OnlyBucs

It's not something to strive for and you can't discount the beginning of the year. But fifty percent of the time we've been better than the other team, and 50 percent worse. That's what average means.

192B27273301222B26232C2B4A0 wrote: It's not something to strive for and you can't discount the beginning of the year.  But fifty percent of the time we've been better than the other team, and 50 percent worse.  That's what average means. 


Hmmmm...



A team winning 50% of it's games is average. OK, fair enough.



A team winning six games less than they have won would be below average if we're using that formula.



So, there must be a, "Neal Huntington Curve," where if he's within say 6-10 games of .500, he gets the nod.



Now that I know how the formula works, I stand corrected. This is an average team, with the special Neal Huntington rules that apply.

1333203D3C520 wrote: It's not something to strive for and you can't discount the beginning of the year.  But fifty percent of the time we've been better than the other team, and 50 percent worse.  That's what average means. 


Hmmmm...



A team winning 50% of it's games is average. OK, fair enough.



A team winning six games less than they have won would be below average if we're using that formula.



So, there must be a, "Neal Huntington Curve," where if he's within say 6-10 games of .500, he gets the nod.



Now that I know how the formula works, I stand corrected. This is an average team, with the special Neal Huntington rules that apply.


Is there a "Kang & Marte Curve"? I could buy into that.

Now the team could/should have done some extra maneuvering to compensate for losing those guys.  It's fair to say to say the team would have been better if they were on it, but they're not.  It would not have been too much to ask to get some team's 4th OF or something. 



They've recovered somewhat from the beginning of the season, but that only means that they stopped being miserable. 



I do think that the way they're playing now is more to the team's true talent level, but it's not good enough to be anything more than mediocre.  If they're going to be average, I'd rather they be terrible. 

685A56564270535A57525D5A3B0 wrote:  

I do think that the way they're playing now is more to the team's true talent level, but it's not good enough to be anything more than mediocre.


The team's record after 162 games will give you a measurement of the talent level of the team.  We can't remove chunks of the season. Those are the players that NH put on the roster. The results are what they are.



If they're going to be average, I'd rather they be terrible. 




This I totally agree with. Being stuck in the middle is no place to be. Be contenders or rebuilders. We're currently middlers and Nutting seems to be just fine with that.



I've already accepted that Nutting isn't going to sell the team. With that being said, I'm ready for a new management team. If things really bottom out, then Nutting will have to make a change. So, if we're not going to contend, I say let's be bad and start over again.

Bad teams can still make improvements. Not all bad teams need to start over and rebuild from the bottom up.



The Pirates have some pieces in place. They need to add to those pieces. That can be through trades, drafting, and free agency. I don't think this team is ready for a complete rebuilding again.

They aren't stuck in the middle. Most lousy teams would kill to have the cost-controlled talent that we do.  Our worst contract is 5.5 million per year Dan Hudson.  Cervelli maybe a close 2nd.   



You can tear down and rebuild a team 100 times and you wouldn't have a cheaper, more effective core than this 90 times out of 100.



All that's going on is Marte and Kang making bad decisions and the ownership, FO, and it's sycophants being passive and cheap.



If Marte and Kang we're playing we would be a .500 team, which just means we were RIGHT and nothing was done this offseason to get better over 2016.   



Add to this team.  Trade Cutch and Cervelli to do it.   If NH can't use those two to make a solid trade, he needs to find a new line of work.  Because he sure can't draft. If he can't trade either, he's worthless to me

3E353D3134352E6B6D1A233B3235357439355A0 wrote: Don't forget that only three teams who made the MLB Playoffs ended up going further the next year since 2008. 



So, after 41 teams made the NL Playoffs one year, only two did better the following year:  Phillies and Cubs.  Two in the NL since 2008 (82 teams total for three: Royals).



Makes you wonder why the other 38 NL teams didn't build on their playoff runs?  Or the other 79 teams in all of baseball?


You are wrong. It's more than three. It's 8. Details:



2008 to 2009

LAA moved up - knocked out in LDS in 2008, knocked out in LCS in 2009



2011 to 2012

NYY moved up - knocked out in LDS in 2011, knocked out in LCS in 2012

DET moved up - knocked out in LCS in 2011, WS losers in 2012



2012 to 2013

STL moved up - knocked out in LCS in 2012, WS losers in 2013

ATL moved up - knocked out in WCG in 2012, division winner/LDS loser in 2013



2014 to 2015

KCR moved up - WS losers in 2014, WS winners in 2015



2015 to 2016

CHC moved up - knocked out in LCS in 2015, WS winners in 2016

LAD moved up - knocked out in LDS in 2015, knocked out in LCS in 2016



Several more teams reached the same level in consecutive years, like Texas losing the series in back-to-back seasons. This count also doesn't take into measure teams who missed the playoffs one year and made it the next - they also moved up a level.


Ok.  Good research.  I was wrong.  But eight (even ten) teams is still not a lot in nine years and out of 82 teams.



Sorry, for being wrong.  My point is still valid. 


Let me back up a step. What's has the typical follow up year and year after that been for a team that has made the post-season? Since the 2007 post season, there have been 9 follow up post-seasons involving 80 teams (10 teams over the most recent 4 seasons and 8 teams per season from the first 5 seasons of this time frame).



Here's the break down

38 teams made the post-season the following year

42 teams missed the post-season the following year



Of those who made the post-season the following year...

9 went further (I didn't look at the 2007 post-season in my original research and that adds the Phillies)

11 lost at the same level

18 did not make it as far



Of the 42 teams that missed the post season

14 teams returned to the post-season the year after they missed

7 teams had consecutive losing seasons (and missed the post-season both years)

16 teams missed the post-season consecutive years but at least finished .500 once

5 teams remain to be seen as the 2017 year is their second year out



So, if the Pirates miss the post-season this year and finish under .500, what they have done is likely less common than returning to the playoffs in consecutive years and improving on the previous year's result.



In other words, the 2016-17 Pirates are potentially going to post the among the worst recent regular season results in the two seasons following a post-season appearance.



I don't think that's what your point was. But that's what recent history shows.

656C64757B010 wrote: They aren't stuck in the middle. Most lousy teams would kill to have the cost-controlled talent that we do.  Our worst contract is 5.5 million per year Dan Hudson.  Cervelli maybe a close 2nd.   



You can tear down and rebuild a team 100 times and you wouldn't have a cheaper, more effective core than this 90 times out of 100.



All that's going on is Marte and Kang making bad decisions and the ownership, FO, and it's sycophants being passive and cheap.



If Marte and Kang we're playing we would be a .500 team, which just means we were RIGHT and nothing was done this offseason to get better over 2016.   



Add to this team.  Trade Cutch and Cervelli to do it.   If NH can't use those two to make a solid trade, he needs to find a new line of work.  Because he sure can't draft.  If he can't trade either, he's worthless to me


Who in their right mind would want Cervelli? 2 seasons ago, sure. Last year, 0 HR, nope. This year, they might as well get him a stretcher to lie down on in the dugout.



Let's not over evaluate our talent or lack of talent.

4B64737264786A62010 wrote: They aren't stuck in the middle. Most lousy teams would kill to have the cost-controlled talent that we do.  Our worst contract is 5.5 million per year Dan Hudson.  Cervelli maybe a close 2nd.   



You can tear down and rebuild a team 100 times and you wouldn't have a cheaper, more effective core than this 90 times out of 100.



All that's going on is Marte and Kang making bad decisions and the ownership, FO, and it's sycophants being passive and cheap.



If Marte and Kang we're playing we would be a .500 team, which just means we were RIGHT and nothing was done this offseason to get better over 2016.   



Add to this team.  Trade Cutch and Cervelli to do it.   If NH can't use those two to make a solid trade, he needs to find a new line of work.  Because he sure can't draft.  If he can't trade either, he's worthless to me


Who in their right mind would want Cervelli? 2 seasons ago, sure. Last year, 0 HR, nope. This year, they might as well get him a stretcher to lie down on in the dugout.



Let's not over evaluate our talent or lack of talent.




I'm not over valuing.  Cervelli wouldn't add much if any, but he is a .720+ OPS catcher with ok defense when playing.   You can move him.  He has a pulse and plays catcher.   Don't fool yourself.



Cutch would be the big value piece.   Cervelli would be moving some dead weight since Diaz is better anyway and can walk onto the field without getting hurt. 



My point is that you return a valuable piece with Cutch and you find a way to jettison Cervelli contract without pulling a Lirano and paying prospects to do it.



Then you've got $40 million easily. Easily to use to ADD to the team. You could add $40 and still be under 110 in that scenario