212A222E2B2A317472053C242D2A2A6B262A450 wrote: And their success always comes back to "luck". Why is that always mentioned when talking about the Pirates success? Why don't you hear that about the Indians, Royals, or Astros? I know why, because people want Nutting and his team gone.
They added 10 WAR to the team for $1M. I am of the opinion most of that was just plain good luck. Why? Because they haven't done crap since.
Why wasn't that insight? That's what I don't get. It's always luck with the Pirates but genius moves by other teams. I will buy a lot of other reasons and many,many posters have made great points. I just don't buy a total rebuild into three playoff years was all based on "luck".
The last two years were bad for the Pirates but you rarely hear "unlucky". How can it be one way and not the other? This is why I am labeled as a Nutting/Huntington lover, but I am just being fair and treating every team the same. I wouldn't call the Cubs or Royals lucky. They had great rebuilds. I give Theo Epstein and Dayton Moore a lot of credit.
Regarding insight, I think their best move was signing Russell Martin. He brought a winning attitude to a team that had lost for 20 years. He drastically improved the catching after Rod Barajas and also improved the pitchers. He hit better than expected his first season with them but his catching and leadership skills were already on display as a Yankee. This was not a case of getting lucky by having a player exceed expectations. They knew what they needed and went out and got it. An excellent move. I would also give them credit for having insight in acquiring Melancon despite his 6.20 ERA with Boston. The year before that, he had been a good closer for Houston, so that was what they were basing their opinion on.
I think they had good luck with Grilli, Volquez, Happ and Burnett, who all performed better than their pasts suggested they could. They only gave Volquez a 1-year deal so I don't think they were too confident in what he could do. Burnett was 35 and NY paid most of his contract at the time of that trade so there was little risk. Happ was a last minute, emergency acquisition when Burnett got hurt and no one was happy about that trade based on Happ's past performance. And the Pirates didn't seem to try too hard to keep him which suggests they thought it was more of a fluke than great insight on their part. Liriano was probably a combination of insight and good luck. He had once been dominant but had been pitching very poorly for 2 years when the Pirates obtained him. He was still young at 29 so there was hope he could resemble the pitcher he once was. It was a gamble that paid off for awhile.
It was bad luck last year that they lost Kang and Marte. But in contrast to what was done in 2013 when they identified a need at catcher and acquired Martin, they had obvious needs and did nothing. They didn't even add a 3rd OFer to the roster. The year before when they had obvious needs at 1B and starting pitching, they settled for Jaso and Vogelsong. Vogelsong was washed up at age 38 and had been ineffective for several years in SF. Jaso had little power for a corner infielder and had rarely even played 1B and was routinely replaced for defense. This wasn't bad luck. It was bad business.
So I would say there have been times when the Pirates showed good insight. Just not often enough. And the past 2 losing seasons were marred by bad management. We were all scratching our heads after the last 2 unproductive off seasons, which dimmed expectations before those seasons even began. Bad luck with Marte and Kang but when you do nothing to compensate, it's no longer just a case of bad luck.
Article on Analytics
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Article on Analytics
2328202C2928337670073E262F2828692428470 wrote: And their success always comes back to "luck". Why is that always mentioned when talking about the Pirates success? Why don't you hear that about the Indians, Royals, or Astros? I know why, because people want Nutting and his team gone.
Here's a perfect example of the issue I have with you.
First of all...outside maybe a poster or two..I don't see anyone claiming 2013-2015 was ALL luck. Most posters...myself included....credit NH and acknowledge a level of good fortune. You likely know this so I have to suspect your issue with honesty causes you to post otherwise.
Additionally ...you NEVER acknowledge any luck in the success those years. To you it's all about the genius of Huntington that resulted in 3 straight second place finishes. Conversely...you ALWAYS blame bad luck for the past 2 years.
You can't have it both ways. NH can't get all the credit when they win and none of the blame when they lose. You're either doing precisely that because you're still not using the critical thinking possum mentioned several weeks ago or you're intentionally being disingenuous. I let you decide which.
Here's a perfect example of the issue I have with you.
First of all...outside maybe a poster or two..I don't see anyone claiming 2013-2015 was ALL luck. Most posters...myself included....credit NH and acknowledge a level of good fortune. You likely know this so I have to suspect your issue with honesty causes you to post otherwise.
Additionally ...you NEVER acknowledge any luck in the success those years. To you it's all about the genius of Huntington that resulted in 3 straight second place finishes. Conversely...you ALWAYS blame bad luck for the past 2 years.
You can't have it both ways. NH can't get all the credit when they win and none of the blame when they lose. You're either doing precisely that because you're still not using the critical thinking possum mentioned several weeks ago or you're intentionally being disingenuous. I let you decide which.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Article on Analytics
5C717C6D6A7B6C2C2F1E0 wrote:
Regarding insight, I think their best move was signing Russell Martin. He brought a winning attitude to a team that had lost for 20 years. He drastically improved the catching after Rod Barajas and also improved the pitchers. He hit better than expected his first season with them but his catching and leadership skills were already on display as a Yankee. This was not a case of getting lucky by having a player exceed expectations. They knew what they needed and went out and got it. An excellent move. I would also give them credit for having insight in acquiring Melancon despite his 6.20 ERA with Boston. The year before that, he had been a good closer for Houston, so that was what they were basing their opinion on.
I think they had good luck with Grilli, Volquez, Happ and Burnett, who all performed better than their pasts suggested they could. They only gave Volquez a 1-year deal so I don't think they were too confident in what he could do. Burnett was 35 and NY paid most of his contract at the time of that trade so there was little risk. Happ was a last minute, emergency acquisition when Burnett got hurt and no one was happy about that trade based on Happ's past performance. And the Pirates didn't seem to try too hard to keep him which suggests they thought it was more of a fluke than great insight on their part. Liriano was probably a combination of insight and good luck. He had once been dominant but had been pitching very poorly for 2 years when the Pirates obtained him. He was still young at 29 so there was hope he could resemble the pitcher he once was. It was a gamble that paid off for awhile.
It was bad luck last year that they lost Kang and Marte. But in contrast to what was done in 2013 when they identified a need at catcher and acquired Martin, they had obvious needs and did nothing. They didn't even add a 3rd OFer to the roster. The year before when they had obvious needs at 1B and starting pitching, they settled for Jaso and Vogelsong. Vogelsong was washed up at age 38 and had been ineffective for several years in SF. Jaso had little power for a corner infielder and had rarely even played 1B and was routinely replaced for defense. This wasn't bad luck. It was bad business.
So I would say there have been times when the Pirates showed good insight. Just not often enough. And the past 2 losing seasons were marred by bad management. We were all scratching our heads after the last 2 unproductive off seasons, which dimmed expectations before those seasons even began. Bad luck with Marte and Kang but when you do nothing to compensate, it's no longer just a case of bad luck.
Good post, Bobster.
I just don't think it is all lucky and unlucky. Being lucky seems to be the argument after the last two years of losing. Not just here, but in other outlets and the streets too.
I certainly don't blame bad luck on the last two years, so I will not buy it was just good luck when they made the playoffs. The Pirates were above the curve on analytics, spent money wisely on players, and brought in good help those three years and years prior. The last two years, they failed. Kang and Marte didn't help and I think they mattered big time, but the Pirates did nothing to replace those guys. Their insight in using Osuna, Jaso, and bringing in Gosselin were bad moves.
The Pirates need to improve their player evaluations and their analytics. teams have caught up to them and passed them. Teams now have more resources dedicated to that aspect of the team. The Pirates can't miss on draft picks like they have (or the slow developments of some). They need to improve for sure.
Regarding insight, I think their best move was signing Russell Martin. He brought a winning attitude to a team that had lost for 20 years. He drastically improved the catching after Rod Barajas and also improved the pitchers. He hit better than expected his first season with them but his catching and leadership skills were already on display as a Yankee. This was not a case of getting lucky by having a player exceed expectations. They knew what they needed and went out and got it. An excellent move. I would also give them credit for having insight in acquiring Melancon despite his 6.20 ERA with Boston. The year before that, he had been a good closer for Houston, so that was what they were basing their opinion on.
I think they had good luck with Grilli, Volquez, Happ and Burnett, who all performed better than their pasts suggested they could. They only gave Volquez a 1-year deal so I don't think they were too confident in what he could do. Burnett was 35 and NY paid most of his contract at the time of that trade so there was little risk. Happ was a last minute, emergency acquisition when Burnett got hurt and no one was happy about that trade based on Happ's past performance. And the Pirates didn't seem to try too hard to keep him which suggests they thought it was more of a fluke than great insight on their part. Liriano was probably a combination of insight and good luck. He had once been dominant but had been pitching very poorly for 2 years when the Pirates obtained him. He was still young at 29 so there was hope he could resemble the pitcher he once was. It was a gamble that paid off for awhile.
It was bad luck last year that they lost Kang and Marte. But in contrast to what was done in 2013 when they identified a need at catcher and acquired Martin, they had obvious needs and did nothing. They didn't even add a 3rd OFer to the roster. The year before when they had obvious needs at 1B and starting pitching, they settled for Jaso and Vogelsong. Vogelsong was washed up at age 38 and had been ineffective for several years in SF. Jaso had little power for a corner infielder and had rarely even played 1B and was routinely replaced for defense. This wasn't bad luck. It was bad business.
So I would say there have been times when the Pirates showed good insight. Just not often enough. And the past 2 losing seasons were marred by bad management. We were all scratching our heads after the last 2 unproductive off seasons, which dimmed expectations before those seasons even began. Bad luck with Marte and Kang but when you do nothing to compensate, it's no longer just a case of bad luck.
Good post, Bobster.
I just don't think it is all lucky and unlucky. Being lucky seems to be the argument after the last two years of losing. Not just here, but in other outlets and the streets too.
I certainly don't blame bad luck on the last two years, so I will not buy it was just good luck when they made the playoffs. The Pirates were above the curve on analytics, spent money wisely on players, and brought in good help those three years and years prior. The last two years, they failed. Kang and Marte didn't help and I think they mattered big time, but the Pirates did nothing to replace those guys. Their insight in using Osuna, Jaso, and bringing in Gosselin were bad moves.
The Pirates need to improve their player evaluations and their analytics. teams have caught up to them and passed them. Teams now have more resources dedicated to that aspect of the team. The Pirates can't miss on draft picks like they have (or the slow developments of some). They need to improve for sure.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Article on Analytics
7D767E7277766D282E596078717676377A76190 wrote:
Regarding insight, I think their best move was signing Russell Martin. He brought a winning attitude to a team that had lost for 20 years. He drastically improved the catching after Rod Barajas and also improved the pitchers. He hit better than expected his first season with them but his catching and leadership skills were already on display as a Yankee. This was not a case of getting lucky by having a player exceed expectations. They knew what they needed and went out and got it. An excellent move. I would also give them credit for having insight in acquiring Melancon despite his 6.20 ERA with Boston. The year before that, he had been a good closer for Houston, so that was what they were basing their opinion on.
I think they had good luck with Grilli, Volquez, Happ and Burnett, who all performed better than their pasts suggested they could. They only gave Volquez a 1-year deal so I don't think they were too confident in what he could do. Burnett was 35 and NY paid most of his contract at the time of that trade so there was little risk. Happ was a last minute, emergency acquisition when Burnett got hurt and no one was happy about that trade based on Happ's past performance. And the Pirates didn't seem to try too hard to keep him which suggests they thought it was more of a fluke than great insight on their part. Liriano was probably a combination of insight and good luck. He had once been dominant but had been pitching very poorly for 2 years when the Pirates obtained him. He was still young at 29 so there was hope he could resemble the pitcher he once was. It was a gamble that paid off for awhile.
It was bad luck last year that they lost Kang and Marte. But in contrast to what was done in 2013 when they identified a need at catcher and acquired Martin, they had obvious needs and did nothing. They didn't even add a 3rd OFer to the roster. The year before when they had obvious needs at 1B and starting pitching, they settled for Jaso and Vogelsong. Vogelsong was washed up at age 38 and had been ineffective for several years in SF. Jaso had little power for a corner infielder and had rarely even played 1B and was routinely replaced for defense. This wasn't bad luck. It was bad business.
So I would say there have been times when the Pirates showed good insight. Just not often enough. And the past 2 losing seasons were marred by bad management. We were all scratching our heads after the last 2 unproductive off seasons, which dimmed expectations before those seasons even began. Bad luck with Marte and Kang but when you do nothing to compensate, it's no longer just a case of bad luck.
Good post, Bobster.
I just don't think it is all lucky and unlucky. Being lucky seems to be the argument after the last two years of losing. Not just here, but in other outlets and the streets too.
I certainly don't blame bad luck on the last two years, so I will not buy it was just good luck when they made the playoffs. The Pirates were above the curve on analytics, spent money wisely on players, and brought in good help those three years and years prior. The last two years, they failed. Kang and Marte didn't help and I think they mattered big time, but the Pirates did nothing to replace those guys. Their insight in using Osuna, Jaso, and bringing in Gosselin were bad moves.
The Pirates need to improve their player evaluations and their analytics. teams have caught up to them and passed them. Teams now have more resources dedicated to that aspect of the team. The Pirates can't miss on draft picks like they have (or the slow developments of some). They need to improve for sure.
I actually don't think it's anything they've done that has caused this recent downturn. They've had hits and misses just like any other team.
It's things they haven't done. Bobster's comments on the previous catching situation are spot-on.
Regarding insight, I think their best move was signing Russell Martin. He brought a winning attitude to a team that had lost for 20 years. He drastically improved the catching after Rod Barajas and also improved the pitchers. He hit better than expected his first season with them but his catching and leadership skills were already on display as a Yankee. This was not a case of getting lucky by having a player exceed expectations. They knew what they needed and went out and got it. An excellent move. I would also give them credit for having insight in acquiring Melancon despite his 6.20 ERA with Boston. The year before that, he had been a good closer for Houston, so that was what they were basing their opinion on.
I think they had good luck with Grilli, Volquez, Happ and Burnett, who all performed better than their pasts suggested they could. They only gave Volquez a 1-year deal so I don't think they were too confident in what he could do. Burnett was 35 and NY paid most of his contract at the time of that trade so there was little risk. Happ was a last minute, emergency acquisition when Burnett got hurt and no one was happy about that trade based on Happ's past performance. And the Pirates didn't seem to try too hard to keep him which suggests they thought it was more of a fluke than great insight on their part. Liriano was probably a combination of insight and good luck. He had once been dominant but had been pitching very poorly for 2 years when the Pirates obtained him. He was still young at 29 so there was hope he could resemble the pitcher he once was. It was a gamble that paid off for awhile.
It was bad luck last year that they lost Kang and Marte. But in contrast to what was done in 2013 when they identified a need at catcher and acquired Martin, they had obvious needs and did nothing. They didn't even add a 3rd OFer to the roster. The year before when they had obvious needs at 1B and starting pitching, they settled for Jaso and Vogelsong. Vogelsong was washed up at age 38 and had been ineffective for several years in SF. Jaso had little power for a corner infielder and had rarely even played 1B and was routinely replaced for defense. This wasn't bad luck. It was bad business.
So I would say there have been times when the Pirates showed good insight. Just not often enough. And the past 2 losing seasons were marred by bad management. We were all scratching our heads after the last 2 unproductive off seasons, which dimmed expectations before those seasons even began. Bad luck with Marte and Kang but when you do nothing to compensate, it's no longer just a case of bad luck.
Good post, Bobster.
I just don't think it is all lucky and unlucky. Being lucky seems to be the argument after the last two years of losing. Not just here, but in other outlets and the streets too.
I certainly don't blame bad luck on the last two years, so I will not buy it was just good luck when they made the playoffs. The Pirates were above the curve on analytics, spent money wisely on players, and brought in good help those three years and years prior. The last two years, they failed. Kang and Marte didn't help and I think they mattered big time, but the Pirates did nothing to replace those guys. Their insight in using Osuna, Jaso, and bringing in Gosselin were bad moves.
The Pirates need to improve their player evaluations and their analytics. teams have caught up to them and passed them. Teams now have more resources dedicated to that aspect of the team. The Pirates can't miss on draft picks like they have (or the slow developments of some). They need to improve for sure.
I actually don't think it's anything they've done that has caused this recent downturn. They've had hits and misses just like any other team.
It's things they haven't done. Bobster's comments on the previous catching situation are spot-on.
Article on Analytics
I personally don't think it was ALL luck, or even mostly luck. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend Travis Sawchick's book Big Data Baseball. It's an outstanding read and offers a lot of insight into decisions that were made in the 2012 offseason to gear up for 2013. That said, I don't think even the most optimistic of prognosticators and analysts could have predicted what Liriano and Martin would do that year, or Burnett for that matter. You could reasonably expect decent production from McCutchen and Marte, but Garrett Jones and Gabby Sanchez formed a workable platoon at first base. How many--honestly--saw that coming?
The point is this...the Pirates identified the right pieces at the bottom of the barrel that year. Good for them. But, generally speaking, when you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're not going to find much, especially now that everyone has caught up to the modern game of analytics. That may have worked then. I can all but guarantee it won't work now. Now that everyone is looking at things like BABIP, FIP, xFIP, exit velocity, line drive percentage, etcetera, you can bet some other team will outbid the Pirates for the next Russell Martin. To compete going forward, Nutting has to run this team like an actual MLB franchise, not a AAAA stopping ground for guys to get one last cup of coffee, play for seven years before moving on, or just be mediocre. That worked for awhile...not anymore.
Since we're talking Indians and Royals...who was the last player on par with James Shields the Pirates traded for? Or, who was the last player on par with Edwin Encarnacion they signed as a free agent?
The point is this...the Pirates identified the right pieces at the bottom of the barrel that year. Good for them. But, generally speaking, when you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're not going to find much, especially now that everyone has caught up to the modern game of analytics. That may have worked then. I can all but guarantee it won't work now. Now that everyone is looking at things like BABIP, FIP, xFIP, exit velocity, line drive percentage, etcetera, you can bet some other team will outbid the Pirates for the next Russell Martin. To compete going forward, Nutting has to run this team like an actual MLB franchise, not a AAAA stopping ground for guys to get one last cup of coffee, play for seven years before moving on, or just be mediocre. That worked for awhile...not anymore.
Since we're talking Indians and Royals...who was the last player on par with James Shields the Pirates traded for? Or, who was the last player on par with Edwin Encarnacion they signed as a free agent?
Article on Analytics
Martin was a huge huge part, I agree with that.
We were being run all over. You guys remember that? So many singles turning into doubles because of our pitchers being lousy at holding runners and our catchers being bad throwers.
Martin changed that all overnight. When I consider how many runners that guy cut down and also how many runners stopped trying for fear of being thrown out, I have a hard time guessing how many runs Martin actually saved.
It was a lot of runs. A LOT of runs. A lot of guys who otherwise would have been in scoring position were not because we had a catcher with a cannon. That's one of the reasons I want Diaz to get all the opportunities he can. We've gone back to giving up alot of bases as a team and it's hurting ERAs and costing us quite a few baseball games
Cervelli is not a good thrower. Gave up over 100 steals in 15' 67 in only 80 some games in 16'.
We're talking like 30 more guys in scoring position AND 20+ less outs made with CS per year. That is a lot of runs.
You can't just go by the number of times that guy whole stole scored either because you're losing double plays, you're losing outs.
Perhaps the guys takes 2nd with 2 outs and the next batter homers. While before, Martin cut him down and we are out of the inning. So many things can happen
We were being run all over. You guys remember that? So many singles turning into doubles because of our pitchers being lousy at holding runners and our catchers being bad throwers.
Martin changed that all overnight. When I consider how many runners that guy cut down and also how many runners stopped trying for fear of being thrown out, I have a hard time guessing how many runs Martin actually saved.
It was a lot of runs. A LOT of runs. A lot of guys who otherwise would have been in scoring position were not because we had a catcher with a cannon. That's one of the reasons I want Diaz to get all the opportunities he can. We've gone back to giving up alot of bases as a team and it's hurting ERAs and costing us quite a few baseball games
Cervelli is not a good thrower. Gave up over 100 steals in 15' 67 in only 80 some games in 16'.
We're talking like 30 more guys in scoring position AND 20+ less outs made with CS per year. That is a lot of runs.
You can't just go by the number of times that guy whole stole scored either because you're losing double plays, you're losing outs.
Perhaps the guys takes 2nd with 2 outs and the next batter homers. While before, Martin cut him down and we are out of the inning. So many things can happen
Article on Analytics
555C54454B310 wrote: Martin was a huge huge part, I agree with that.
We were being run all over. You guys remember that? So many singles turning into doubles triples because of our pitchers being lousy at holding runners and our catchers being bad throwers.
Martin changed that all overnight. When I consider how many runners that guy cut down and also how many runners stopped trying for fear of being thrown out, I have a hard time guessing how many runs Martin actually saved.
It was a lot of runs. A LOT of runs. A lot of guys who otherwise would have been in scoring position were not because we had a catcher with a cannon. That's one of the reasons I want Diaz to get all the opportunities he can. We've gone back to giving up alot of bases as a team and it's hurting ERAs and costing us quite a few baseball games
Cervelli is not a good thrower. Gave up over 100 steals in 15' 67 in only 80 some games in 16'.
We're talking like 30 more guys in scoring position AND 20+ less outs made with CS per year. That is a lot of runs.
You can't just go by the number of times that guy whole stole scored either because you're losing double plays, you're losing outs.
Perhaps the guys takes 2nd with 2 outs and the next batter homers. While before, Martin cut him down and we are out of the inning. So many things can happen
Fixed that for ya. Other than that, yeah, I agree with everything here. The difference between Barajas and Martin...sheesh. I don't think you can accurately put that into words.
We were being run all over. You guys remember that? So many singles turning into doubles triples because of our pitchers being lousy at holding runners and our catchers being bad throwers.
Martin changed that all overnight. When I consider how many runners that guy cut down and also how many runners stopped trying for fear of being thrown out, I have a hard time guessing how many runs Martin actually saved.
It was a lot of runs. A LOT of runs. A lot of guys who otherwise would have been in scoring position were not because we had a catcher with a cannon. That's one of the reasons I want Diaz to get all the opportunities he can. We've gone back to giving up alot of bases as a team and it's hurting ERAs and costing us quite a few baseball games
Cervelli is not a good thrower. Gave up over 100 steals in 15' 67 in only 80 some games in 16'.
We're talking like 30 more guys in scoring position AND 20+ less outs made with CS per year. That is a lot of runs.
You can't just go by the number of times that guy whole stole scored either because you're losing double plays, you're losing outs.
Perhaps the guys takes 2nd with 2 outs and the next batter homers. While before, Martin cut him down and we are out of the inning. So many things can happen
Fixed that for ya. Other than that, yeah, I agree with everything here. The difference between Barajas and Martin...sheesh. I don't think you can accurately put that into words.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Article on Analytics
In Game 4, Alex Wood was throwing a no hitter with the third time of the order coming up. The Dodgers have been removing a starter before they face the third time around. Manager Dave Roberts left in Wood. George Springer, the lead off hitter, hit a HR in his third at bat. Wood was then replaced.
Did Roberts leave him in too long? Roberts went away from the plan, analytics. The Bullpen was ready too.
Did Roberts leave him in too long? Roberts went away from the plan, analytics. The Bullpen was ready too.