What Went Wrong
by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 26, 2005 6:14 PM EST
in News
Email
PrintMLB.com's year-end wrap-up of the Pirates' 2005 season is a case study in why you shouldn't assume that everything will go right before a season starts. Ed Eagle claims that the Pirates were "cautiously optimistic" that the team could finish at .500 or better before the season started, but that injuries did them in.
The fact is that the 2005 Pirates spent about an average number of days on the disabled list. Oliver Perez' ineffectiveness, which was probably partly due to his health, was predictable for a pitcher his age. Jack Wilson probably suffered some from his preseason appendectomy, but the Pirates signed him to a two-year contract after the appendectomy took place, and the Pirates shouldn't have counted on him to hit the way he did in 2004 anyway. Wilson's final numbers were similar to his pre-2004 stats, and he had one of his two best months of the season in May, so it seems likely that the appendectomy was only really affecting him much in April. Mike Gonzalez was injured part of the season, but he was very effective when he did pitch, and he has a long history of injury issues. Only the injuries to Craig Wilson were both unexpected and particularly costly (and Wilson was also quite good when he played; he was hardly the "non-factor" Eagle says he was).
All teams have injuries; over the course of a season, most teams will also have injuries to key players. The injuries the Pirates faced were not unusual, particularly given the ages and injury histories of some of the players who got hurt.
Meanwhile, Zach Duke, Paul Maholm and Chris Duffy easily exceeded expectations, making up for a lot of the injury troubles. And while nearly everyone thought Jason Bay would be good going into 2005, it was hardly a given that he'd blossom into one of the best hitters in baseball. [EDIT: To his credit, Eagle does point out some of this.]
The Pirates won 67 games in 2005. They were, basically, a 67 win team, or close to it. While we all expect propaganda from Ed Eagle and MLB.com, Eagle is making a mistake a lot of fans make. The 2005 Pirates weren't ever likely to finish at .500 or better, and saying that injuries prevented them from breaking even overlooks the facts that they didn't even have terrible luck with injuries and that they had some good luck too.
3 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Objectively speaking...
While he rightly discusses the injuries suffered by the Pirates in the third paragraph, he also points out how Jason Bay had an unexpectedly standout season in the fourth. He then mentions Jose Castillo's progress and Zach Duke's sensational rookie campaign.
In my opinion, I don't think he characterizes the season as one in which the Pirates should have finished at the .500 mark. In fact, his opening sentence in the third paragraph reads, "Although the Pirates were able to reach the breakeven mark on June 11, 60 games into the season, the seeds for another losing campaign had already been sown."
He's got a tough story line covering a team that has lost more games than it's won for 13 straight seasons.
I think Mr. Eagle was fair in his review. I can't see how you believe Craig Wilson was quite good when he played. He hit five homers in 197 at-bats. Is that really very good?
Maybe you were looking to generate some controversy, I don't know. I just don't see how this story makes the mistakes that a lot of fans make.
Looking forward to your reply,
John T.
Reply
It was more like I was looking for something to write about. But, point taken.
In my opinion, I don't think he characterizes the season as one in which the Pirates should have finished at the .500 mark.
He does not actively say so, but he characterizes the team as optimistic that .500 was possible, and then proceeds to focus on the injuries. The title of the piece was "Injuries Hinder Bucs' Hopes in 2005." While that's obviously true - just as injuries hinder the hopes of nearly all teams - it's misleading to focus on injuries as the main reason why .500 didn't happen.
In fact, his opening sentence in the third paragraph reads, "Although the Pirates were able to reach the breakeven mark on June 11, 60 games into the season, the seeds for another losing campaign had already been sown."
At that point, he starts talking about injuries. Injuries weren't the problem. The problem was a lack of talent.
I can't see how you believe Craig Wilson was quite good when he played. He hit five homers in 197 at-bats. Is that really very good?
He got on base a ton and had a well-above-average OPS. He didn't show a ton of power as compared to his past but nearly made up for it with walks and HBPs. If you focus on traditional counting stats, yeah, it appears he had a bad season; if you look past them, he was downright good at the plate.
He's got a tough story line covering a team that has lost more games than it's won for 13 straight seasons.
Don't I know it!
by Charlie Wilmoth on Dec 27, 2005 2:24 AM EST up reply actions
Article Angles...
It is my sincere hope that the Pirates do not sign a corner outfielder and let Craig Wilson compete for the position. According to his father, his lack of power could be attributed to losing upper body strength due to his hand injuries - which makes some sense to me.
John T.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
