OnlyBucs

Didn't NH declare that he doesn't subscribe to a "window" approach/philosophy; that the Pirates mission is to be perpetually competitive? I guess he didn't plan on other teams catching up and surpassing the Pirates with advanced metrics and their applications. Can't out strategize, out draft or outspend their competitors? Is that the odor of ripe tuna salad that I smell?

- Bobster, you are right about money and then going after certain players with the analytics. Very good point. I just think people see overall payroll and think that is how teams win. That just isn't the case anymore.



- Ecbucs, I compared them to the Indians and Royals. The Indians and Royals advanced further, but any team can win once they make the Playoffs. The Royals as a wild card team proved that. People seem to put down the Pirates and say look at what Indians are doing. Yet, the Pirates just made the Playoffs three years in a row.



- Quail, Huntington doesn't like to say "window of opportunity" but I sure hope he realizes that should be his approach.

5A777A6B6C7D6A2A29180 wrote: Teams have to build that young core.  To answer your question: Yes, in a window they can compete.



I am not saying it is easy.  When something goes bad, small markets can't replace those guys.  The big markets can just go out and get a different player or a replacement. 



I don't see why teams can't do what the Royals just did.  What Cleveland is doing now.  Even the Astros lost 100 games three seasons in a row.  Young, cheap players in a good core win games.  If that wasn't the case, the Yankees and Dodgers would be in the WS every year.  The Yankees haven't been to the WS since 2009.



For teams to do this and have that window of opportunity, they have to do the analytical stuff too.  The Pirates were big believers when not many were doing it.  They won because of that and a young core.  Now, that every team is doing it and doing it better, they need to catch up or do something different. 
Dog, you seem to be bending over backwards to excuse the cheapness of the Pirates. No one says the highest payroll wins the WS. But your comment that, "I don't think highest payroll always wins. The Dodgers and Astros rely on a lot of younger players who haven't really had their payday yet" was rather odd considering you were referencing the highest payroll in MLB to make that point. You noted that the Dodgers haven't won the WS in 29 years. But since that WS win in 1988 they have made the playoffs 11 times, advancing to the NLCS 5 times. So it's not like they haven't had their chances. Since 1988 the Pirates made the playoffs 3 times and never advanced to the NLCS. 



As noted, most teams are now using advanced metrics for player evaluation. A team willing to spend more can analyze a FA or a potential trade candidate, decide they want him, and trade/pay for him. A team like the Pirates can use the same analysis and bypass that player because they won't pay him. A team willing to spend more can analyze multiple players and obtain them because they are willing to pay for them. A team like the Pirates can use the same analysis and decide they can only take one of those players if even that. If the analyzed player fails to perform up to expectations, a team willing to spend more can obtain another player to replace him. A team like the Pirates has to live with their Daniel Hudsons.



So, while it's fair to say the highest payroll doesn't always win, it's also fair to say that teams that spend more have a huge advantage over teams that don't.


The site I looked at had the Championship Series teams at #1, #2, #8 and #18 in Payroll.

Joe Buck, announcer, last night said the Dodgers preferred that their starters don't face batters their third time through the line up. I haven't noticed if they were doing this throughout the playoffs for the majority of the time (I doubt this goes for Kershaw too).



The Dodgers bullpen has been excellent this post season, so this could work or why it is working so far. Rich Hill was pitching well when he was pulled last night (he didn't deserve that earned run, bad scoring). The bullpen did give up some runs and lost the game. If it is true in what Buck said, interesting how they are using all of their analytics.

Yeah, I think historically third-time-through is bad for most pitchers.

01333F3F2B193A333E3B3433520 wrote: Yeah, I think historically third-time-through is bad for most pitchers. 
Yes but I think it's being carried too far. Strict use of stats like this implies that the players are robots who will repeat those stats every time. It eliminates the human element, which can mean a pitcher is just really on today and shouldn't be taken out. It implies the new pitcher will be just as effective as they guy he's replacing even though the new pitcher just may not have it today. I think a better use of those stats is to get a reliever ready when the starter is beginning to face the lineup a 3rd time but don't make the change until/unless it becomes necessary. And that depends on the situation: if someone reaches base, how many outs are there and who is coming to bat. LA's use of that strategy last night was the worst case scenario. They replaced an effective pitcher after 4 innings, wound up going extra innings, used the entire bullpen and still lost.

063438382C1E3D34393C3334550 wrote: Yeah, I think historically third-time-through is bad for most pitchers. 


Very true, but when a pitcher is cruising they usually stay in. Hill did not want out of that game.



Teams are throwing away strategies that got them to the dance for new ones. We saw this last year too with the usage of Miller (Cle) and Chapman (Cubs).

775A57464150470704350 wrote: Yeah, I think historically third-time-through is bad for most pitchers. 
Yes but I think it's being carried too far. Strict use of stats like this implies that the players are robots who will repeat those stats every time. It eliminates the human element, which can mean a pitcher is just really on today and shouldn't be taken out. It implies the new pitcher will be just as effective as they guy he's replacing even though the new pitcher just may not have it today. I think a better use of those stats is to get a reliever ready when the starter is beginning to face the lineup a 3rd time but don't make the change until/unless it becomes necessary. And that depends on the situation: if someone reaches base, how many outs are there and who is coming to bat. LA's use of that strategy last night was the worst case scenario. They replaced an effective pitcher after 4 innings, wound up going extra innings, used the entire bullpen and still lost.




LA also went against their analytics and had Jansen pitch more than 1 inning for first time this season.



Was glad to see Springer get a big hit. I think he is a likeable player and to get a homer after struggling so much must feel great.

6F646C6065647F3A3C4B726A6364642568640B0 wrote: - Bobster, you are right about money and then going after certain players with the analytics. Very good point. I just think people see overall payroll and think that is how teams win. That just isn't the case anymore.



- Ecbucs, I compared them to the Indians and Royals. The Indians and Royals advanced further, but any team can win once they make the Playoffs. The Royals as a wild card team proved that. People seem to put down the Pirates and say look at what Indians are doing. Yet, the Pirates just made the Playoffs three years in a row.



- Quail, Huntington doesn't like to say "window of opportunity" but I sure hope he realizes that should be his approach.
How long are you going to say just made the playoffs 3 years in a row? That is now 2 seasons removed. Once again you always move the goal posts too suite whatever agenda you have for the day.

47465D4C5A1A1D290 wrote: - Bobster, you are right about money and then going after certain players with the analytics. Very good point. I just think people see overall payroll and think that is how teams win. That just isn't the case anymore.



- Ecbucs, I compared them to the Indians and Royals. The Indians and Royals advanced further, but any team can win once they make the Playoffs. The Royals as a wild card team proved that. People seem to put down the Pirates and say look at what Indians are doing. Yet, the Pirates just made the Playoffs three years in a row.



- Quail, Huntington doesn't like to say "window of opportunity" but I sure hope he realizes that should be his approach.
How long are you going to say just made the playoffs 3 years in a row? That is now 2 seasons removed. Once again you always move the goal posts too suite whatever agenda you have for the day.
I thought the Pirates just had 2 losing seasons in a row. Was I looking at the standings upside down?