Bob Walk, among the living Pirates to have participated in a playoff game

Geez, it was 1992. There are a fair number of guys from that team still living.

"Isn’t that what makes teams good?"

Nope. Thanks for playing!

Geez, it was 1992. There are a fair number of guys from that team still living.

According to BBREF, every person who played for the 1992 Pirates is still alive. And 2 are still active.

Yes, Mister Manager, I know that this is an oak in front of us, and there are a numebr of tall pines back there, but can I introduce you to the concept that in the big picture what we have here is a called a "forest"....

In fairness to Tracy, its not like the Pirates are stacked with guys who can reach base at a .350 clip. So if you can't be with the one you love...

Yes, Mister Manager, I know that this is an oak in front of us, and there are a number of tall pines back there, but can I introduce you to the concept that in the big picture what we have here is a called a "forest"....

I think Jason Bay's explanation was definitely the best and the one that I agree with.

"Isn’t that what makes teams good?"

Nope. Thanks for playing!

Gosh, Vlad, clutch performances <u>are</u> really important. I don't know why you'd deny that.

The thing is, I don't think anyone knows how you can improve your chances in the clutch other than having good players in the first place.

I think Jason Bay's explanation was definitely the best and the one that I agree with.

I'd've liked it a bit better if he'd also said, "And that's why I hit 100 points worse in the clutch in '06, because I tightened up when in '05 I didn't."

every person who played for the 1992 Pirates is still alive. And 2 are still active.

Bonds and ? It's gotta be a pitcher. Just teasing myself.

Wakefield

Bonds and ? It's gotta be a pitcher. Just teasing myself.

I just looked up which players go the furthest back for post-season play.

-Barry Bonds: NLCS 1990
-Greg Maddux: NLCS 1989
-David Wells ALCS 1989
-Roger Clemens World Series 1986.

Nice try guys, but....

-Julio Franco Temple Cup 1892

The joke about Franco is funny, but the guy started in the MLB in 1982. People could have started five years after him and had a 10 year career and they still would have been retired for the past 10 years and Julio is still playing.

"I don't know why you'd deny that."

Good teams are good because they have good players, not because they have clutch players. Worry about getting good players first, and then figure out whether they're clutch or not.

"In fairness to Tracy, its not like the Pirates are stacked with guys who can reach base at a .350 clip."

Last year's team had four, and yet he still favored a lineup where the top two guys had a .317 and a .316, respectively. He also decided to play Burnitz (.289) over Craig Wilson (.339).

Nobody in the entire organization understands where runs come from.

"Bonds and ? It's gotta be a pitcher."

Actually, there are TWO active non-Bonds players from that team. If you need a hint, they weren't on the 25-man roster at the same time during any part of the year.

Nobody in the entire organization understands where runs come from.

For me it's heavy cream sauces. And sometimes exotic food, but I seem to be doing better with that as I age.

For the Pirates, it's a single to start off the inning, then a sac bunt, then a sharp single to drive home the run. The thought of trying to get more men on base and score more than one run in a sequence is frightening - always has been, maybe always will be.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

“Isn’t that what makes teams good?” Tracy said when asked about his value of clutch. “It’s what separates you from the pack, your ability to take the big at-bat.

Nope, "clutch hitting" doens't separate you from the pack.

In 2006 all MLB hit .269/.336/.432
In 2006 all MLB hit .270/.356/.425 with RISP
In 2006 all MLB hit .270/.356/.425 "close and late"

The least "clutch team"* (what the team hit with RISP compared to that team's overall) was Boston who hit .259/.351/.397 with RISP and .269/.351/.435 overall. Boston scored 820 runs

The most clutch team was: The white Sox who hit .307/.376/.504 with RISP and .280/.342/.464 overall. Chicago scored 868 runs.

Gee, the WhiteSox really separated themselves from the Redsox last year didn't they :-)

Seriously we ARE talking about maybe 2-4 wins- but ZERO predictability, there will be literally no correlation between 2006's list of team RISP vs Overall hitting and 2007's. That means designing a team to maximize hitting with RISP is futile.

The 2006 Pirates hit .266/.349/.383 with RISP and .263/.327/.397 overall- guess what they'd gain -0- runs if they got their "share of hits in those situations" as said by Tracey.

*The Cubs management team gave interview after interview where they said the Cubs were terrible at situational hitting, and that's where they needed to improve. The Cubbies hit .262/.336/.423 with RISP and .268/.319/.422 overall. Cubbie performance with RISP was EXACTLY what should have been expected given the overall level of Cubbie offense.

The Cubbies had the worst OBP in the NL, the Pirates were 4th from last- the Pirates were last in the NL in Homers.

The Pirates need
1: More power
2: More Baserunners
3: unsure but it's a distant third

"unsure but it's a distant third"

Probably pitching or defense. We don't have all that much of those, either.

Probably pitching or defense. We don't have all that much of those, either.

ERA+ of 99 in 2006

plus I have Ian Snell on my NL only Roto team :-)

"ERA+ of 99 in 2006"

Snell is awesome, true, but there's not a whole lot behind him. We've got Maholm and Armas at the back of the rotation, and Chacon as the likely alternative when one of those two bombs out or gets hurt.

This year's ERA+ is 88 so far, and the guys who have been better than expected seem like they'd more than cancel out the ones who have been worse.

Somebody in the other thread had a good idea of what the Pirates need. Something about a bridge . . . .

For me, the part of that article that made me almost lose my lunch when I read it this afternoon is that there seems to be a large segment of Pirate players and coaches that think that it was better to pitch to Pujols with the bases loaded than Eckstein with two runners on in a one run game. Because Pujols, the NL leader in batting with runners in scoring position last year is "less clutch" than the guy who's career average with risp (.280) is nearly the same as his overall career average (.281), not to mention the fact that Eckstein has no power whatever. So not only are the following a goofy theory in the first place, but the example they use to defend their stupidity doesn't even jib with what their theory tells them.

Anytime anyone starts to get a good feeling about these Pirates, just remember this story. THEY THINK THEY ARE BETTER OFF PITCHING TO ALBERT PUJOLS THAN DAVID ECKSTEIN! I'd call them morons, but that would be unfair to all the morons out there.

Actually, the situation was Eckstein up, one out, the winning and tying runs on first and third, and Chris Duncan on deck (Pujols followed Duncan). None of the players said they were better off facing Pujols than Eckstein. At most the implication is that they were happier facing Duncan than Eckstein. That too may seem dubious logic, but Eckstein's lifetime OBP is about .350 to Duncan's .360, and Eckstein is a veteran, Duncan still practically a rookie and, well, unpolished; also Eckstein is faster and a better bet to beat the relay throw on a DP attempt. You may call the Pirates morons, but they are not extreme morons :)

Actually, there are TWO active non-Bonds players from that team. If you need a hint, they weren't on the 25-man roster at the same time during any part of the year.

OK, I cheated and looked it up, but other than the three stalwarts still playing, it looks like 2003 was the last hurrah for the 1992 Pirates. It was the last year for Denny Neagle, Kevin Young, Orlando Merced, Jay Bell, Al Martin, and Tom Prince.

The thing that bothers me the most about "clutchiness" is that any meaningful sense of the word has a player performing ABOVE AVERAGE in those situations. In which case I'd have to ask, why the hell aren't you performing that way all the time, rather than just when you think it's "important" enough to do so? So unless a player has a psychological disadvantage in those types of settings (and you'd think playing baseball for years and years would pretty much thin out the crowd on those types), being clutch just translates into being lazy.

Tom Prince will never die.

In which case I'd have to ask, why the hell aren't you performing that way all the time, rather than just when you think it's "important" enough to do so?

Kirk Gibson used to give interviews where he bragged about giving "meaningless" at bats away. I think it was his way of claiming "I could win a batting title or lead the league in RBIs if I wanted to".

Now, using the miracle that is BBREF 2007, I see that Kirk Gibson, career .268/.352/.463 hitter hit .261/.350/.444 "close and late"...
.271/.359/.468 in one run games...
.266/.339/.464 when the margin was 4 or more runs

For the sake of future generations, who may lack the B-R we take for granted, the two Pirates in question are Tim Wakefield and... 21-year-old Rule 5 pick Miguel Batista.

For the sake of future generations, who may lack the B-R we take for granted, the two Pirates in question are Tim Wakefield and... 21-year-old Rule 5 pick Miguel Batista

Missed Batista, as I went through only the Team batting roster. For a NL team that usually encompases everybody except September call up relievers.

I actually thought this was a pretty good piece. This isn't the Stats Guy, is it?

Jim Colborn names Joe Rudi as a clutch player, at least during his time with the A's. Over his career, Rudi hit:

264/311/427 overall;
279/347/452 with RISP;
245/301/404 late & close;
265/341/444 with RISP and two outs.

Nope, the Stats Geek's name is O'Neill. Dejan is quite good in his own right, however (and a significant upgrade on Paul Meyer, who had the job before him and was basically a clueless lapdog for management).