Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005 |
Jim Tracy, Counting On Illiteracy In Pittsburgh
Jim Tracy, who apparently hopes nobody in Pittsburgh reads this blog:
"Challenges are something that I like very, very much," Tracy said. "I like hearing people say or maybe think that this is a situation you don't have a chance to succeed in, I'm very challenged by that."Wow, whatever happened to the excuse of having too many rookies?
Comments:
I wish Tracy well in Pittsburgh. But, if I was him, dang I'd have turned it down and opted for an assistant job with the Giants. That would have really made the Dodgers organization mad. :)
I mean, really, what's the difference between the Pirates and the minor leagues Tracy was in only a few seasons ago?
I mean, really, what's the difference between the Pirates and the minor leagues Tracy was in only a few seasons ago?
# posted by 
: 10/11/2005 08:35:00 PM
: 10/11/2005 08:35:00 PM
I'd just like to point out that after the 2004 season, virtually everyone was a Tracy supporter. So this hypocrisy I'm seeing from every stathead is a little ridiculous.
Simply put, over the last year, Tracy has gone from being an acceptable-to-good manager to being a liability with his bunting, his refusal to play players like Hee Seop Choi over even an out-of-position Jason Phillips at first, his arrogance in thwarting the GM's decisions (Antonio Perez is another such player), his refusal to accept any responsibility for the losses in 2005, his calling out the GM for failing to get him a winning team when he in fact refuses to put the best players out there (I'm sorry Rick, but Choi over Phillips is a no-brainer) -- well, all these things just weren't in evidence in 2004 (save for Tracy's refusal to play Choi).
John Maynard Keynes was famous for saying, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" It's not hypocrisy if the circumstances change.
Simply put, over the last year, Tracy has gone from being an acceptable-to-good manager to being a liability with his bunting, his refusal to play players like Hee Seop Choi over even an out-of-position Jason Phillips at first, his arrogance in thwarting the GM's decisions (Antonio Perez is another such player), his refusal to accept any responsibility for the losses in 2005, his calling out the GM for failing to get him a winning team when he in fact refuses to put the best players out there (I'm sorry Rick, but Choi over Phillips is a no-brainer) -- well, all these things just weren't in evidence in 2004 (save for Tracy's refusal to play Choi).
John Maynard Keynes was famous for saying, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" It's not hypocrisy if the circumstances change.
<< I'd just like to point out that after the 2004 season, virtually everyone was a Tracy supporter. So this hypocrisy I'm seeing from every stathead is a little ridiculous. >>
It's kind of true, I guess, but it's because many statheads begin with the assumption that GM moves creates the ceiling, and the manager is the significant limiting variable. Whereas smallball adherents kinda presume the opposite relationship. Key thing is both sides like to frame their argument according to their prevailing belief and ram their heads into each other presuming the other is starting from that reference.
It's kind of true, I guess, but it's because many statheads begin with the assumption that GM moves creates the ceiling, and the manager is the significant limiting variable. Whereas smallball adherents kinda presume the opposite relationship. Key thing is both sides like to frame their argument according to their prevailing belief and ram their heads into each other presuming the other is starting from that reference.
# posted by : 10/12/2005 10:31:00 AM
: 10/12/2005 10:31:00 AMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.