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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)