For two consecutive seasons the Pirates have collapsed late in the year and in most instances this would usually be cause for some changes to the coaching staff and front office but the Pirate’s situation is a little different. Two consecutive collapses don’t happen to often without some change at the top but how often does change at the top happen when the group has exceeded expectations their first two seasons together? I’m going to guess that is also a low number. People tend for good reason to focus solely on the Pirates collapses these past two seasons but when you step back and look 72 wins and contention into August was much more than was expected in 2011 and 77+ wins and contention deep into September was much more than was expected in 2012.
Just as there is little doubt the Pirates have collapsed for two seasons there is also little doubt that the Pirates have also outperformed what they were expected to do. These two conflicting forces create a problem with trying to evaluate this group’s performance. There is definitely valid reasons to focus only on the late part of the season but really is it fair to evaluate a group that had 324 games on only 120 or so of those games? I really don’t think so. This is just a very odd situation. I’m trying to think of another team that can be described as having collapsed and exceeded expectations and I’m struggling to do that.
So the main point of this exercise is to determine if I am actually ok with the apparent retainment of the front office and coaching staff and even after thinking through it rationally I am not sure. I mean the collapses have been bad and someone should be fired for them but yet this group has done more than was expected of them for two straight seasons and is that something that any other organization would punish? I don’t think so.