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

Given your last post, you seemed to need to have that pointed out for you. I'm not assuming any knowledge on your part at this point.

I understand your point just fine. The thing is, it really doesn't refute mine. Jim Leyland was part of the Pirates. Managing matters, too. If a team loses because a manager screwed up, that counts. I'm not trying to excuse the loss. I'm pointing out one of the reasons it happened. Please try to wrap your mind around the distinction.

Do you even remember where this thread started? Van Slyke wants to blame Bonds for the loss. I simply pointed out other people who screwed up. Leyland was among them.

You were wrong about me disliking Jim Leyland. You were wrong about me only deciding to criticize his decisions in hindsight. You were wrong in characterizing that series as a mismatch. That isn't the entire list, but it's a start. I'll let others decide what to think of you given those points.

Regarding my "unusual definition of insults," are you under the impression that calling somebody a dumbass repeatedly is a compliment?

 

Well, I did waste a few seconds to go back and see what you said originally. I guess it started out with you blaming everyone under the sun, and then you descended to saying Leyland deserved all of the bashing he gets.

I said maybe not, and then you went Erin Brockovich and started getting pissy. From there, you have built a sphere of conflicting points, shallow logic, and utterly dumbfounding conclusions. The centerpiece of those seems to be the Pirates were good enough to advance, even though their closer could not actually close a game.

Obviously the manager would get some blame. But then you're back again to pointing out the amazingly obvious and thinking it's deep. (It's not.)

Yeah, Leyland did make the choice to stay with Drabek and then bring in Belinda. Outside of that, he can't field or make the throws from the outfield, though.

In your case, I'd say dumbass is a compliment. The word extreme or galactic should appear, too.

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5742738/the_most_painful_loss_in_sports_history.html

"Leyland did the best managerial job of his career in 1992. Only one Pirate (Bonds, with 34) hit more than 14 home runs. One two pitchers (Drabek and Randy Tomlin) won more than 10 games. Forgettable names like Orlando Merced and Alex Cole were fixtures in the starting lineup. But despite all of that, plus the loss of Bonilla to free agency after 1991 and the offseason trade of John Smiley, a 20-game winner, the Pirates were one of the best teams in baseball, finishing 96-66, nine games ahead of the Montreal Expos."

You suck, oops. You suck.

 

So close to finally making a good point on this thread. Change "would" to "should" and you'd be right there.

Where did I contradict myself? I didn't, but let's see what you can come up with for that one.

So now your argument is that a team isn't good enough to advance in the playoffs because it has a crappy closer? Well, I guess the Arizona Diamondbacks should give back that title from 2001 since their closer sucked. Of course, they had a manager who was willing to stop using a closer when it was clear he couldn't get the job done. That kinda helped.

 

Great. Now show us the post where I said Leyland was a bad manager. Or the post where I said he did a bad job during the 1992 regular season. Or a post where I said anything other than he made mistakes during Game 7 of the NLCS.

Here's a hint. None of those things happened. The flailing continues.

 

That team also had Schilling and Johnson to start most of the games. Yeah, using Johnson in relief was a great move. Leyland had Bob Walk -- not quite the same thing.

You suck at discussing baseball, oops.

 

You're weak at grasping subtle points.

As I've said before, numerous times, the 1992 Pirates were just not a great team, in many ways. I thought that objective link would sink through.

I guess not. The conclusion can only be the same -- that you don't get it; you never will; and you suck.

 

Leyland just called and said he'll sign a document taking all blame if it will just put an end to this.

 

I talked to him earlier, and he denies taking the blame.

I did check out the 9th inning sequence; oops has failed to provide a speck of relevant specificity. If the Pirates had brought in a lefty, they might have done better or even forced the Braves to use Cabrera earlier, although I can't see PHing for Pendleton or Berryhill, the catcher.

Oops just sucks. Can't say it enough. This argument would be cool with a sane person. Oops is not that person.

 

And you fail at reading comprehension. Again.

Leyland's performance in the regular season is one thing. His performance in Game 7 of the NLCS is another. I do understand your problem. You either can't or won't understand what I'm writing.

 

Says the guy relying on the crutch of attacking the other poster rather than actually dealing with what is being said.

Of course, you don't seem to understand what is being said, so I can understand why you might be getting frustrated.

 

It's amazing how much you suck, oops. I'd deal with what you say if you would ever use anything resembling a fact or a specific detail. Do you even know what those are? You claim to have total recall of this game, but so far the only image you provide is you screaming pathetically about somehow knowing Drabek was gassed. Even then, you would get a 0 out of 10 in the "provision of facts/specifics" category.

You have offered nothing other than your deeply rooted belief that Leyland bears some blame, although earlier you said he deserves all the bashing he gets. Those seem to be two different concepts, but I am not sure you can sort that out, either.

In summary, if you had even a remote chance of making sense or offering a speck of fact, I might be inclined to listen. But if it has taken you this long to figure that I am, in fact, not paying much attention to your insane and useless ramblings, you would be correct.

Not Leyland's fault. And you suck.