gig

I wonder if anyone is still predicting the Pirates will lose 100 games this
season? If so, I'll lay $100 even that says they don't. We could even make
it a charity thing (donate the winnings) if there's any serious takers out
there.

another day another os

You know the problem here is that your confidence is misplaced and even
if the Pirates avoid losing 100, it won't negate the validity of the
original claims and complaints.

When most who argued the Pirates were a team that could easily lose 100
it was based on the Pirates' plan to have Craig Wilson on the bench
splitting time with Randall Simon, JJ Davis and Raul Mondesi in RF and
Chris Stynes starting at third...

So injuries to Bay and Simon allow Wilson to start when the Pirates had
no intentions of doing that, the dismissal of Mondesi & sending down of
Davis opens the door for Ward and the complete flop of Stynes forces a
nearly complete reshuffling of the infield and you think that's all to
the credit of the Pirates?

Last night's lineup featured three players, Bay, Kendall and Jack Wilson
who were part of the original Pirate plan for this season. So even if
the Pirates, as they've managed to so many times before, stumble out of
their own stupidity and fall backwards into some temporary success; it
won't change that fact that when people were calling their original team
a prescription for a 100 loss season, that's exactly what it was.

It's the same as last year when the team was melting down and suddenly
the, easily within reach of 100 losses at the end of June and the moves
started that opened up more playing time for Craig Wilson, Matt Stairs
and Reggie Sanders who carried the team the rest of the way.

Be honest and answer this: if the Pirates were still playing Stynes at
third, Redman in center Davis/Mondesi in right and Simon at first with
Craig Wilson in a part time role and Ward still in the minors do you
think THAT team wouldn't lose 100 games? Would you even be offering
this wager?

The team might not lose 100 games, but if they still don't lose 90 it'll
be because they'll go 14-27 over their next 41 games and their 34-48
record heading into the All-Star break will prompt even more changes.
And none of what's happening, none of these temporary patches, this year
or last are indicative of a properly run franchise that is on the right
track.

gig

I wonder if anyone is still predicting the Pirates will lose 100 games this
season? If so, I'll lay $100 even that says they don't. We could even make
it a charity thing (donate the winnings) if there's any serious takers out
there.

st eaton

In article <c95479$mb3$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
USpammerz****@my.privacy says...

Another jagoff that won't put his money where his big fat mouth is. But,
but, I meant uh, if, if ..... Yah, whatever.

gig

Which obviously weren't very valid, since they're not going to lose 100 games.

And they were wrong about that stuff too. Nothing was ever written in stone.
You're critizing the Pirates for evolving and playing the best players, as
if they were supposed to stick to the "plan" you had concocted in your mind.

So you say. I believed all along CW would be a starter, especially after the
spring training he had. But apparently you have some inside info we're all not privy to.

Obviously not. They can do nothing right apparently, at least in your eyes.
Any improvemnt the team has made is due to dumb luck.


I fail to see the point here. It's as if you're saying the season didn't go
exactly like you predicted, so you can't be wrong. The bottom line is , you
were wrong about the team and wrong about the 100 loses. Anything else is a rationalization.

I take it that's a "no" on the bet.

oh me oh my

This plainly stupid and fails even a a basic logic test.

Only a complete idiot would view a team and its ability to perform by
the labels on their uniforms rather than the bodies in them who in the
case of Pirates have already radically changed since the original roster imploded.


Evolving? Is that what you call replacing most of your starters once
they've failed with temporary fixes?


Of course you believe that, and Jason Bay wasn't really the planned
starter in left, Mondesi in right and Simon at first. They were just cheerleaders.

That's been their pattern since the beginning of the last decade when
they were forced to bring Kendall north out of camp when their free
agent signing Parrish flopped in spring training.

Nearly every year since then, 97 being the lone exception, the team has
improved its record after the All Star break and only after their
starters were shipped out on way or another.

We were right about the team we were talking about the time. The team
that is playing today is much different already and will be more so
after the All Star break.

The point is, if you're talking about a team's ability to win or not
you're talking the abilities of those individual players who make up the
roster - not about some mythical institution under a name that you seem
to be talking about.

If you actually read the comments in the spring and before about the
team's prospects you would find that almost all those that predicted a
certain number of losses - they were in the context of IF the Pirates
start Stynes, Simon, Redman, Mondesi etc they'd be losers.

If fact they were big losers, you know it, I know it and the front
office knew it, that's why those guys aren't starting any more.

Like everything you do with the team, from stats on down, you're taking
the predictions out of context.

gig

Stynes has played in 35 games, a good chunk of them as a starter. Redman's
started almost all the games, he's 2nd in team at-bats. Mondesi was in 26
games, over half the total games, so it's not like they haven't played. And
Mondesi was putting up decent numbers and most likely still would be if he
were in there. You make it sound as though they sat these guys on the bench
from day one of the season.

Besides, all teams change personnel as the season unfolds for whatever
reasons. It's an organization, from minors to majors (and you so aptly point
out in many of your posts), and the fact that someone making a prediction
didn't take into account guys like Ward or Mateo or someone else coming up
and being a factor doesn't excuse the erroneousness of the prediction.

No, like everything else, your bitterness blinds you from the obvious.
Castillo, Hill, Mackowiak, C. Wilson, J.Wilson, Bay, Ward, Kendall are all
playing well, having good or great seasons so far. (Yes, there's long way to
go and they could be better, especially in hitting with men on base, but
hopefully those numbers will improve.) But all these guys are not coming out
of nowhere. They've been there since spring training and/or beyond. Not to
mention the bullpen, which is vastly improved; and the starting pitching,
which still a bit erratic, has potential to be a solid staff. But none of
this is a factor in your eyes, just an injury to Simon and the loss of a
decent player (Mondesi) was enough to make the prediction of 100 loses
invalid.

The fact is, the Pirates are better than many thought. Selecting a couple of
guys from a 25-man roster and saying their decline or loss of playing time
is the only reason the teams is not as bad as you predicted is bogus. But
you would never admit you're wrong, so I won't argue the point any more.

alan williams

You suffer from innumeracy, among other ailments, Paul.

Alan
'that translated to a 'No'

another day another os

You know the problem here is that your confidence is misplaced and even
if the Pirates avoid losing 100, it won't negate the validity of the
original claims and complaints.

When most who argued the Pirates were a team that could easily lose 100
it was based on the Pirates' plan to have Craig Wilson on the bench
splitting time with Randall Simon, JJ Davis and Raul Mondesi in RF and
Chris Stynes starting at third...

So injuries to Bay and Simon allow Wilson to start when the Pirates had
no intentions of doing that, the dismissal of Mondesi & sending down of
Davis opens the door for Ward and the complete flop of Stynes forces a
nearly complete reshuffling of the infield and you think that's all to
the credit of the Pirates?

Last night's lineup featured three players, Bay, Kendall and Jack Wilson
who were part of the original Pirate plan for this season. So even if
the Pirates, as they've managed to so many times before, stumble out of
their own stupidity and fall backwards into some temporary success; it
won't change that fact that when people were calling their original team
a prescription for a 100 loss season, that's exactly what it was.

It's the same as last year when the team was melting down and suddenly
the, easily within reach of 100 losses at the end of June and the moves
started that opened up more playing time for Craig Wilson, Matt Stairs
and Reggie Sanders who carried the team the rest of the way.

Be honest and answer this: if the Pirates were still playing Stynes at
third, Redman in center Davis/Mondesi in right and Simon at first with
Craig Wilson in a part time role and Ward still in the minors do you
think THAT team wouldn't lose 100 games? Would you even be offering
this wager?

The team might not lose 100 games, but if they still don't lose 90 it'll
be because they'll go 14-27 over their next 41 games and their 34-48
record heading into the All-Star break will prompt even more changes.
And none of what's happening, none of these temporary patches, this year
or last are indicative of a properly run franchise that is on the right
track.

st eaton

In article <c95479$mb3$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
USpammerz****@my.privacy says...

Another jagoff that won't put his money where his big fat mouth is. But,
but, I meant uh, if, if ..... Yah, whatever.