaking level of consecutive seasons of losing baseball.
1. ___________ has the potential to be a third starter in the majors.
2.___________ is the kind of guy who can turn a franchise around.
3.____________ has the potential to be very, very special.
4. ____________ will be a perennial All-Star. You can regularly expect .270-.290 average, 30 home runs, and at least a 100 RBI's.
Ready?
Answer 1: Bryan Bullington (said by David Littlefield when he drafted him with the first overall pick--given Littlefield's record, there are probably other Pirates of whom this has been said as well.
Answer 2: Not to bring up painful memories, but a New York Met said that after a rookie Zach Duke dominated the Mets. Yes, an opposing player said that about one of the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Answer 3: Granted, it's Jim Tracy, and he loves the word "special" so much it's highly ingratiating. But I think Tracy has used this word this season to refer to Capps, Snell, Gorzellany, and Maholm, minimally. Sure, I think of "special" as a particularly special "Tracyism" where you wonder exactly what he means, but I think he's saying, these players could turn out to be really, really good. (And yes, he's biased. But we'll get to that point in just a second.)
Answer 4: Um, does Jason Bay's performance this season ring any bells? Sure, Bay's knee is apparently not in good shape, but what about the majority of knowledgeable people who surely didn't believe they were telling tall tales when offering such a projection?
So what's the bottom line about all of these projections? Well, in certain cases, at least at the present moment in time, these projections, all of which probably appeared to be legitimate at the time of the projection, are, at this particular juncture, wrong.
Zach Duke is not currently turning around the Bucco franchise. Jason Bay will fall short of projected and expected numbers. Before surgery and rehabilitation, Bryan Bullington might have been a number 3 starter, but based on first impressions, best-case would appear to be a back-end, rather than middle-of-rotation, starter. In the case of the projections for these three players, it's worth noting that independent (e.g. not PBC affiliated teams) people made a couple of those projections. It was a Met who said what he said about the rookie phenom Duke--a freaking New York Met! Many scouts of opposing teams and lots of fantasy owners made a judgment about expected production from Jason Bay. In cases like these, there wasn't a blind, provincial, pro-PBC bias clouding projections.
In Tracy's case, of course, obviously, there's an obvious bias in referring to some of his young players as potentially being very special. (Ugh, gag me, writing about the “special” Tracyism makes me want to gag.) You don't think Tracy would like to put it on his resume, even after leaving this organization, that he "helped to develop" a couple of young pitchers who later became 20 game winners or that he was the first manager who recognized that Matt Capps had what it took to be a great closer? As a manager, Tracy's got a keen interest in letting his players know he believes in their talent and in developing that talent. Tracy's projections, if they pan out, will reflect well on him, at least in his mind and probably in the minds of others in baseball. But there's no doubt Tracy's projections are biased.
Why, however, am I writing a post about the fact (well known to anyone who's read any of my writing) that projections make me absolutely crazy? When we're projecting what a young player is going to do and waiting for him to fulfill a good projection, good grief. I tend to go stir-crazy and insane waiting for projections to be fulfilled. It's frustrating when good projections don't pan out in the expected time frame, and it's incredibly disappointing when good projections never come to actual fruition. It's always more fun when a "low upside" projection is proven wrong. Yet the bottom line remains that as a fan, I hate playing the projection game due to how futile certain projections pan out to be. Projecting a career trajectory for professional athletes is not how I make a living, and as such, I prefer to play a bit of a waiting game when it comes to projections.
Which brings me to the new CEO the Pirates announced this Thursday. At this point, I could make lots of projections: Oh, it's good that these people quoted in that ESPN insider article speak well of him. Well, at least he's smart. But, on the other hand, he's worked in the MLB front office? He worked closely with Bud Selig, the commissioner I detest? Doesn't hiring a guy like this just mean the Nuttings will continue their usual ways of making quite a nice profit at the hands of gullible fans?
And in the midst of this internal monologue comes the thought that I must remember when a player who’s been projected to be good/great/ “special” isn’t living up to that particular projection, and the thought that comes is, "Wait." In the case of players, of course you can't and shouldn't wait forever--but there's something to be said for not jumping to irrational and erroneous conclusions based on a small sample size. After the thought of "Wait" comes the second and more important thought which should be applied to the new CEO: "Judge the performance.” Does his performance indicate that he’s getting the desired results?
I could make all kinds of projections about what kind of CEO this new guy will be, and I'm pretty sure different people have different opinions. Unfortunately for fans of the team who don't get to dictate (sorry, folks, not until the team loses enough fans to start losing money) what Mr. Nutting does, fans will have to wait. Projections can be fun, interesting, and insightful, to a degree. But projections, good, bad, indifferent, for both players and CEO's, must be judged in line with productivity in terms of actual performance. While we can see hints that point to desirable or undesirable traits, just as scouting young players remains an inexact science, so, too, is projecting the quality of this new CEO an inexact science. Until we actually see how he handles his job, well, you know, that projection about Zach Duke sure was nice, but given Duke's 2007 performance, how much is that projection really worth? (Depending on who you're talking to, the projection can still stand, or it was a mirage, or the truth is somewhere between those two extremes.)
Given the fact that being a PBC fan has made this idealist a bit jaded, cynical, and pessimistic, I'd prefer not to hear all the potentially great things about this new CEO. As Bucco fans can tell you, false hope just sucks, and it's sucked the life out of a franchise that was once a proud winner. That doesn't mean that I only want to hear about the new CEO's negative attributes. Rather, it just means that I want to follow a cautious mold: Sure, share your "gloom and doom" or "glowing and raving" projections but please, as with all projections, take them with one large grain of salt.
When it comes to projections, I'll read them, with interest, the same way I read conflicting scouting and projection reports with interest. But just as I wait (depending on the position, player's age, upside, etc) for awhile before trying to determine which projection was accurate, I can only allow actual performance, rather than projections about anticipated performance, to determine if this new CEO is a step forward or another way of maintaining the same old style that's resulted in a near-record-breaking level of consecutive seasons of losing baseball.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Post-Win Thoughts
Random Thoughts after Today's Win:
--Last week, the propaganda machine had an article up where Freddy Sanchez said the team knew what they would be getting when "Matty Mo" (Matt Morris) pitched--something along the lines of "being in every game." (I'm not a huge fan of linking to the propaganda machine unless I'm mocking some absurdity, and I usually prefer to direct snarky comments at management and ownership rather than the actual players, which is my way of saying: If you really need to, you can find that exact quote for yourself.) What I am really starting to enjoy, however, is the expectation I have when Tom Gorzelanny starts a game. Generally speaking, you know you're getting several innings of quality starting pitching in games Gorzy starts, and you're confident your team has a chance to win every game he pitches. To have that expectation, consistently, is incredibly nice.
When the rest of the Bucco starting pitchers consistently follow suit, that's probably when the Pirates have, minimally, a .500 record, rather than a sub .500 record. So, please, for pitchers who've shown flashes of this ability to pitch solidly on a somewhat consistent basis, how about "somewhat consistent" turning into just "consistent?" Pretty, pretty, please, pitchers?
--There's a saying (I'm not sure to whom to attribute it) that you're never as good as you look when you win or as bad as you look when you lose. I think this case applies quite clearly and consistently in terms of evaluating the 2007 Pirates. The team's sudden mashing offense is probably just an overcorrection of things that went horribly wrong earlier in the season. In terms of other areas of overall play, I think things tend to "even out" over the course of a season. Still, with that "evening out" now apparently occurring, I still think this team should have a .500 record. They're a slightly-less-than-mediocre club that has enough legitimate MLB players that they should have a .500 record playing in the NL Central. The fact that the team is many, many games from a .500 record should stand as an indictment of those in charge.
One reason for the team's poor record, the one the propaganda machine and Jim Tracy will probably feed you, is that young players who are still learning how to play in the big leagues and still developing are, somewhat naturally, inconsistent. And for all but day-one-arrival megastars, the propaganda machine and Tracy would have a point. There are inevitable ups-and-downs that are par for the course in any sport for players that are still developing and learning in the Show.
But the reason for my "indictment" of the organization and Tracy, too, is that I don't believe that inconsistency should be so difficult to overcome that a team can't manage a mediocre, break-even record. Developing young players have to be held accountable, too, and perhaps especially when it comes to basics of fundamental play rather than a current physical inability to hit or locate a particularly difficult pitch, and I haven't seen enough accountability from the higher-ups in this organization. Along with accountability, I haven't seen the expectation, consistently upheld by those at the top, of, "We must win." With the Pirates, it's always great if they win. But winning never appears to be the actual, consistent expectation, and without that expectation, exactly what would be the point of accountability? If there is no expected standard to be attained, how in the world is anyone held accountable for performance?
Others have said that a "losing mindset" has infected the team. And sure, this club is, at best, a mediocre club. But even taking the month of August as a correction for previously out-of-whack individual statistics, the club probably shouldn't be, yet again, among the worst in the majors. They should be within a few games of .500, not miles below .500. They should be "not very good to mediocre" rather than "piss-poor" and "just bad."
Yes, the Pirates are bad, as indicated by their record. But they'd be a lot closer to mediocre (and check out the Comedy Central standings and see with your own eyes that mediocrity means pennant contention in this division) with leadership emanating at the top of the organization that expected to win consistently and demanded accountability, from the guys in suits to the coaches to the players, to meet that expectation to win games consistently.
--Last week, the propaganda machine had an article up where Freddy Sanchez said the team knew what they would be getting when "Matty Mo" (Matt Morris) pitched--something along the lines of "being in every game." (I'm not a huge fan of linking to the propaganda machine unless I'm mocking some absurdity, and I usually prefer to direct snarky comments at management and ownership rather than the actual players, which is my way of saying: If you really need to, you can find that exact quote for yourself.) What I am really starting to enjoy, however, is the expectation I have when Tom Gorzelanny starts a game. Generally speaking, you know you're getting several innings of quality starting pitching in games Gorzy starts, and you're confident your team has a chance to win every game he pitches. To have that expectation, consistently, is incredibly nice.
When the rest of the Bucco starting pitchers consistently follow suit, that's probably when the Pirates have, minimally, a .500 record, rather than a sub .500 record. So, please, for pitchers who've shown flashes of this ability to pitch solidly on a somewhat consistent basis, how about "somewhat consistent" turning into just "consistent?" Pretty, pretty, please, pitchers?
--There's a saying (I'm not sure to whom to attribute it) that you're never as good as you look when you win or as bad as you look when you lose. I think this case applies quite clearly and consistently in terms of evaluating the 2007 Pirates. The team's sudden mashing offense is probably just an overcorrection of things that went horribly wrong earlier in the season. In terms of other areas of overall play, I think things tend to "even out" over the course of a season. Still, with that "evening out" now apparently occurring, I still think this team should have a .500 record. They're a slightly-less-than-mediocre club that has enough legitimate MLB players that they should have a .500 record playing in the NL Central. The fact that the team is many, many games from a .500 record should stand as an indictment of those in charge.
One reason for the team's poor record, the one the propaganda machine and Jim Tracy will probably feed you, is that young players who are still learning how to play in the big leagues and still developing are, somewhat naturally, inconsistent. And for all but day-one-arrival megastars, the propaganda machine and Tracy would have a point. There are inevitable ups-and-downs that are par for the course in any sport for players that are still developing and learning in the Show.
But the reason for my "indictment" of the organization and Tracy, too, is that I don't believe that inconsistency should be so difficult to overcome that a team can't manage a mediocre, break-even record. Developing young players have to be held accountable, too, and perhaps especially when it comes to basics of fundamental play rather than a current physical inability to hit or locate a particularly difficult pitch, and I haven't seen enough accountability from the higher-ups in this organization. Along with accountability, I haven't seen the expectation, consistently upheld by those at the top, of, "We must win." With the Pirates, it's always great if they win. But winning never appears to be the actual, consistent expectation, and without that expectation, exactly what would be the point of accountability? If there is no expected standard to be attained, how in the world is anyone held accountable for performance?
Others have said that a "losing mindset" has infected the team. And sure, this club is, at best, a mediocre club. But even taking the month of August as a correction for previously out-of-whack individual statistics, the club probably shouldn't be, yet again, among the worst in the majors. They should be within a few games of .500, not miles below .500. They should be "not very good to mediocre" rather than "piss-poor" and "just bad."
Yes, the Pirates are bad, as indicated by their record. But they'd be a lot closer to mediocre (and check out the Comedy Central standings and see with your own eyes that mediocrity means pennant contention in this division) with leadership emanating at the top of the organization that expected to win consistently and demanded accountability, from the guys in suits to the coaches to the players, to meet that expectation to win games consistently.
Up to Old Tricks (Almost)
--I was seriously convinced the Pirates were trying to lose this game. Alas, the Buccos managed to delay the inevitable for at least another two days (tomorrow is an off day, so the soonest the team's 15th consecutive losing season will be assured isn't until the end of Friday's game with the Astros.)
--The Buccos appeared to be up to several of the tricks that have enabled them to have yet another season of a sub .500 record.
--Waste a solid outing by your starting pitcher against the team that's hit more home runs than any other MLB team? Check.
--Get a couple of fine defensive plays but fail to make those fine defensive plays with the game on the line? Check.
--Mr. Manager doesn't give the hook at the right time? Check.
--Get enough hits to get a 4 run lead and then lose the ability to get hits? Check.
--The bullpen is unable to hold a 2 run lead? Check.
--Despite these "old," familiar tricks of a losing team, the post August Pirates made an appearance after the Brewers came back and tied the game at 4.
--Get out of a serious jam with only a tie rather than allowing the opponent their first lead of the game? Check.
--Minimize the damage in those jams? Check.
--Get a timely hit from a player who was more known for striking out and hitting into inning-ending double plays in the miserable pre-August part of the season? Check.
--Get another timely hit from a bench player? Check.
--Allow your closer to earn an actual save? (Okay, that's still not that common, but whatever.) Check.
So, in the end, the Pirates didn't lose a game they shouldn't have lost. The Pirates won a game they should have won. This is progress, and as has been duly noted on this blog many times, I enjoy winning.
--The Buccos appeared to be up to several of the tricks that have enabled them to have yet another season of a sub .500 record.
--Waste a solid outing by your starting pitcher against the team that's hit more home runs than any other MLB team? Check.
--Get a couple of fine defensive plays but fail to make those fine defensive plays with the game on the line? Check.
--Mr. Manager doesn't give the hook at the right time? Check.
--Get enough hits to get a 4 run lead and then lose the ability to get hits? Check.
--The bullpen is unable to hold a 2 run lead? Check.
--Despite these "old," familiar tricks of a losing team, the post August Pirates made an appearance after the Brewers came back and tied the game at 4.
--Get out of a serious jam with only a tie rather than allowing the opponent their first lead of the game? Check.
--Minimize the damage in those jams? Check.
--Get a timely hit from a player who was more known for striking out and hitting into inning-ending double plays in the miserable pre-August part of the season? Check.
--Get another timely hit from a bench player? Check.
--Allow your closer to earn an actual save? (Okay, that's still not that common, but whatever.) Check.
So, in the end, the Pirates didn't lose a game they shouldn't have lost. The Pirates won a game they should have won. This is progress, and as has been duly noted on this blog many times, I enjoy winning.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Yearning For Mediocrity
--In my previous post, I mentioned what I feel is a legitimate question, given the current ownership group. That question: Does Mr. Nutting even want or desire to field a team that can contend for championships?
--Given that question, however, I figure that I would yet again note the stunning ineptitude of the National League Central Division this year. Because I remain a Pirate fan even as the team approaches their fifteenth consecutive losing season, I'm quite used to inflicting this mild form of "baseball fan torture" (hardly the real thing) upon myself.
--The Brewers have won 74 games. The Pirates have won 64 games. The Brewers have won 10 more games than the Pirates. Yes, the Bucco record remains among the worst in all of the majors. In other divisions, the Brewers and the Cubs are merely mediocre teams who have no business contending for a pennant. But the Brewers and Cubs, along with my team, the Pirates, all play in the NL Central; and in 2007, a mediocre baseball team will be good enough to win the division known throughout baseball as the Comedy Central.
That being said, if I really, really wanted to torture myself, I'd pull up the Bucco record to this point in the season. Painful as it would be, I think I could easily identify ten games that my pathetic Pirates could have won rather than lost. Of course, I could blame the loss on the implosions of the bullpen, the idiocy of the manager, the non-performance of the "marquee for Pittsburgh" (above average MLB players) players, ridiculous personnel decisions, and the like. But the point is, if I really wanted to, I think I could find 10 games that a "mediocre" baseball team could and should have won this season. While I will not be choosing to inflict this pathetic Pirate fan torture upon myself at this juncture of the season (hey, at least Littlefield is gone, right?), I'm guessing that anyone who chose to probably could.
And what I have to say about this yearning for mediocrity--it's seriously sick. Not because I'm wondering how a bad baseball team could win 10 more games and morph into a mediocre baseball team. But because this is what being a fan of the Pirates has left me with--an expectation that mediocrity is good. Sure, mediocrity is better than piss-poor play, and at some point in time, a team, especially one developing from within, doesn't necessarily shoot from bottom of the standings to the top of the standings in one season, but in order for real progress to be made, there needs to be an expectation that mediocrity is not the goal. Sure, a .500 season this year would have been great and would have put my team in a pennant race. But for a team to progress beyond only hanging around in a pennant race in years when a division royally stinks, the expectation has to be that mediocrity is only the starting point, not the finishing point.
And when it comes to the new CEO, the new GM the CEO will hire, and especially when it comes to Mr. Nutting, I want to know--will a vision of excellence, rather than mediocrity, be your vision, and will you hire people who can develop and manage players who can actually begin to fulfill a vision of excellence in terms of winning actual baseball games?
--Given that question, however, I figure that I would yet again note the stunning ineptitude of the National League Central Division this year. Because I remain a Pirate fan even as the team approaches their fifteenth consecutive losing season, I'm quite used to inflicting this mild form of "baseball fan torture" (hardly the real thing) upon myself.
--The Brewers have won 74 games. The Pirates have won 64 games. The Brewers have won 10 more games than the Pirates. Yes, the Bucco record remains among the worst in all of the majors. In other divisions, the Brewers and the Cubs are merely mediocre teams who have no business contending for a pennant. But the Brewers and Cubs, along with my team, the Pirates, all play in the NL Central; and in 2007, a mediocre baseball team will be good enough to win the division known throughout baseball as the Comedy Central.
That being said, if I really, really wanted to torture myself, I'd pull up the Bucco record to this point in the season. Painful as it would be, I think I could easily identify ten games that my pathetic Pirates could have won rather than lost. Of course, I could blame the loss on the implosions of the bullpen, the idiocy of the manager, the non-performance of the "marquee for Pittsburgh" (above average MLB players) players, ridiculous personnel decisions, and the like. But the point is, if I really wanted to, I think I could find 10 games that a "mediocre" baseball team could and should have won this season. While I will not be choosing to inflict this pathetic Pirate fan torture upon myself at this juncture of the season (hey, at least Littlefield is gone, right?), I'm guessing that anyone who chose to probably could.
And what I have to say about this yearning for mediocrity--it's seriously sick. Not because I'm wondering how a bad baseball team could win 10 more games and morph into a mediocre baseball team. But because this is what being a fan of the Pirates has left me with--an expectation that mediocrity is good. Sure, mediocrity is better than piss-poor play, and at some point in time, a team, especially one developing from within, doesn't necessarily shoot from bottom of the standings to the top of the standings in one season, but in order for real progress to be made, there needs to be an expectation that mediocrity is not the goal. Sure, a .500 season this year would have been great and would have put my team in a pennant race. But for a team to progress beyond only hanging around in a pennant race in years when a division royally stinks, the expectation has to be that mediocrity is only the starting point, not the finishing point.
And when it comes to the new CEO, the new GM the CEO will hire, and especially when it comes to Mr. Nutting, I want to know--will a vision of excellence, rather than mediocrity, be your vision, and will you hire people who can develop and manage players who can actually begin to fulfill a vision of excellence in terms of winning actual baseball games?
My Question
While the Pirates are still incredibly secretive, this Forbes article provokes a question that I have to ask.
Chuck Greenberg, who will not be the next Bucco CEO, said, "As a Pittsburgh guy and a Pirates fan, I would have loved being part of turning the franchise around and seeing the Pirates win championships again."
Forget my silly, at least slightly insane Pittsburgh provincialism in my initial favoritism for Greenberg--who's never failed at anything, to my knowledge, and who's demonstrated a capability as an owner for running winning teams that are also profitable at the minor league level--and look at the above quote.
Is "winning championships" the mandate that Mr. Nutting will give to his new CEO, Frank Coonelly? Or will the mandate be "profit first" and "at least get the team to .500 so they can stop being embarrassing?"
Is the mandate going to be to build a profitable franchise that consistently earns a profit by winning games and selling out the prettiest ball park in America? (And yes, Mr. Nutting, put a winner there, and fans will come.) Or is the mandate going to be "profit first, and we'll be happy if you would just put a less embarrassing product on the field?"
Vision starts at the top, and mandates start at the top. The new CEO will answer to Mr. Nutting. But the question remains: Does Nutting really want to have a winning team? Is he actually going to give his new CEO the resources and latitude to build a team that can legitimately contend for championships?
Because, as harsh and fatalistic as it is for Bucco fans sick of losing, a new CEO and new GM will not matter much until the dictate and mandate, backed up by reasonable resources from ownership, actually is to build a team that can contend for championships.*
(*And, in the NL Central, as presently constructed, it shouldn't be that difficult to contend for a pennant.)
Chuck Greenberg, who will not be the next Bucco CEO, said, "As a Pittsburgh guy and a Pirates fan, I would have loved being part of turning the franchise around and seeing the Pirates win championships again."
Forget my silly, at least slightly insane Pittsburgh provincialism in my initial favoritism for Greenberg--who's never failed at anything, to my knowledge, and who's demonstrated a capability as an owner for running winning teams that are also profitable at the minor league level--and look at the above quote.
Is "winning championships" the mandate that Mr. Nutting will give to his new CEO, Frank Coonelly? Or will the mandate be "profit first" and "at least get the team to .500 so they can stop being embarrassing?"
Is the mandate going to be to build a profitable franchise that consistently earns a profit by winning games and selling out the prettiest ball park in America? (And yes, Mr. Nutting, put a winner there, and fans will come.) Or is the mandate going to be "profit first, and we'll be happy if you would just put a less embarrassing product on the field?"
Vision starts at the top, and mandates start at the top. The new CEO will answer to Mr. Nutting. But the question remains: Does Nutting really want to have a winning team? Is he actually going to give his new CEO the resources and latitude to build a team that can legitimately contend for championships?
Because, as harsh and fatalistic as it is for Bucco fans sick of losing, a new CEO and new GM will not matter much until the dictate and mandate, backed up by reasonable resources from ownership, actually is to build a team that can contend for championships.*
(*And, in the NL Central, as presently constructed, it shouldn't be that difficult to contend for a pennant.)
Media Entertainment
--When it comes to the perennial losing Pirates, apparently it's not just fans at PNC Park who'd like some extra entertainment (the fans at the park appear to prefer concerts, fireworks, and races involving people running in stuffed food costumes). While I can't exactly blame them given the product on the field, the Bucco announcing crew likes to have some entertainment, too.
--My favorite pitcher from childhood, Doug Drabek, will apparently be in the broadcast booth for much of the Pittsburgh-Houston game this Friday night. Hmm...I wonder what Drabek will have to say about the current Pirates? Or will there just be reminiscing about those pennant-winning but playoff-losing teams in 90, 91, and 92? And what does it say that while I'm interested in the game, I'm also interested in hearing from a former Cy Young winner? I suppose listening to a former Cy Young winner espouse about a current game or remember the good 'ol days is preferable to wondering when I will ever again have the privilege of watching a Cy Young winner pitch for my team?
--I can see why the broadcasters love Nyjer Morgan. I love hockey, and Morgan used to play hockey. Plus, he's extroverted, always smiling, and he makes flashy plays. Morgan's made some nice plays with his glove. He's also had some ugly looking strikeouts. While I can understand falling in love with a player's "personality," I don't want personality to be how one judges the quality of a ball player.
Don't get me wrong. It's the "personalities" of my favorite players, in any sport, that, along with their talent, endears them to me enough for them to become my favorites. Whether that's a quietly confident or slightly insane pitcher, or a rookie hockey player who plays defense like a veteran, personality, coupled with talent, usually is involved when I find myself saying or writing or blogging, "He's becoming one of my favorites."
But to make a decision solely based on the "personality" of a player? An athlete can have all the confidence in the world that he's ready for the Show, but that confidence doesn't mean squat until that confidence manifests itself in on-field performance. Which means that, like the announcers, I will enjoy Morgan's energy and smiles, but when it comes to judging him as a player, well--let's just say that consistent on-field performance for the rest of the season is going to matter much more than his apparently charming, gregarious personality ever could. Here's to hoping (or dreaming) that the media covering the team actually remember that off-field personality, for better or worse, should mean squat when it comes to evaluating on-field performance.
--My favorite pitcher from childhood, Doug Drabek, will apparently be in the broadcast booth for much of the Pittsburgh-Houston game this Friday night. Hmm...I wonder what Drabek will have to say about the current Pirates? Or will there just be reminiscing about those pennant-winning but playoff-losing teams in 90, 91, and 92? And what does it say that while I'm interested in the game, I'm also interested in hearing from a former Cy Young winner? I suppose listening to a former Cy Young winner espouse about a current game or remember the good 'ol days is preferable to wondering when I will ever again have the privilege of watching a Cy Young winner pitch for my team?
--I can see why the broadcasters love Nyjer Morgan. I love hockey, and Morgan used to play hockey. Plus, he's extroverted, always smiling, and he makes flashy plays. Morgan's made some nice plays with his glove. He's also had some ugly looking strikeouts. While I can understand falling in love with a player's "personality," I don't want personality to be how one judges the quality of a ball player.
Don't get me wrong. It's the "personalities" of my favorite players, in any sport, that, along with their talent, endears them to me enough for them to become my favorites. Whether that's a quietly confident or slightly insane pitcher, or a rookie hockey player who plays defense like a veteran, personality, coupled with talent, usually is involved when I find myself saying or writing or blogging, "He's becoming one of my favorites."
But to make a decision solely based on the "personality" of a player? An athlete can have all the confidence in the world that he's ready for the Show, but that confidence doesn't mean squat until that confidence manifests itself in on-field performance. Which means that, like the announcers, I will enjoy Morgan's energy and smiles, but when it comes to judging him as a player, well--let's just say that consistent on-field performance for the rest of the season is going to matter much more than his apparently charming, gregarious personality ever could. Here's to hoping (or dreaming) that the media covering the team actually remember that off-field personality, for better or worse, should mean squat when it comes to evaluating on-field performance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)