The difference between 70 and 82
by azibuck on Mar 30, 2008 10:19 PM EDT
Email
PrintIn Bull Durham Crash Davis said the difference between .250 and .300 was "just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp… you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes… you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week..."
I know we didn't even win 70 games last year, and 82 itself doesn't mean anything really, so in a sense who cares what the difference is. But, to paraphrase Crash Davis, the difference between a miserable 16th losing season in a row and a winning team is two wins a month. One game when your closer doesn't blow a save without letting a ball out of the infield (Torres, v. Milwaukee I think). One game where your manager doesn't bring in Marty McLeary with the bases loaded.
And so on. I intended to go through last season and find 12 games that could be perceived as being thrown away by Pittsburgh, but I don't have the energy right now and wanted to post this. Yes -- I know the same difference applies to 70 and 58! But I wonder if Huntington isn't including Tracy and DL on his list of underachievers from last year. Maybe he thinks Russell is worth just five more wins. If a pitcher was an underachiever, especially Duke or Maholm, and they get even a little better, I can see reason for optimism.
And maybe Huntington thinks he is bold enough to have his cake and eat it too. To make deals without giving up completely in 2008. I didn't intend this to answer Charlie's post about the article in the PG, I'm just using that phrase here too.
Really, I'm not even that optimistic about this season, but I do daydream sometimes, and when I do, everything goes right.
I guess my point is that I do think we're closer to 82 wins than most other people think, but the difference between 82 and 90 is much greater than the difference between 82 and 70, or even 65. And if the org wants to shoot for 82 this year, and still make deals with an eye toward 90+ down the road, I don't think it's that unrealistic.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not unrealistic
But the point remains that any move or lack of move made to attain 82 wins this year would, in my opinion (and many others I believe), damage the chance of winning 90+ and making it to the postseason any time soon.
But, maybe the short term goal is important enough to sacrafice a little bit of the long term goal in this case. The problem with that--it's pretty much the reason we are here in the first place. Then again, the attempts in the past have been very poor for the most part. Maybe Huntington can actually pull it off successfully with little future damage, I just don't know.
by DITO on Mar 31, 2008 12:01 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Hmmmm
...maybe the short term goal is important enough to sacrafice a little bit of the long term goal in this case.
Pocketing profits is a worthy short-term goal?
Steve Z
What's the difference?
Management achieves ownership's goals or the owners replace the managers.
Steve Z
They're obviously related
but "pocketing profits" is not going to be the primary driver behind Huntington's decision to trade or not to trade Bay, Nady, Wilson, etc.
I was referring to a single, specific short-term goal: winning 81 or more games in 2008.
Pocketing profits has been the primary goal...
...driving this team for years. Coonelly and Huntington will have short Pirates careers if they forget that organizational imperative.
Steve Z
You're still missing the point
I wasn't referring to just any goal. I was talking about a specific goal--have a .500 season in 2008. My post never had anything to do with whatever the primary goal has been for years. Your attempt at making some sort of point is a little misplaced because it doesn't really have anything to do with what I, or the original fanpost, was talking about.
Actually, your point and the original Fanpost were misplaced (unrealistic)
because they ignored the primary short-term organizational goal of the Pirates, profit-taking. When the Pirates manage to win >81 games in a season the team will accomplish this pursuing policies consistent with this short-term goal.
What other short-term goal is the organization chasing that takes precedence over the business goal of turning a profit? If Huntington and Coonelly thought winning 82 games was that important, they would not have stood pat on last year's team, as they mostly did this past off-season.
Steve Z
Well, then you're just being a prick
It's tiresome to hear your shtick. We got it already. Never mind that we have, in fact, NEW people running the team, and I'm not talking about Coonelly and Huntington. Look, I don't trust management either, but talking about what "management's imperitive for years" has been, when we have new management is kinda silly. And I object to the condescension you and others employ when making this argument, as if only a special group of elite fans is privy to the motives of Nutting and some Cigarette Smoking Man in the back rooms of PNC.
I disagree and therefore I'm a prick
The only condescension you see is what you want to see.
I have a point of view, I defend it and I do it in a civil way with those who treat me civilly. It appears civil discourse is beyond your capacity.
Steve Z
No, your disagreement is a non-sequitur
I made a post, and DITO discoursed civilly. You then trotted out a very tired line about profit-taking, and wouldn't let go of it, even though DITO civilly tried to make you see that he was referring to something else. And the profit-taking angle has nothing to do with what I posted either.
Your response is boilerplate. You should start your own diary or blog where you and others can just keep saying the exact same thing over and over, repeatedly, redundantly, in reaction to every move Neal Huntington makes.
They demote this guy -- it's about profit.
They trade for that guy -- it's about profit.
The don't do this -- it's about profit.
They do that. -- it's about profit.
Russell calls for a sac bunt -- he's just doing what NH and Coonelly want him to, who are doing what Nutting orders them to, which is driven by profit.
Your song is great. I loved that song. I own a copy. I'm just tired of hearing it all the time.
Of course, you reply with ad hominen and strawman arguments
As expected.
Steve Z
The chief reason for the Pirates to go out of their way
to win >81 games in 2008: If the Pirates best the McClatchy Line this year management and ownership wont feel compelled to make the effort in 2009, 2010... In other words, the organization can begin to rebuild.
Steve Z
Just to be optimistic
Replace 19 2007 starts by Duke with an ERA of 5.53 and 9 starts by Van Benschoten with an ERA of 10.15 with 28 starts by Duke with an ERA of 4.60 (a little above the league median for qualified starters). That would get you more than half way there in all likelihood.
Viva Clemente!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
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.
