dbdynsty25 wrote:Time to bring Chipper in to be the hitting coach.
The only coach I see keeping is Roger McDowell...the pitching has been fantastic, especially the starters since he came on board. He needs to stay...the rest need to go.
they definitely should give Chipper the first shot at HC. Far as John Hart, he is very likeable (via television) and knowledgeable. If he learned from his past tenure with Cleveland (slugging without top pitching doesn't win titles), he will prolly be a solid GM. That said, i would rather your team perform the good samaritan act of taking one Dayton Moore off KC's hands.
and on a completely unrelated note, the 2014 Derek Jeter tour is brutal. And i mean BRUTAL. Fans, media, etc
what is your take on the Braves front office changes? Additionally, do you remain high on Freddy Gonzalez as manager?
Had to happen. Wren is running the ship into the ground. He's made some shrewd trades over the years (the Michael Bourn and Justin Upton trades), but his signings have been disasterous (Lowe, Kawakami, BJ Upton, extension for Uggla). Not a single one of those has worked out. I'd like to see John Hart take over...and groom the yougster, Coppollela.
As for Fredi...ugh. Where to start? I liked the move when they signed him but his horrible lineup construction and poor bullpen usage (how many Tommy John surgeries do they need to have before the trend is noticed)...it's his turn to go as well. I'd like to see some new blood, and not the Bobby Cox way. That clearly isn't working and hasn't worked for a few years now. Also, get rid of Terry Pendleton (1b Coach and distraction) and Dave Wallace (the hitting coach). This is the fourth worst hitting braves team EVER...in franchise history! Time to bring Chipper in to be the hitting coach.
The only coach I see keeping is Roger McDowell...the pitching has been fantastic, especially the starters since he came on board. He needs to stay...the rest need to go.
Braves need to clean house. This year's team had the same exact problems as last year's.
No small ball...men left on base every inning...no clutch hitting....wait for the long ball...wait and wait and wait. Freddy is probably the worst manager I have seen in a long time. Does nothing to have positive impact on games, but does plenty to negatively effect games. Braves still have no leadoff hitter and no clutch hitters besides Freeman. They need to change the landscape completely. Its not working. Sucks to see such good pitching lose out every night to their feeble offense. I must have seen them lose 3-2, 4-2 about 100 times this year. Horrible.
Gardenhire is out, in Minnesota. I would really like to see Paul Molitor get that job.
KC makes the "playoffs". However, will they be 1 and done?? To paraphrase Will Ferell, having not made the playoffs since 1985, that would be a Greek tragedy.
So is there any more overrated pitcher out there than Kershaw? He's fire during the regular season and turns into a turd when the lights come on. It definitely is good to see them go down...the only dude on that entire team I can handle is Kemp. The rest are obnoxious a-holes. Oh, and they are severely overpaid apparently.
For God's sake! We've been having baseball post-season series for 100+ years and people (both here and in the media) are still creating narratives out of sample sizes as small as 10-20 games? Didn't we put this stupidity to rest when Ted Williams was still active? Just because the rocket scientists at MLB decide that this is how we decide a champion doesn't make the games any less subject to luck, streaks or general craziness.
Not only is the historical record replete with great players who "under-performed" in the WS or playoffs, but it's also stacked with guys like Randy Johnson who were supposedly "not clutch" because of post-season struggles until suddenly they had great series and were sprinkled with the magic announcer narrative fairy-dust that anoints a player as somehow special. Nonsense.
As for the payroll thing. Only 3 times in the last 20 years has the team with the highest MLB payroll won the league. Of course, this stands to reason given the nature of the playoff series, and especially the latest version of Bud's Postseason Blender (TM). It's the complete inverse of the NBA, which is the strictest meritocracy in sports (to a fault, probably). All you can do is be a good baseball team in the regular season and get yourself a post-season lottery ticket. Hell, even an idiot like Ned Yost can actively try to lose games with strategy and still find himself on the right side of the tournament. It's just how short series baseball works. It gives us a champion, but it really doesn't answer a lot of questions about the best team.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
RobVarak wrote:For God's sake! We've been having baseball post-season series for 100+ years and people (both here and in the media) are still creating narratives out of sample sizes as small as 10-20 games? Didn't we put this stupidity to rest when Ted Williams was still active? Just because the rocket scientists at MLB decide that this is how we decide a champion doesn't make the games any less subject to luck, streaks or general craziness.
Not only is the historical record replete with great players who "under-performed" in the WS or playoffs, but it's also stacked with guys like Randy Johnson who were supposedly "not clutch" because of post-season struggles until suddenly they had great series and were sprinkled with the magic announcer narrative fairy-dust that anoints a player as somehow special. Nonsense.
As for the payroll thing. Only 3 times in the last 20 years has the team with the highest MLB payroll won the league. Of course, this stands to reason given the nature of the playoff series, and especially the latest version of Bud's Postseason Blender (TM). It's the complete inverse of the NBA, which is the strictest meritocracy in sports (to a fault, probably). All you can do is be a good baseball team in the regular season and get yourself a post-season lottery ticket. Hell, even an idiot like Ned Yost can actively try to lose games with strategy and still find himself on the right side of the tournament. It's just how short series baseball works. It gives us a champion, but it really doesn't answer a lot of questions about the best team.
Great post.
Not watching baseball the way I used to mostly due to the the steroid freaks and their enablers...... bud selig, the baseball writers and the network scum like joe buck. I am glad they seem to have cleaned it up but its too late for me. I grew up thinking numbers like 755, 714 and 61.
Well, since the Royals were supposed to be long gone since their wild card race game and have been on fire ever since, I'll be rooting for them in the WS. Hard to call the series as the Giants are the annoying mosquito that just won't go away while the Royals' pitching in October has been superb beating teams like the Angels and Orioles who are no slouches. I know how resilient they are when they were in the race along the Jays for the final playoffs spot. Very good bullpen on both sides, it'll remain to be seen if the SFO starters can go deep in their games.
RobVarak wrote:
As for the payroll thing. Only 3 times in the last 20 years has the team with the highest MLB payroll won the league. Of course, this stands to reason given the nature of the playoff series, and especially the latest version of Bud's Postseason Blender (TM). It's the complete inverse of the NBA, which is the strictest meritocracy in sports (to a fault, probably). All you can do is be a good baseball team in the regular season and get yourself a post-season lottery ticket. Hell, even an idiot like Ned Yost can actively try to lose games with strategy and still find himself on the right side of the tournament. It's just how short series baseball works. It gives us a champion, but it really doesn't answer a lot of questions about the best team.
Highest payroll teams may not have been winning but how often are the top 10 or top 5 payroll teams in the hunt?
So far, no money ball team has won it all, despite all the hype Billy Beane gets. Of course there's been a lot of influence, so more teams, in all team sports, seem to be trying to use analytics. And many of those teams have more resources.
Until someone beats the Giants in an even year, I'm sticking with them in 6. World Series tested.
Oh and they don't have Ned Yost as their manager. He's gotta have a horseshoe up his ass. All of his terrible decisions have worked out so far tho, so I guess he's the one laughing.
wco81 wrote:
So far, no money ball team has won it all, despite all the hype Billy Beane gets. Of course there's been a lot of influence, so more teams, in all team sports, seem to be trying to use analytics. And many of those teams have more resources.
Precisely the point I was going to make after your first sentence. They're all Moneyball teams now.
The lesson of Beane's turn of the century A's wasn't "buy OBP." It was "use data analysis to find market inefficiencies, wherever and whatever they might be." Even the Royals, who employ one of the most troglodytic managers still left in the game, have an analytics department.
And with the expanded playoffs, damn near everyone is "in the hunt." By and large it's always better to spend more in sports, but baseball is nowhere near soccer (for example) when it comes to the strength of correlation between wins and wages.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
And the Red Sox were a prime Moneyball team. Their success had more to do with its spread than Oakland. The Cardinals went full on analytics when they fired Jocketty and brought in John Mozeliak.
Red Sox had one of the highest payrolls though. In fact the highest in some years.
They went and signed a lot of big free agents. Isn't the idea that analytics can help lower revenue teams punch above their payroll? Or get more bang for the buck.
Thing is, a lot of team have MBAs in the front office doing this kind of work including the 49ers. Football has been doing a lot of metrics but whether there could be data mined out of that is questionable. It's far different to analyze data from hundreds or even thousands of at bats but other sports don't have the large data sets to mine.
It might be useful to crunch the minor league and major league stats of players but you can't really get as useful data out of the college football or basketball statistics.
In the end, the teams with resources will acquire certain players regardless of analytics. It could be things like the Yankees giving Jeter a bigger contract towards the end of his career than he wanted because he's a fan favorite. Or the Dodgers giving Kershaw $30 million a year because they have a huge local TV deal to back it up with and not retaining Kershaw would jeopardize ratings, even if some data showed that the contract they give to one pitcher isn't likely to win them World Series titles.
RobVarak wrote:For God's sake! We've been having baseball post-season series for 100+ years and people (both here and in the media) are still creating narratives out of sample sizes as small as 10-20 games? Didn't we put this stupidity to rest when Ted Williams was still active? Just because the rocket scientists at MLB decide that this is how we decide a champion doesn't make the games any less subject to luck, streaks or general craziness.
Not only is the historical record replete with great players who "under-performed" in the WS or playoffs, but it's also stacked with guys like Randy Johnson who were supposedly "not clutch" because of post-season struggles until suddenly they had great series and were sprinkled with the magic announcer narrative fairy-dust that anoints a player as somehow special. Nonsense.
As for the payroll thing. Only 3 times in the last 20 years has the team with the highest MLB payroll won the league. Of course, this stands to reason given the nature of the playoff series, and especially the latest version of Bud's Postseason Blender (TM). It's the complete inverse of the NBA, which is the strictest meritocracy in sports (to a fault, probably). All you can do is be a good baseball team in the regular season and get yourself a post-season lottery ticket. Hell, even an idiot like Ned Yost can actively try to lose games with strategy and still find himself on the right side of the tournament. It's just how short series baseball works. It gives us a champion, but it really doesn't answer a lot of questions about the best team.
Great post.
Not watching baseball the way I used to mostly due to the the steroid freaks and their enablers...... bud selig, the baseball writers and the network scum like joe buck. I am glad they seem to have cleaned it up but its too late for me. I grew up thinking numbers like 755, 714 and 61.
You nailed it man.
Yes you did nail it, (well except about Joe Buck ). Speaking of steroid freaks, I almost didn't recognize Barry Bonds when he came out on the field at SF, grinning like Halloween skeleton. Those Giants fans are idiots, celebrating him like they do. It's still 755, 714, and 61 for me.
I'm about the biggest baseball fan there is, but haven't had a stomach to watch any of the WS after the Cards fell flat on their face. I will say go Royals, 29 years is a long time for any fans to suffer.
Last edited by bulls23 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Currently Playing: Battlefield V, American Fugitive, Madden NFL 19, Golf Club 2019
). Speaking of steroid freaks, I almost didn't recognize Barry Bonds when he came out on the field at SF, grinning like Halloween skeleton. Those Giants fans are idiots, celebrating him like they do. It's still 755, 714, and 61 for me.