Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2014, 03:14 PM
 
814 posts, read 1,143,699 times
Reputation: 981

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy View Post
If/when you lose more than you did the year prior, you've regressed. All the rationalization one can come up with cannot disprove that.
Called it. Erieguy has been adamant all along that the Pirates are this delicately poised house of cards just ripe for a collapse, but now he's falling back on semantics.

So, yes, okay, the Pirates might be almost virtually guaranteed to regress in 2014 going strictly by win total. But it's not because the Nuttings are cheap or because the management team doesn't have a good plan in place. It's just baseball.

Not to mention, they could theoretically regress by the strict definition of the word and actually have just as successful, if not an even more successful season than they did in 2013. The 2005 Cardinals won 100 games. The following year, they regressed all the way to 83 wins...and won the World Series.

I'd also throw something in about how big-picture success isn't necessarily just measured purely by a single season's wins and losses. If the Pirates "only" win 88 games, but key players continue to prove that they're big league performers, and then guys like Polanco and Taillon come up and are as advertised, thus setting the team up with a contending core for the following 4-5 years, I think that can still reasonably considered a successful season. But erieguy has never demonstrated a capability to entertain nuanced views of things, so this paragraph is probably a wasted effort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2014, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
41,018 posts, read 18,008,136 times
Reputation: 8528
Lol, nobody in BuccoLand likes the argument because there's really nothing to argue...its just the truth.

I said last year they wouldn't sign Morneau, Byrd, Burnett, etc... and they didn't. I also said they wouldnt pay up for premium proven MLB talent and they didnt. Speculating and hoping they will get/sign certain players is like peeing in the wind...and with all you can eat seats, fireworks, concerts, an awesome ball park, and don't forget "pup night", etc..., bringing in a fortune, there's no reason they will continue to build on the 1st winning season in 20 years.

I hope the squirrel finds another nut this year but I don't see it happening...and what's funny is all the arguing after last season about how great they were/are going to continue to improve, has already turned into regression talk before the season has started.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
41,018 posts, read 18,008,136 times
Reputation: 8528
Quote:
Originally Posted by that412 View Post
Called it. Erieguy has been adamant all along that the Pirates are this delicately poised house of cards just ripe for a collapse, but now he's falling back on semantics.

So, yes, okay, the Pirates might be almost virtually guaranteed to regress in 2014 going strictly by win total. But it's not because the Nuttings are cheap or because the management team doesn't have a good plan in place. It's just baseball.

Not to mention, they could theoretically regress by the strict definition of the word and actually have just as successful, if not an even more successful season than they did in 2013. The 2005 Cardinals won 100 games. The following year, they regressed all the way to 83 wins...and won the World Series.

I'd also throw something in about how big-picture success isn't necessarily just measured purely by a single season's wins and losses. If the Pirates "only" win 88 games, but key players continue to prove that they're big league performers, and then guys like Polanco and Taillon come up and are as advertised, thus setting the team up with a contending core for the following 4-5 years, I think that can still reasonably considered a successful season. But erieguy has never demonstrated a capability to entertain nuanced views of things, so this paragraph is probably a wasted effort.
LMAO!!! Oh how the confidence has fallen off in such a short period of time. I love BuccoLand rationalization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 03:37 PM
 
814 posts, read 1,143,699 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
I said last year they wouldn't sign Morneau, Byrd, Burnett, etc... and they didn't. I also said they wouldnt pay up for premium proven MLB talent and they didnt.
So you think the Pirates should have beaten a 2-year, $16 million dollar contract for a 36-year-old outfielder with previous links to PEDs who just had a career season out of nowhere, and in doing so, blocking a top-20 prospect in all of baseball? Got it.

You think they should have given Morneau, who is barely a league-average first baseman anymore, any amount of money close to what he ended up getting from Colorado?

Believing they should have matched the offer Philadelphia made to Burnett is less of a stretch, but I still don't believe it'd have been a prudent use of resources.


Quote:
...and what's funny is all the arguing after last season about how great they were/are going to continue to improve, has already turned into regression talk before the season has started.
The argument has always been that they're being properly set up to be a contending team both right now, and 5-6 years down the road. You're now trying to distort that argument by instituting your own extremely narrow parameters of what success in 2014 would entail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 03:40 PM
 
814 posts, read 1,143,699 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy View Post
LMAO!!! Oh how the confidence has fallen off in such a short period of time. I love BuccoLand rationalization.
I don't see how believing the team will have a win total in the high 80s this year and, more importantly, will be set up as contenders for the foreseeable future indicates of a loss of confidence, but okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
41,018 posts, read 18,008,136 times
Reputation: 8528
Last year you and many others argued against what I said about them regressing this year. Now you're already giving up and preparing for regression just like I said would happen. The difference between then and now is that the season is getting ready to start and putting ones money where their mouth is, is coming due...and reality is setting in so now your opinion is changing.

Perhaps you should wait and see what happens before giving up? Another nut might be found and I might be wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Mexican War Streets
1,584 posts, read 2,084,857 times
Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy View Post
Last year you and many others argued against what I said about them regressing this year. Now you're already giving up and preparing for regression just like I said would happen. The difference between then and now is that the season is getting ready to start and putting ones money where their mouth is, is coming due...and reality is setting in so now your opinion is changing.

Perhaps you should wait and see what happens before giving up? Another nut might be found and I might be wrong.
It's not exactly a bold, Nostradamus-like prediction to suggest that a team that won 94 games last season will win fewer games the following season. I would suspect that's true 75% of the time at least, regardless of the organization, owner, amount of money they throw into payroll, and their "commitment to winning", however you nebulously define that.

Personally, I think Huntington has earned the benefit of the doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
41,018 posts, read 18,008,136 times
Reputation: 8528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobick View Post
It's not exactly a bold, Nostradamus-like prediction to suggest that a team that won 94 games last season will win fewer games the following season. I would suspect that's true 75% of the time at least, regardless of the organization, owner, amount of money they throw into payroll, and their "commitment to winning", however you nebulously define that.

Personally, I think Huntington has earned the benefit of the doubt.
You must have missed last years argument when many said they would not regress from what they did last season but would do the same or improve.

Huntington spends what Bob says he can. Whether you want to argue 1 win in 20 seasons, or 1 win in 7 seasons under present ownership, everything they threw at the wall stuck. After so long one eventually gets lucky.

Bottom line is its almost gametime so some are starting to backpedal from what they said last season.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 04:19 PM
 
814 posts, read 1,143,699 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy View Post
Last year you and many others argued against what I said about them regressing this year. Now you're already giving up and preparing for regression just like I said would happen. The difference between then and now is that the season is getting ready to start and putting ones money where their mouth is, is coming due...and reality is setting in so now your opinion is changing.
This is actually what you said in that other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy View Post
Wow. Really? After 20 years? Blind squirrels find acorns in less time. They'll be back to normal in a year or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy View Post
Unfortunately, theyll be back to losing in 1-2 years when the Nuttings don't spend the money for future talent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy View Post
One winning season even in 7 does not a successful team make. If you're satisfied with that then your standards are on the low side. Its good you don't expect much because theyll be back to subpar in the next year or 2.
And those were just the first three I found. There are pages and pages of these assertions.

Unless you consider anything less than 94 wins to be subpar, you're doing a wonderful job of moving the goalposts. Of course, it is what you do best.

Last edited by that412; 03-03-2014 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 04:26 PM
 
814 posts, read 1,143,699 times
Reputation: 981
Meanwhile, not a single person in that thread definitively said that the team is going to be better in 2014 in terms of number of wins. You're the one who made that criteria up just now and ascribed it to all of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top