Andy Van Slyke: Barry Bonds Cost Us The 1992 NL Pennant

Bingo!

 

Now you're the one stretching things. I don't think I ever said it was a mismatch.

Tim Wakefield? Seriously? Come on, man!

 

Wakefield baffled the Braves in that series (throwing two complete games). As I recall, many of us in Atlanta were worried Leyland would roll the dice and find a way to use his rubber arm (and that infernal knuckle ball) in Game 7.

 

Thread of last century.

 

I remember thinking, once the Pirates put up that 8-spot early in Game 6, that Leyland would get Wakefield out of there after five innings so he could be ready if needed in Game 7. The lead eventually stretched to 12-1, yet Wakefield still threw a complete game and 141 pitches. That was a big Leyland mistake, in my opinion.

However, I cannot produce sworn affidavits from friends that I was indeed saying that to the TV; and furthermore I do not believe this oversight to be an indication of Jim Leyland's overall managerial ability or quality as a human being. In the context of this thread, I find those disclaimers necessary.

To Martin, though: You might find it difficult to believe that Tim Wakefield stifled the mighty Braves, but he was 2-0 with two complete games in that series.

 

Looks like it's time to respond to the Wakefield stuff, as people are going to keep waving that flag.

Yes, he was 2-0 in that series. I'm sure there are several mediocre pitchers who at some point went 2-0 in a playoff series.

Doesn't really make the Pirates better than the Braves, though. I see we're throwing the hyperbole around about the Braves now, too. Nice try, but I don't recall calling them world-beaters. Were they better than the Pirates? Certainly. They had just beaten them the year before in the same series when the Pirates had a better team.

Should Leyland have left Wakefield in all of Game 6? Probably not. Again, though, if the Pirates had a better bullpen, he could have made some different moves, at least in Game 6.

They didn't. He didn't.

I get it -- there are people who are going to insist Leyland made all sorts of mistakes because they want someone to blame. There is no one, other than Lind and maybe Belinda, to blame.

 

And Leyland.

And it doesn't matter what Wakefield was during any other part of his career. During that series, he was dominant. That was one reason a Pirates team that looked inferior on paper was right there with the Braves. (To be fair, Wakefield was fantastic in the second half of that season and a big reason the Pirates even made the playoffs).

Guys play over their heads or underachieve in the playoffs all the time. John Smiley was one of the best pitchers in the National League in 1991. It didn't matter in the NLCS agaisnt the Braves because he was awful in his two appearances against them.

But now you are saying it wasn't a mismatch? Now we're getting somewhere. It was a closely-fought series, close enough that managerial decisions mattered. That was my point all along. That is why your argument that the Pirates just weren't good enough to advance is so ridiculous. Obviously they were, or they wouldn't have been an inning away from doing so.

 

I never said it was a mismatch. I said the Braves were the better team. They had been the year before, when the Pirates still had Bonilla and Smiley.

The Pirates were not that great. They could dominate a pathetic NL East and make the playoffs, though, just as they had done the previous two years.

Could they have advanced? With some breaks. Should they have advanced? No. They could have closed it out, but Lind didn't field, and Belinda didn't close. Happens all the time in sports -- the better team snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.

Some people realize it and accept it. You and others point the finger and blame. Fundamental lack of understanding.

 

They had a lead going into the 9th inning of Game 7. Apparently, this just keeps escaping you. You don't get into that position if you don't have the capacity to win. Once you get to a spot like that, it really doesn't matter who the better team is, because often it is the weaker team tha finds a way (again, ask the 1960 Yankees if you don't believe me).

Long ago, I accepted the fact that the Pirates had a shot and they failed to take advantage of it. Lind, Belinda and Leyland all made mistakes with the game in their hands, as did others earlier in the game and the series. It doesn't excuse the loss, just explains part of why it happened.

What you don't understand is that you can accept a result and discuss why it happened. But hey, at least we made some progress. You've stopped whining about people ripping Leyland for being surly. So maybe you learned something from all of this.

 

They didn't close out the lead in the 9th inning. That concept is still escaping you.

I learned that you are insane and incapable of this discussion. The Pirates did not lose because of Leyland's decisions. They didn't field, and they didn't close out the game. Some people realize that's part of sports. You and others have to point fingers and blame. I assume it's tiny pecker syndrome, or something related to it.

Also, did your Saigon Kick poster get damaged while you were watching Drabek on the mound in the 9th inning?

 

Gee, here is something we haven't seen before - a thread ruined by OOP getting into a pissing match about some Pittsburgh-related topic, getting his ass handed to him but refusing to go away queitly as he must always have the last word while attempting to lock these threads.

About the only difference here is this thread is actually about something Pittsburgh related and thus he didn't have to jack it with some obsessive slobbering of Troy and Ben....