Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintSubmit your question about the Pirates.
Q: Let's reverse roles for a minute, and I'll provide an "A" for your "Q."
Kovacevic: Are there any females who follow baseball?
Cribbs: Of course there are females who follow baseball! But, like the Marines, we're the few and the proud. From April to September, I live and breathe the Pirates. I listen to them while I run, drive, clean -- even shower (though that gets tricky). Though I'm not a season-ticket holder, I make it to at least 12 games a year and have been known around the office to take off on a gorgeous day just to catch a "businessman's special" (how insulting!) at PNC Park. I once met a man at a party who claimed that, were he not married, he would whisk me off to the altar immediately based on my baseball knowledge alone.
To put it simply, I'm a big fan.
With me, at least, baseball has always been a family event. My grandfather passed the love of it to my mother, who married my baseball-loving father, and together they taught my sister and I to love the game. People constantly question or harass me about my undying devotion to the perennial Pittsburgh losers but, despite the gloom and doom, I can't live without the feeling I get when a rookie strikes out the side or some unheard-of outfielder leaps for the impossible catch. And for me, it's not always about statistics. The beauty of the game -- the familiar dance that lasts all summer -- brings me back to my childhood and reminds me of the pleasure I can derive from existence if I take the time to stop, relax and watch the game.
So, to answer your question from last week, females do follow baseball. I'm not shy about it, but it's possible that some hide their love in embarrassment from stepping outside defined gender roles or because people would torment them for watching the Pirates. The Q&A often tends to be stats-heavy, and maybe they just don't care about that so much. Or maybe they have jobs and kids and housework and husbands who demand their time, leaving little room for baseball, let alone the luxury of reading about or commenting on it.
But, even though you may not hear from us as often as you do from the men, we're here, counting the days until the Boys of Summer head north for another season of the game we can't live without.
Susie Cribbs of Saltsburg
KOVACEVIC: OK, so, as I was saying last week about not getting much response from the female portion of the readership, Susie steps into the box and sends the ball to Stanwix Street.
In enjoyed every bit of your note, Susie, enough that I decided to turn over the forum to the women for a week, as we received a heavy response.
I must take exception, though, with your characterization of the Q&A as being "stats-heavy." If anything, I think you will find -- doubtless to the dissatisfaction of some -- that I place not nearly as much weight on statistics as I do on plain old watching the game with your own two eyes. I always have been this way. For the hundreds of Pirates games I have attended first-hand, I have spent far less time monitoring the video board for a guy's statistics than I have watching how he actually performs. While I will use stats to fortify arguments and work them into most of my writing, I plan to keep the same approach on the beat.
Onward with the women ...
Q: Regarding the lack of female Pirates fans, my mother who lives in Pittsburgh, my sister who lives in Denver, and I in Albuquerque are diehards. In fact, our husbands would like us to show such passion towards them.
My husband and I just got back from spring training in Bradenton, our fourth visit in five years. Because of my passion for the team, it has become an annual ritual. My interest in the Pirates has extended into my master's thesis which addresses my life with the Pirates through synchronistic events.
Question: Why can't a player be taught to be patient at the plate at the major-league level? I did notice that Jose Bautista was a patient batter in the few at-bats we saw this spring. Do you think that is the influence of the other major-league teams that he spent time with last year? And if so, why don't the Pirates do it? Does Gerald Perry have the respect of the players?
Norine Minion of Albuquerque, N.M.
KOVACEVIC: OK, so, as I was saying last week about the lack of interest in the Pirates among the females ...
To answer your first question, Norine, I made the point last week that hitters are fairly well established as patient or aggressive by the time they reach the majors. That was not to suggest there are not exceptions, but few would dispute, I think, that those are rare. Bautista, as I am sure you know, barely qualifies as a major-leaguer given his Rule 5 status last year and the fact that he might start this season as low as Class AA. Thus, if he were to improve his patience, it hardly would buttress the argument against what I was saying.
To your second point, my interview with Bautista earlier this spring drew little to suggest that he picked up much of anything from last year than how major-leaguers prepare for games and how they live through 162 games. As I wrote in the corresponding article, it was pretty much a wasted year for him. But you might be right, of course, that he picked up pointers from his endless hours in major-league dugouts.
Finally, I am way too new to the gig to be tackling questions such as whether or not players respect certain coaches. Truth is, if I wrote about it one way or the other, you probably would not place much credence in it. I did write about such things in my eight years of covering the Penguins when it was applicable.
I will say, though, that I already have heard several players giving Perry credit for specific improvements in their swings and approaches.
Q: Yes, there are women that follow the Pirates, as well as the rest of MLB. Considering I have suffered through watching the Pirates have 13 consecutive losing seasons dating back to when I was in second grade, I think it's pretty impressive that I still go root for them every summer.
Yes, I still have hope for my team, even if that hope has diminished to maybe someday seeing the Pirates with a .500 record on the season.
Kim Lucey of Cranberry
KOVACEVIC: So the pessimists are not limited to the male segment.
Oh, and you might want to do the club the courtesy of not chalking up 2005 as a losing season just yet, Kim. The Pirates' streak actually is at 12.
Q: Women who like baseball are alive and well out here. We're simply overlooked.
For example, how many promotions encourage women to attend? Makeovers and meeting Pirates wives isn't my idea of baseball. I'd rather learn to throw a curveball or sit in the dugout and talk baseball with a player.
Also, only the dreaded Yankees ever consider hiring a woman for an advantageous, visible job. Did the Pirates consider hiring a woman to replace Steve Blass?
Anyway, next time you are at the ballpark, Dejan, look and listen. You'll see women who keep score and you'll hear them talk baseball just like the men fans.
Bethann Gallagher of Burke, Va.
KOVACEVIC: I did not write, Bethann, that women are not at PNC Park. I see them there in very healthy percentages, actually. What I wrote was that they were not sending stuff into the Q&A.
Until this week, anyway.
I must say that I wonder about your argument that there are insufficient promotions for women, especially when you also stress that you would much rather focus on the baseball itself. Seems to me that the best way to promote a sporting event is to promote a sporting event. I find it refreshing, actually, to see that the new ad campaign, for example, stresses baseball. Remember that ridiculous year, not that long ago, when only fireworks and trinkets were pushed?
Finally, to answer your lone question, no, I am not aware of the Pirates having interviewed any woman for the fifth broadcaster's job.
Q: Hi, Dejan! With Zach Duke having a good outing in his first spring training start, do you think he has a better chance than Ryan Vogelsong to make the starting rotation? I think that, with another strong outing, the role is for him to lose. I agree with Lloyd that age is nothing but a number.
Alaina Wetter of Carrick, Pittsburgh
KOVACEVIC: As I have written in each of the past two days, there is a sentiment among some in management that Duke is the best choice for the job. There also is a sentiment, for reasons I detailed yesterday, that he would not be the right choice right now.
Obviously, more will be clearer today when Duke makes his second start, in a minor-league game at Pirate City.
Regarding Vogelsong, there is a growing feeling that he will go to the bullpen to start the season. And there is nothing wrong with that, in my view. Vogelsong, as forthcoming a personality as there is in the clubhouse, will be the first to allow that he has much improvement to make in his control, mechanics and the split-finger fastball he is trying. He has a terrific arm, and the organization is being wise to hang onto him and give him another chance. But starting, and the pressure that comes with having to sustain performance over consecutive innings, might not be right for Vogelsong at this time.
You did not mention Dave Williams, Alaina, but he is the other pitcher in the mix. He will start tomorrow against the Twins down in Fort Myers, and as many eyes will be on that outing as on Duke's today.
Q: Dejan, I'm here, I'm here. I just was waiting to get the flavor of the new column before getting involved.
No questions today, but a couple of ideas: From last week's column, I'd like to follow up your comments on the difference between a splitter and a two-seamer. Throw in a slider, a circle-change, etc. I, too, have followed baseball for a long time but am still thrown by the pitching descriptions. Plus, it is all opposite when there's a lefty pitching, at least in terms of where the ball ends up. There is a lot of jargon out there and, if you're watching on TV, the announcers use it all of the time and I don't think that they always get it right.
Breaking this down for me would be wonderful.
I don't know how many other women are reading, but I am faithfully here. I will make my presence known from now on
Marda Hook of New York
KOVACEVIC: I like your idea of continuing to address baseball issues for newcomers, Marda, if only for selfish purposes as I am learning much about the game's intricacies myself. But I would not limit the discussion to pitches and rules and the like. I would open it to all kinds of things, as I did last week when I invited opinions on why the Oakland Athletics seem to be so revered by Pirates fans.
More on that from the men later in the Q&A.
Q: Dejan, I just wanted to let you know that there are some female readers of this column. One reason that I haven't sent any questions is that my mind hasn't adjusted to baseball. In March, it's used to being geared up for the Stanley Cup playoffs, and I just can't get it into full baseball mode just yet. Once the season gets going full swing, I'm sure more female readers will be sending in questions.
Come to think of it, I do have one question: How damaging do you think Mark McGwire's non-answers about steroids will be to his long-term legacy? Didn't he at one point in time deny using any illegal steroids? If so, why didn't he just say he didn't use them instead of refusing to answer any questions?
MaryAnn Zeroski of Adena, Ohio
KOVACEVIC: A colleague the other day remarked that McGwire could not have appeared more guilty at that hearing if Jose Canseco had walked over to him and injected him in the rear end during the questioning. I share that view.
His non-testimony will damage his long-term, short-term and any-term legacy. His credibility has taken a hit that probably is irreparable, no matter what follows. You are correct, MaryAnn, that he has denied using steroids. He has done so more than once in written statements issued to the media through his agent. But there is a colossal difference between lying to us in the media -- happens all the time with no repercussion -- and the jail time that goes with lying to Congress. That he declined to repeat a statement he already has made publicly clearly spoke volumes.
It is a shame, and not just to the game. I am sure that McGwire struck more than one of us as being a genuinely good human being, someone who gave of his time -- and money -- to worthy causes benefiting children. He also could not have been more classy during his suddenly infamous pursuit of Roger Maris.
But, the more I think about it, the more I feel it will help the game that someone such as McGwire be brought down by this controversy rather than someone considerably less popular such as Barry Bonds. If Bonds had been the focal point of those hearings last week rather than McGwire, it might have been too easy for the public to dismiss steroids cheaters as being simply bad guys, rather than viewing the epidemic for what it really is: a full-blown crisis of national proportions that has filtered down to the lowest levels of amateur sport.
One last point on the steroids hearing, which I watched for way too many hours to be considered sane: As someone who has followed not only baseball but also many sports throughout my life and career, I take large exception to the way baseball was singled out.
Where was Paul Tagliabue to answer why the NFL's testing falls well short of the Olympic standard so many on the panel appear to covet?
Where was David Stern to answer the same about the NBA program?
Where was Gary Bettman to explain how the NHL has somehow gotten away without having any program at all?
For that matter, why let the U.S. Olympic Committee off the hook here? Although the USOC has made great strides in its testing and follows the most rigid international standard, track athletes were coming up positive left and right at Sacramento last summer, at a much greater rate than those in baseball. If this is the gold standard, why are so many athletes still convinced they can beat the system?
That last question alone would have brought much greater worth from that hearing. It certainly would have meant more than seeing that one congressman playfully giggle when asking Sammy Sosa to raise his right hand for the oath.
Q: Dejan, I want to assure you that there are women that follow baseball. I am one of them. I go to every game that I can and not just to look for cute players. (Not that I haven't done that before). I genuinely love the game and also enjoy listening to Lanny on the radio. If, God forbid, the Pirates have another 12 losing seasons, I will still follow them and hope for the best because they're my team. My Buccos.
Jill K. Sasse of Great Belt
KOVACEVIC: The game surely is worth appreciating, Jill, even when the local product is not. As Pittsburghers, we are fortunate to have Major League Baseball and two other professional teams in town that regularly bring in the best players in the world. Whether those players are wearing home or road uniforms seems to matter much less to those who are passionate about the game rather than the team.
That said, it deserves a mention from time to time that the Pirates have not been a laughingstock for all of their 118 years, to say the very least. The franchise's tradition is one of the lengthiest in the annals of team sports anywhere in the world, and there remains plenty of cause for pride in the five World Series championships and numerous individual icons that have been part of it. No amount of ineptitude in the past decade-plus can erase that.
From a civic standpoint, too, the Pirates are among the city's most venerable and beloved institutions. They were playing baseball before Andrew Carnegie sent out his first expedition for dinosaurs in the late 1800s, before even our symphony, opera and other prominent art establishments were around. And they have drawn more paying customers, I would guess, than all the rest of them put together.
Something to keep in mind when on one hears or reads the national types compare the Pirates to the Devil Rays in terms of irrelevance.
In closing ...
Now that the ladies have gone first, the men can take over in responding to my plea last week for an explanation as to why so many Pirates followers seem so smitten with the Oakland Athletics and their general manager, Billy Beane, yet never seem to mention the 2003 World Series champion Florida Marlins when citing positive models for low-spending teams.
I will keep my responses to a minimum.
Adam Gretz of Greensburg: I think it's pretty simple. For the past six years, the A's have been a consistent contender on what has been a shoestring budget in a division that features three of baseball's biggest spenders outside of New York and Boston. When the A's started their run of success in 1998, they were spending less than every team in the league except Minnesota. Over that time, only a handful of teams have won more games. (The Pirates, by the way, have spent more money than the A's, Twins and Marlins since 1998.)
That's pretty impressive, and it's not by accident.
The Marlins' World Series in 2003 was an excellent season. But, when they are able to maintain a level of competitive play over a number of years instead of one championship year surrounded by five losing seasons, I'll start pointing to them as someone the Pirates should model. I have never bought into the idea that one championship is worth losing seasons. Some do. I don't.
KOVACEVIC: As Linus once said to Charlie Brown, no one remembers who came in second. I appreciate your other points, Adam, but I disagree 180 degrees about the worth of championships. That is what all sports are about.
Ben Roth of O'Hara: Dejan, you mentioned the Marlins as being your low-spending success team. I just don't understand how they did it, though, or if anyone could ever repeat what they did.
They had two players, Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera, come up from Class A ball and be superstars right away. That never happens. They also happened to have two very talented players in Luis Castillo and Juan Pierre come out of their system. Not to mention Josh Beckett, Carl Pavano and A.J. Burnett all young stud pitchers.
Did they just get lucky or did they make a deal with the devil?
KOVACEVIC: Sounds to me, Ben, like they drafted amazingly well and knew precisely when to promote those players to make a run at a championship. That should not be considered good luck anymore than it should be considered bad luck when a team drafts and develops poorly.
Roarke Aston of Scranton: Dejan, I believe it's a combination of factors I love Billy Beane. "Moneyball" brought him into the limelight, but the book itself is not why. I admit I'm a stathead, and I consider the things they do with numbers are amazing. His ability to judge market trends is phenomenal. Think of all the players he's lost and the team is competitive year after year. I would not be surprised if they won the division again in 2005.
The Marlins did win the World Series, but they have not proven yet they can compete year after year after sustaining huge loses like the A's. If they lost Miguel Cabrera this year and Mike Lowell the following year. would they win 90-plus games like the A's did after losing Jason Giambi and Miguel Tejada?
Now, you can say that the main goal of baseball is winning the World Series and Billy hasn't done it yet, but so much of that is out of the GM's hand and in luck's. Did Florida's GM make Steve Bartman knock the ball away from Moises Alou? Was there anyway possible way that Billy could have foreseen Jeremy Giambi not sliding and Derek Jeter making the play of his life when building the 2001 team? No and no.
Plus, there is a mystique about Billy. Perhaps it's his cockiness. He also isn't stubborn in clinging to the old baseball rules. Where the Pirates are convinced Tike Redman should be a leadoff hitter because he's fast and has a relatively high batting average, Billy stuck Jeremy Giambi there because he knew leadoff hitters are more about on-base percentage. He's also not afraid to make trades to bring in excellent prospects and isn't afraid to play his young players. They have a ton of exciting prospects, and they'll get to see them while we have less exciting prospects who never play because they have yet to establish themselves at the major-league level.
Also, I'm sure J.J. Davis would have been given more than 35 ABs last year had he been with Oakland.
KOVACEVIC: You mean the way Graham Koonce was? He was given eight major-league at-bats -- for his career -- while with Oakland despite having the best numbers of any Class AAA player in baseball in 2003? And this was a guy who had plenty of the on-base percentage that Beane is so beloved for embracing.
I respect your admiration for Beane, Roarke, and it helps me understand the thinking that goes behind it. That is what I sought, and I appreciate it. But I also believe that your answer comes close to validating some of my previously held belief that much about Beane is the mystique he seems to have.
Just because a guy applies statistics to personnel evaluation does not make him right. Nor does it necessarily make him innovative. Same goes for trying a different approach to hitting leadoff. Hardly a novelty. When some teams try stuff like that, they are branded idiotic. I seem to recall Tony La Russa being mocked for batting McGwire third and the pitcher eighth (even if it was just a gimmick related to the Maris chase). But when Oakland does it, the why-is-our-team-not-trying-something complaints come out in full force.
I am increasingly convinced that the Beane love affair is more about numbers than anything else. As I wrote above in the Q&A, I am not big on emphasizing statistics above all else. Seems to me there is an entire segment of the baseball-loving community that feels completely comfortable analyzing the game from a cubicle rather than getting out to the stands and watching it. I find such practice to be preposterous. The game is played by humans, not by matrix dots on your PS2 screen.
Gary Scott of Gaithersburg, Md.: Dejan, I share your curiosity about the fascination surrounding the A's. I attribute it to two things: First, they made the playoffs several years in a row and did so with some MVP-caliber players. Second, the gurus at ESPN fell in love with them and the "Moneyball" concept, which they sort of forced on the rest of us.
I would like to make a brief case for why the A's and Billy Beane are overrated. You correctly identified the team most deserving of our praise, the Florida Marlins. But Oakland won more due to the Hudson-Mulder-Zito pitching trio than for any other reason. Beane didn't acquire those players. Oakland benefited from having an unprecedented emergence of young MLB talent virtually simultaneously, players who primarily entered the system before Beane. I am referring to the aforementioned pitchers, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Eric Sanchez, and Ramon Hernandez.
Over the years, Beane has allowed most of the position players to leave and replaced them with high on-base percentage players. He even traded an outstanding catcher, Ramon Hernandez, to San Diego for Mark Kotsay, just such a player. The result of these and other personnel moves left Oakland with insufficient scoring last year. Hitters were getting on base and not being driven home. Beane has now acquired an on-base percentage catcher who does not drive in many runs to replace Hernandez. Beane has lost 2/3 of the pitching trio and replaced it with mostly young, unproven pitching talent.
The A's missed the playoffs last year predominantly because they couldn't score enough runs and are looking like a team that will probably score fewer runs this year. If those new young pitchers and some new young position players don't make a significant impact immediately, Oakland won't even compete for, let alone make, the playoffs. And barring the rapid development of these young players, pitchers and hitters alike, Oakland could very well face a prolonged period of decline.
KOVACEVIC: I am sure Beane also must have done some good work, Gary, to get the team where it has been. Just to be clear: I am not putting down his accomplishments. Rather, I am wondering if the legend exceeds reality.
Charlie Conley of Buxton, Maine: My feeling is that the "Moneyball" philosophy is a regular-season strategy that falls of its own weight in the postseason, when the pitching the A's face is better and when defense takes on a much more important role. You can't afford to give up gap shots or seeing eye singles because your fielders aren't quick enough to get to them, and you can't afford clank-glove errors either. In the regular season, with more bottom feeders on the schedule, it's possible to succeed playing "Moneyball."
Theo Epstein worshipped at the Billy Beane shrine until a light bulb finally went off in his weasel brain (weasel because he twice pawned off damaged goods on Dave Littlefield in 2003, but that's a different discussion). Adding Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mientkiewicz strengthened two positions at which the Red Sox had been very weak defensively. Look what happened. It only took the Red Sox eight decades to figure out defense wins games.
KOVACEVIC: Not to distract from the topic at hand, Charlie, but any light bulb that might have gone off in Epstein's head was far less significant than the $130 million he had to spend.
On that note: Was any baseball story in recent memory more misrepresented than the idea that a $130 million team could somehow be this sappy, lovable underdog?
Andrew Zibuck of Rochester, N.Y.: "What is it about the Oakland Athletics that make them the paragons of virtue in the eyes of so many readers?" Uhh, a 570-401 record over the past six years?
I can't argue with titles, and the Marlins have won two. It takes some luck once you get to the postseason (see Bartman, Steve), but are you asking if I would rather have 11 years of sub-mediocrity, and three years of contending like the Marlins? Or would I rather have three consecutive division titles and a steady stream of young talent like the Twins? Or would I rather finish first or second in my division six consecutive years with four playoff berths and a steady stream of talent like the A's?
And the A's are not paragons of virtue because someone wrote a book about their GM. It's because their GM was worth having a book written about him.
KOVACEVIC: Again with those lucky Marlins. Now, it was Bartman's doing.
A question for those of you who with a deep love for Pirates history: Which of the local club's five championships could be best described as lucky? I am guessing that most will say 1960 because of the seesaw ending and the many World Series scores that were so lopsided in New York's favor. But I encourage someone to look at all five.
My answer would be zero, but that is only a personal viewpoint because I do not believe that team championships can ever be attributed primarily to luck. And I believe this to be especially true in baseball, which allows less room for flukes than any other professional sport.
I respect your view, Andrew, to value regular-season consistency. I certainly can see where that would make a stronger statement about the overall approach that management has, and you are entitled to have any preference you wish as a sports fan for what you would want your team to achieve.
I am curious, though, as to how an Oakland fan might respond. Would they trade all the winning percentage, division titles and even the various statues of their GM for one World Series? Even a lucky one?
John Lubic of Ambridge: Dejan, I couldn't agree more with your closing comments about the Athletics and Twins, especially considering that the "low-spending" Minnesota Twins have consistently been the highest-spending team in their division.
But, with regard to the 2003 Marlins, you can't forget the most important ingredient to their success: Luck. They got a career year out of Mark Redman that he is unlikely to ever match (though I certainly hope he does!) And, while luck can't be attributed to the drafting and development of Beckett and Willis, they were certainly lucky to have them both pitch very well and stay healthy all season. They were also lucky to get 144 games out of Ivan Rodriguez, who hadn't been healthy for that many games since 1999. The list goes on and on. What would have happened to the Marlins if Willis and Beckett required major surgery that year?
KOVACEVIC: Argh.
Jim Raible of Harrisburg: Dejan, as we all know, the Pirates have had a little difficulty being competitive over the years, and I think that the "Moneyball" approach to baseball gives Pirates fans hope that our team could conceivably be competitive again.
It is also interesting, being a statistician myself, how Billy Beane and Paul DePodesta have been able to make good personnel decisions based almost solely on numbers. I have heard that Dave Littlefield is a bit more in tune as to utilizing player stats to predict success, but not as much so as the A's.
KOVACEVIC: The Pirates use a mix of scouting and stats to make their personnel evaluations, Jim, stressing the scouting aspect when analyzing for internal purposes. This whole discussion we are having today makes me think it might make a swell story at some point in the season for a deeper study into how they do stuff.
Daniel Burke of South Boston, Mass.: One, "Moneyball" isn't just about statistics. It's about figuring out what helps baseball teams win and identifying which positive assets are currently undervalued by the market. Not unlike every other business in America. Except baseball.
Two, the Twins don't claim to follow the analytical model of building and organization, preferring to rely on traditional scouts opinions.
Three, the A's and Twins have done an excellent job remaining competitive for an extended period of time, so you'll probably hear more people referencing the Marlins as an example as they continue their success.
KOVACEVIC: Four, we have reached the end for another edition.
Until next week, when the Q&A will swing back to discussion of "No-Moneyball" ...
