Who is Kingman? think you meant Kingham
Depressing View
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Depressing View
477579796D5F7C75787D7275140 wrote: Points the article made that I think are accurate:
1) the Pirates have, each of the past couple years, been content to be a very good team rather than reaching to be the best team. A couple additions and maybe the Pirates beat the royals last year.
98 wins and we weren't trying to be the best? That was one of the greatest seasons in Pittsburgh Pirate history. We dominated the AL in inter-league games. We ruled the NL West and East. The Cards had a totally epic season. In a game that prides itself in "series" we got a one game play-in against the hottest pitcher in baseball. Would KC have come out of that game? Had we won the Central, or if we had a 3 game series with the Cubs, who knows? Woulda, shoulda, coulda... But, respectfully, I just don't buy this claim that we weren't trying to be the best team in baseball last year.
I agree. I mean I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks that the Mets were the actual best team in the NL last season.
We're back to the "how can you complain with a 98 win season?!"
I'm not complaining, it was a great season and a great team. I had a blast. But that doesn't make my original statement wrong: Neal did a masterful job but we went into the season with weaknesses that most other organizations would have tried to fill, they were talked about here regularly. By far (but not the only) concern was with the end of the rotation. One extra player in April and maybe the Pirates win 2 extra games in April/May to avoid the wild card. If they win the division I have no doubt they could have beaten anyone in the NL and destroyed the Mets.
The question really comes down to this: at the beginning of the season were there holes that the average person would see and which could reasonably have been filled?
The back of the rotation was staffed by Locke, Morton and the Vanimal - many of us were asking for a reasonable upgrade. Of just one of those spots. Without looking I would guess that the Pirates lost approximately 50% of the games those three started. They did ok, but with one more upgrade this team could have been a WS champion.
That's not hindsight. It was easy to identify that as a weakness but the team was satisfied to go into the season with that weakness rather than fix it - we had A great team that could have been WS champion if the FO had the goal in April to be the best team they could reasonably be for the season.
Is that outrageous to say?
1) the Pirates have, each of the past couple years, been content to be a very good team rather than reaching to be the best team. A couple additions and maybe the Pirates beat the royals last year.
98 wins and we weren't trying to be the best? That was one of the greatest seasons in Pittsburgh Pirate history. We dominated the AL in inter-league games. We ruled the NL West and East. The Cards had a totally epic season. In a game that prides itself in "series" we got a one game play-in against the hottest pitcher in baseball. Would KC have come out of that game? Had we won the Central, or if we had a 3 game series with the Cubs, who knows? Woulda, shoulda, coulda... But, respectfully, I just don't buy this claim that we weren't trying to be the best team in baseball last year.
I agree. I mean I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks that the Mets were the actual best team in the NL last season.
We're back to the "how can you complain with a 98 win season?!"
I'm not complaining, it was a great season and a great team. I had a blast. But that doesn't make my original statement wrong: Neal did a masterful job but we went into the season with weaknesses that most other organizations would have tried to fill, they were talked about here regularly. By far (but not the only) concern was with the end of the rotation. One extra player in April and maybe the Pirates win 2 extra games in April/May to avoid the wild card. If they win the division I have no doubt they could have beaten anyone in the NL and destroyed the Mets.
The question really comes down to this: at the beginning of the season were there holes that the average person would see and which could reasonably have been filled?
The back of the rotation was staffed by Locke, Morton and the Vanimal - many of us were asking for a reasonable upgrade. Of just one of those spots. Without looking I would guess that the Pirates lost approximately 50% of the games those three started. They did ok, but with one more upgrade this team could have been a WS champion.
That's not hindsight. It was easy to identify that as a weakness but the team was satisfied to go into the season with that weakness rather than fix it - we had A great team that could have been WS champion if the FO had the goal in April to be the best team they could reasonably be for the season.
Is that outrageous to say?
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Depressing View
303721292730777B02252F232B2E6C212D2F420 wrote: Points the article made that I think are accurate:
1) the Pirates have, each of the past couple years, been content to be a very good team rather than reaching to be the best team. A couple additions and maybe the Pirates beat the royals last year.
98 wins and we weren't trying to be the best? That was one of the greatest seasons in Pittsburgh Pirate history. We dominated the AL in inter-league games. We ruled the NL West and East. The Cards had a totally epic season. In a game that prides itself in "series" we got a one game play-in against the hottest pitcher in baseball. Would KC have come out of that game? Had we won the Central, or if we had a 3 game series with the Cubs, who knows? Woulda, shoulda, coulda... But, respectfully, I just don't buy this claim that we weren't trying to be the best team in baseball last year.
I agree. I mean I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks that the Mets were the actual best team in the NL last season.
We're back to the "how can you complain with a 98 win season?!"
I'm not complaining, it was a great season and a great team. I had a blast. But that doesn't make my original statement wrong: Neal did a masterful job but we went into the season with weaknesses that most other organizations would have tried to fill, they were talked about here regularly. By far (but not the only) concern was with the end of the rotation. One extra player in April and maybe the Pirates win 2 extra games in April/May to avoid the wild card. If they win the division I have no doubt they could have beaten anyone in the NL and destroyed the Mets.
The question really comes down to this: at the beginning of the season were there holes that the average person would see and which could reasonably have been filled?
The back of the rotation was staffed by Locke, Morton and the Vanimal - many of us were asking for a reasonable upgrade. Of just one of those spots. Without looking I would guess that the Pirates lost approximately 50% of the games those three started. They did ok, but with one more upgrade this team could have been a WS champion.
That's not hindsight. It was easy to identify that as a weakness but the team was satisfied to go into the season with that weakness rather than fix it - we had A great team that could have been WS champion if the FO had the goal in April to be the best team they could reasonably be for the season.
Is that outrageous to say?
Oh no no no don't get me wrong, I really wanted another SP both at the deadline and offseason. It was a weakness. But it's not as if all of the teams didn't have weaknesses. Thinking of the Mets being the NL representative in the Series, however, reminds me of the "playoffs are a crapshoot" cliche as I'm not sure anyone thought they were the best team in our league.
As an aside I'm still big on wanting offseason pitching but I'm not so sure about going for a big pitcher at the deadline any more. How often does that work out? It always seems like a lot to give up for maybe 10 starts or whatever it is. If your team's good they were probably going to win six of those anyhow.
1) the Pirates have, each of the past couple years, been content to be a very good team rather than reaching to be the best team. A couple additions and maybe the Pirates beat the royals last year.
98 wins and we weren't trying to be the best? That was one of the greatest seasons in Pittsburgh Pirate history. We dominated the AL in inter-league games. We ruled the NL West and East. The Cards had a totally epic season. In a game that prides itself in "series" we got a one game play-in against the hottest pitcher in baseball. Would KC have come out of that game? Had we won the Central, or if we had a 3 game series with the Cubs, who knows? Woulda, shoulda, coulda... But, respectfully, I just don't buy this claim that we weren't trying to be the best team in baseball last year.
I agree. I mean I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks that the Mets were the actual best team in the NL last season.
We're back to the "how can you complain with a 98 win season?!"
I'm not complaining, it was a great season and a great team. I had a blast. But that doesn't make my original statement wrong: Neal did a masterful job but we went into the season with weaknesses that most other organizations would have tried to fill, they were talked about here regularly. By far (but not the only) concern was with the end of the rotation. One extra player in April and maybe the Pirates win 2 extra games in April/May to avoid the wild card. If they win the division I have no doubt they could have beaten anyone in the NL and destroyed the Mets.
The question really comes down to this: at the beginning of the season were there holes that the average person would see and which could reasonably have been filled?
The back of the rotation was staffed by Locke, Morton and the Vanimal - many of us were asking for a reasonable upgrade. Of just one of those spots. Without looking I would guess that the Pirates lost approximately 50% of the games those three started. They did ok, but with one more upgrade this team could have been a WS champion.
That's not hindsight. It was easy to identify that as a weakness but the team was satisfied to go into the season with that weakness rather than fix it - we had A great team that could have been WS champion if the FO had the goal in April to be the best team they could reasonably be for the season.
Is that outrageous to say?
Oh no no no don't get me wrong, I really wanted another SP both at the deadline and offseason. It was a weakness. But it's not as if all of the teams didn't have weaknesses. Thinking of the Mets being the NL representative in the Series, however, reminds me of the "playoffs are a crapshoot" cliche as I'm not sure anyone thought they were the best team in our league.
As an aside I'm still big on wanting offseason pitching but I'm not so sure about going for a big pitcher at the deadline any more. How often does that work out? It always seems like a lot to give up for maybe 10 starts or whatever it is. If your team's good they were probably going to win six of those anyhow.