I Just Have to Call People Out for Things Like This

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jul 2, 2007 1:54 AM EDT in News

Pirates are 8 wins better at season's midpoint than '06

..."If we have a good week going into the All-Star break, we're looking pretty good," Jack Wilson said. "Last year, we had nothing [going for us] leading into the second half. It was all negative. And we went out and played awesome."

"Awesome" being the compilation of a 37-35 record after the All-Star break.

"And we could play even better than that," Wilson said. "Knowing that this team can repeat what it did in the second half last year with more enthusiasm, it could be good."

What to say here? We've heard from everyone associated with the Pirates that their 37-35 record after the All-Star break last year represented the start of a turnaround (and never mind that their records before and after the break last year were similar in terms of runs scored and runs allowed). Now that the first half of 2007 is over and it's plain the Pirates still aren't a .500 team, the Post-Gazette is comparing them to... the first half of last year, when their record was horrible, as if that second half that was supposed to be such a great leap forward doesn't actually matter. Or maybe the subtext here is that winning in the first half and winning in the second represent totally different skills. I'm not sure. Either way, it's a really silly and intentionally rose-colored way of presenting the situation. Why not just compare the Pirates' record now to the Pirates' record last year?

2007 winning percentage: .438
2006 winning percentage: .414

Yeah, not so exciting.

Also, a 37-35 record is "awesome"? Really? What planet is Jack Wilson on?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Dreaming or drinking

I guess that a certain shortstop figures that the Pirates are capable of playing .570 ball the rest of the way. Even that would only get them to .500. Is he dreaming or drinking?? The Pirates haven't shown themselves capable of playing .600 ball for much more than a week, let alone half a season.

Is Jack likely to hit .300 or better the rest of the year? He's going to need to for the Pirates to win 46 more games. I do see that he hits about 15 points higher after the ASB the last 3 years.

And why should it take enthusiasm. That should already exist. He's the highest paid player on the current roster (Kendall has him beat by 100K). About time he starts earning his money and leading, instead of griping or making excuses.

by Thunder on Jul 2, 2007 6:34 AM EDT reply actions

Jack

doesn't seem to understand the difference between optimism and wishful thinking. But then what can we expect from a guy who can't even evaluate his own weaknesses, a guy who didn't understand why he was benched earlier this year and thought it was because he'd had one bad game?

by bucdaddy on Jul 2, 2007 8:58 AM EDT reply actions

The really sad part

If this is any indication, even the players have accepted management's low expectations and goals. If the Pirates ever do accidentally reach .500, it'll be portrayed by everybody as a huge triumph, even if they still finish out of the post-season, and even if they do what the Royals did and return to long-term ineptitude the following year. And DL will be GM for Life.

It's all part of the process of instilling the attitude in the franchise and its fan base that perpetual failure is perfectly OK as long as it's profitable and not too embarrassing.

by WTM on Jul 2, 2007 9:22 AM EDT reply actions

I totally agree...

...that 2003 season set the Royals back at least 5 years. That season (where they were insanely good in 1-run games and RISP BA) was 'proof' that Allard Baird's methods were working...and it royally (ha!) screwed them over. It's what I was most petrified of when the season began...that the NL Central would be so bad that the Pirates would overachieve...and Littlefield would get a 10-year extension...

by Bill C. on Jul 2, 2007 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Wait a minute.

I know the mood remains negative, and rightly so. But it cannot be denied that this team is better than last year's. Remember, a year ago we were coming off of a soul-crushing THIRTEEN game losing streak. The pirates went into the break at 30-60 - they lost DOUBLE the games they won. That's a big difference. And, as much as a number of the games last week were miserable, they'e won four of their last six series and are playing at .500 for the past 18 games. Throughout the skid, the Pirates have usually been better in the second half. While there's no reason to start celebrating, improvement over last season is palpable.

by SeanCollier on Jul 2, 2007 11:53 AM EDT reply actions

Pretty low standard

I'm not interested in improvement over last season. I'm interested in winning.

The spin all winter was that the team already "improved" by playing .500 ball after the AS break last year. Now it's back to 11 games under .500. The whole idea of "improvement" is a chimera. The Pirates have continually sold the notion that, if they play less badly for a while, that necessarily means that they're getting better. It doesn't work that way, as the Royals found out. The Bucs lost 95 games in 2005, 95 more in 2006, and they're on pace to lose 92 this year. Going into this season, DL's lifetime W/L % as GM was .431. Right now, the team's % this year is .432. How all this constitutes "progress" escapes me.

by WTM on Jul 2, 2007 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions

The Past 3 Weeks

Again, I'm not saying we raise the Jolly Roger. But this particular moment - today, this week - is not the most pessimistic we could be. They're coming off their first dominant homestand of the year, and again, have won four of the last six series. Even the roadtrip, which at 3-6 was not particularly good, is not utterly hopeless considering how good the Angels are. There's more room for optimism now then there was a month ago, or a month before that.

by SeanCollier on Jul 2, 2007 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't really see it

In June, they took 2 of 3 from 4 weak, injury-plagued and seriously struggling teams--the Nats twice, Texas and the White Sox--and once from a mediocre team in a mild slump--Florida. Didn't manage to sweep any of them. Against three good teams--Seattle and the two LA teams--they lost 8 of 10, and they got swept by the struggling Yankees. That adds up to 12-16 for June plus one July game, a .429 W/L pct. Against teams that weren't in miserable shape, they went 3-12. Whatever trend may be present doesn't look so good to me.

For the rest of July, they don't play a single game against a team that's in nearly as rough shape as the Nats, Rangers or White Sox, unless you count 3 against Houston. That doesn't mean they won't have a good month. I don't think short-term performance trends really say anything about a team's overall ability, which is why I (obviously correctly) put no stock at all in their much-ballyhooed second half last year. But even if I did, I wouldn't see their June performance as an indication they're likely to get better in July. If they don't play way, way better than they did in June, they'll have trouble breaking .350 for the month.

by WTM on Jul 2, 2007 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions

RS/RA?

anybody have the stats on runs scored vs. runs against for the 1st/2nd halves of last year and the 1st of this year? could be interesting to see if we've improved that at all. with typical pirate pessimism my guess is no.

by johnnycuff on Jul 2, 2007 12:54 PM EDT reply actions

Glad you asked

Cause your guess would be right. Check this out:

(And for 2006, Baseball Reference uses the All-Star break to do first half/second half splits, so it's not exactly the same matchup with this year's split after 81 games, but nevermind):

A. 2007 (81 games): R = 332; RA - 396
B. 2006 (90 games): R = 411; RA = 474
C. 2006 (72 games): R = 280; RA = 323

Here's where it gets interesting. The ratio of runs allowed to runs scored for B = 1.153 and for C = 1.154. In other words, the Pirates were exactly as bad both halves (as many of you have pointed out), despite the wildly disparate records. As I recall they had an awful record in 1-run games the first "half" so things just balanced out over 162 games, as they often do.

Know what the ratio for this year is?

1.193

These Pirates are EVEN WORSE at scoring vs. allowing runs than last year's team, first half OR second half. If you ran a Pythagorean on the two first halves, this year's team should have a worse record.

by bucdaddy on Jul 2, 2007 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks Bucdaddy

You're making it even harder to be even partially optimistic...

"Wait till next year... again" Win Or Go Home

by UtesFan89 on Jul 2, 2007 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitching Wins- Pirates don't have any

The way I see it, it all comes down to pitching. For the 2nd half, with Duke probably gone (who wasn't doing much anyway), the Bucs really only have 2 starters that have any chance of winning (Snell and Gorzo). Hopefully, I am wrong, but that is not going to add up to many wins. Malholm sure isn't setting the league on fire (even though the last 2 starts was better), but who are the #4 and #5 pitchers that are going to win??? They're not in Triple-A or on the current roster. LaRoche better keep hitting a lot of homeruns....

by long4willie on Jul 6, 2007 12:50 AM EDT reply actions