2016 MLB Regular-Season Thread

The Red Sox?

 

Cardinals? Back in the early '40s Musial hasn't entered the service yet years?

 

You are saying this as if all teams' situations are equal. The Pirates' approach would be fine if they were a bad team or even one in the middle of the pack, but they returned the core of a team that made the playoffs the last three seasons. It wasn't time to pinch pennies.

Taillon did not arrive until June. Glasnow still isn't up. It is nearly halfway through the season. You really think it is wise for a contender to go through half the season with two good starting pitchers, one mediocre one and crap?

You are also assuming that the only area they weakened the team was the starting rotation. It wasn't. They also lost key members of the bullpen, which has been dramatically weaker than it was last season. The Niese trade, which was driven by money, set them back. Walker was clearly the better player at the time and that has been demonstrated again so far this season.

The Pirates assumed Searage could fix Niese and Nicasio and that hasn't been the case. They managed to squeeze solid production out of guys they got from the scrap heap the last two years, but is that really a sustainable approach?

The budget is arbitrary and it should not be the same approach every year. Small market teams like the Pirates should spend when they get close, but that didn't happen and the current losing record is a result of that approach. It was a poor, cheap plan, which I wrote at the time, and I'm quite sure the front office knew it as well. They are too good not to realize the flaws forced on them by ownership.

Can the pull it out? If Taillon and Glasnow are both ready to have strong second halves and maybe they add a solid role player or two, they have a shot at another Wild Card spot, but this team is not what it should be and ownership is the reason.

 

The White Sox got 99 in 2005, so I would assume it's been a long time since they got to 100.

 

As for when it happened, 1917?

 

This is correct. They and the Dodgers (actually the Brooklyn Superbas) both lost 100 in 1908, and haven't done it since.
Maybe even more impressive than that streak is this stat: The Cardinals have only had three 90-loss seasons since the end of World War I (1976, 1978 and 1990).

Any guesses on the two teams that have never lost 100?

 

Correct on both counts, but their streak is only the second-longest.

 

Fourth place. Last one was in 1946, which kind of surprised me considering their recent success.

 

Not even close. They won 102 in 1974, putting them sixth on the list.

 

Again, most of this has nothing to,do,with me. I made no assumptions about the rest of their team or their bullpen. You're the one who said that the problem is the back of the rotation, to which I replied that if that's true, it was a good plan and yes, I still think it was wise to take the chance that searage could do it again, on at least one of the two, while waiting for the rookies to show up. It allows you to (at least in theory) use those resources elsewhere.

 

I never said the only problem was the back of their rotation. I've said all along that they weakened themselves in every area, particularly the starting rotation and bullpen, because they went the penny-pinching route this past offseason, which is inexcusable for a contender.

I'm not questioning the wisdom of Pirates' baseball people. They are doing the best they can with the restrictions put upon them by ownership, but those restrictions are costing them the ability to take advantage of the team's current window of opportunity.

 

Oop's right.

What a night, I'm liking Old Tony post, agreeing with OOP. This Scotch is must be potent.