| Home of the Bleacher Blogger |
|---|
|
|
Along the Same LinesDamn Stat Geek stole my column. OK, not exactly, but for over a month I've been mulling over a post about the Pirate record in one run games, and what that means. Now out of necessity I must rush it. Here's the gist of what I had to say.Before the road trip the Pirates were playing great, and I could say that with complete confidence, no matter who's pitching and even if Tike Redman is in the lineup, we would have a chance to win. But just because we are playing good does not mean that we are good, and I think our record in one run games shows that, 6-14. So what does that mean. When you win 9-2 or loose 7-0 there isn't much that could have changed. As games get closer and closer mistakes or missed opportunities become more evident. A bad bounce, a bunt back to the pitcher, a blown call, a foul ball just missing the pole; these is the "luck" that Mr. O'Neill alludes to, and you can have lucky things that also work in your favor. But there are other things also: a key strikeout, a different third baseman, effective reliever use, a hit a run, suicide squeezes, double steals, properly positioned defense, the right pinch hitter, etc. Things that could have scored or saved you a run just by making the right decision. The manager has control over that. I don't like criticizing the moves managers make unless they are in the process of making them. Arguing over whether a choice was the right one or the wrong one after you know if it worked or not isn't fair. That is why I often stick up for players and managers who have made wrong decisions. But when you sum up those decisions and find that there are more game costing bad ones then what should be expected, then you have a bad manager on your hands. I'm copying this info from the Stat Geeks column: Year Overall One-RunJust like a player, manager's have to perform in the clutch. Comparing his record in one-run games using his teams overall record as a standard I think is a fair way of evaluating a managers clutch ability. '01 and '02 look amazing, '03 and '04 are alright, this year is terrible. Am I suggesting that Lloyd McClendon was a better manager his first two years? Yes, in a way, let me tell you a theory. When the Pirate's first hired McClendon I thought he would be a good manager for a bad team. We sucked that year, we sucked the next year too, but it was these years that we saw the base get ripped out of the ground and countless arguments about things we all knew were right. It was great to see him in action. Lloyd changed after that, he would talk about becoming more relaxed. It was a smart move, being a good bad baseball manager is not the way to have a career. The team got better too, but they still weren't good. I firmly believe that the things Lloyd now does would be very successful on a team like the Marlins or the Padres, but this team still needs crazy Tazmanian Lloyd. Don't believe me. Managers of good teams don't have to worry about giving rookies their shot, or playing a guy just so he can look good to possible suitors. They put the team on the field with the best chance of winning, they pace their guys to save up for the stretches in August and September. Sound Familiar? Think about it, what are the things we complain about the most. If the Pirates record doesn't get better and their record in one run games goes in the same direction. It means two things: this team is no good, and Lloyd isn't the best person to run it. posted by Rory at 5:21 PM | |
|
This is a blog about the Pittsburgh Pirates. My vision: to write about the games at the games. Want to email me? Make it out to rory at bleache... you know the rest. |
