OnlyBucs

Are we really reduced to arguing over the meaning of the word 'just'?

4B4E494F474D544940535558210 wrote: Are we really reduced to arguing over the meaning of the word 'just'?
I think the discussion is whether we should be more concerned with winning 3-5 years ago or losing these last 2 years. "Just" sayin'.

1E333E2F28392E6E6D5C0 wrote: Are we really reduced to arguing over the meaning of the word 'just'?
I think the discussion is whether we should be more concerned with winning 3-5 years ago or losing these last 2 years. "Just" sayin'. 

Jokes aside, I think you need to look at body of work.  I think you can view it either way like that, so we'll continue to have fun here, heh. I think there's plenty for either lovers or haters to point to.

It's always more of a 'what have you done lately' in baseball, and they haven't done much lately. Sure they won a few years, but how much of that was dump luck and how much was insight?

686D6A6C646E776A6370767B020 wrote: It's always more of a 'what have you done lately' in baseball, and they haven't done much lately.   Sure they won a few years, but how much of that was dump luck and how much was insight? 


Ah, that is the question, right? It might be unknowable and also why baseball discussions are the best.

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.

There was a lot of luck involved, but it was mostly bad luck. NH built a really solid team. It just peaked in the year that the Central division had two other really good clubs. If Houston and Cleveland were in the same division, would Cleveland have survived Verlander in a wild card game? That doesn't mean Cleveland wasn't a good team, or that the GM was incompetent - it just means the team got a bad match-up. Pittsburgh had solid pitching, they just didn't have a shut-down starter.

5C575F5356574C090F784159505757165B57380 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.

4D484F49414B524F4655535E270 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.