GDT: 4/7/'15 - Atlanta Braves (Wood) @ Miami Marlins (Latos) 7:35PM EST

[JCarbo76]

The '91 Braves didn't have a ton of power outside of Gant and Justice. Bream was past his prime and TP had a career year. Being honest about Gant was really the only true power hitter.

The Braves were 3rd n the NL in homers in 1991.

[thewupk]

Plenty of good offenses prior to the 90's relied on contact players. Did the rules of baseball change? I understand we got smarter about the game but its still a ball thrown at a batter trying to hit it.

Can you create a good offense without power? Yes it's certainly possible. The 1987 Cards were 8th in runs scored which put them in the top 3rd in baseball despite being last in homers and isolated slugging. They were among the league leaders as a team in BB% and blew the league away in base running ability which isn't much of a surpise when you have guys like Ozzie and coleman at the top of your lineup.

That said that type of team is extremely rare and not something I think you should try and and build towards. Unless you think the Braves can find a Vince Coleman or Rickey Henderson that is going to steal 100 bases a year.

Do you need 30 and 40 homer a year guys? No becuase there aren't those types of hitters anymore. But you need to have enough power relative to what the league is doing. Players before 1990 did have power believe it or not.

[nsacpi]

The rise in strikeout rates is possibly the most important development in the game in recent years. It seems to me a couple implications follow. One is defense becomes less important. That seems rather obvious. Another is power becomes more important because with more strikeouts it is harder to string together hits. Maybe I am oversimplifying. Thoughts?

[VirginiaBrave]

The Braves were 3rd n the NL in homers in 1991.

I remember only Gant having big individual numbers, TP was low 20's but outside that I don't remember high totals.

[gilesfan]

The '91 Braves didn't have a ton of power outside of Gant and Justice. Bream was past his prime and TP had a career year. Being honest about Gant was really the only true power hitter.

They had the 3rd most homers in the NL.

[yeezus]

The rise in strikeout rates is possibly the most important development in the game in recent years. It seems to me a couple implications follow. One is defense becomes less important. That seems rather obvious. Another is power becomes more important because with more strikeouts it is harder to string together hits. Maybe I am oversimplifying. Thoughts?

Most of the time, the guys who hit for big power strike out a lot, too.
We can sit and weep about JUp being gone, but he was an incredibly frustrating hitter for this reason. I loved his power and when he was hot, he was RED hot. But when he went cold, every AB was completely unproductive. Sometimes a ball just needs to be put in play, or contact made in some way, and a lot of times, he couldn't do it - here comes another strikeout. He wasn't great with RISP during his time here. I get that a lot of that is based on luck, but it's also the kind of hitter he was. 171 Ks in 154 games is detrimental. Those Ks can come at crucial times. You're not even giving yourself a chance.

Homers are more good than Ks are bad. But, balance is best. I don't know that power is anymore important than before. Look at the two teams in the WS last year.

[thewupk]

The rise in strikeout rates is possibly the most important development in the game in recent years. It seems to me a couple implications follow. One is defense becomes less important. That seems rather obvious. Another is power becomes more important because with more strikeouts it is harder to string together hits. Maybe I am oversimplifying. Thoughts?


There is some coorelation I think. It's a combiation of a bunch of things though. Steroids are a factor which obviosuly increased power. Pitcher specialization is a big factor too. Starters only going 6 innings with fresh high power arms out of the bullpen will lead to more strikeouts as well. Hitters compensating for that with trying to hit for more power to offset not being able to string as many hits togethor which increase the strikeouts even more. Take the steroids and other PED's out of the game then the striekouts remain but the loss of power takes run scoring to an all-time low. The league will adjust to a more contact orientated offense like the pre 90's but with pitching the way it is then striekouts will remain high.

[thewupk]

I remember only Gant having big individual numbers, TP was low 20's but outside that I don't remember high totals.

Check baseball-ref to jog your memory

[Russ2dollas]

If our future looks like:
CF: ?
LF: ?
RF: Markakus in year 3 and 4
1B: FF
2b: Paraza
SS: Simmons
3B: Peterson
C: CB

Then we need a some power out in LF. I doubt we get it in CF. That line up would project to be very good defensively (at least in the infield) and have OBP but FF is prob the only person hitting over 15 HR. Maybe Cb but his OBP is prob going to be 0.300 or worse. In that case you are probably hoping last year's first round pick is a hitting prodigy and he can play LF regardless of how bad it would probably be.

[thewupk]

Homers are more good than Ks are bad. But, balance is best. I don't know that power is anymore important than before. Look at the two teams in the WS last year.

That's two different things though. You don't need a good offense to be a good team and thus make the WS. Having power is very important to having a good offense. And also the two teams were WC teams which means that's more of an indication of the current playoff format then it is about a team being good. Baseball is a marathon sport which sucks becauase being a world champion means winning a sprint. It's great for the fans and popularity of the game but the best teams rarely are world champiosn anymore.

[UNCBlue012]

If our future looks like:
CF: ?
LF: ?
RF: Markakus in year 3 and 4
1B: FF
2b: Paraza
SS: Simmons
3B: Peterson
C: CB

Then we need a some power out in LF. I doubt we get it in CF. That line up would project to be very good defensively (at least in the infield) and have OBP but FF is prob the only person hitting over 15 HR. Maybe Cb but his OBP is prob going to be 0.300 or worse. In that case you are probably hoping last year's first round pick is a hitting prodigy and he can play LF regardless of how bad it would probably be.

M. Smith? CF
Peraza 2B
JUP again? ;) LF
Freeeeeman 1B
Markakis RF
Simba SS
C-Beth C
Ruiz/Peterson 2B

I think that's a pretty competitive lineup that's stable up and down. Do I think we will get JUP back? Nah, but you never know. You could throw it a guy like Cespedes there as well.

[nsacpi]

Seems obvious to me we will be going after a right handed power hitter to play left. It is our most glaring need.

[Russ2dollas]

Seems obvious to me we will be going after a right handed power hitter to play left. It is our most glaring need.

I remember when that was our big need......and we filled it with uggla....and I thought it was a GREAT move.

[IowaBrave14]

Yes he is. The Braves' roster was loaded with talent. Last year didn't work out. The previous 4 did very much

:YDS: Remind me again how many playoff wins we had?

[yeezus]

:YDS: Remind me again how many playoff wins we had?

The roster was very flawed. And there was NOTHING in the minors to keep going. You need a farm system. We didn't have one.

[thewupk]

:YDS: Remind me again how many playoff wins we had?

1 game? But you build teams to make the playoffs not win in them since that's getting hot at the right time, etc.

[thethe]

Baseball in a short sample will always have an element of randomness to it but I think you can still construct a team that will fair better in a playoff type scenario than others. Primarily that has to do with elite pitching but I think the contact/plate discipline guys do better against better pitchers.

[ChapelHillMatt]

1 game? But you build teams to make the playoffs not win in them since that's getting hot at the right time, etc.

That's what teams that don't win in the playoffs say.

Giants must be really good at getting hot at the right time.

[gilesfan]

I think the contact/plate discipline guys do better against better pitchers.

Do you have any proof of this?

[yeezus]

That's two different things though. You don't need a good offense to be a good team and thus make the WS. Having power is very important to having a good offense. And also the two teams were WC teams which means that's more of an indication of the current playoff format then it is about a team being good. Baseball is a marathon sport which sucks becauase being a world champion means winning a sprint. It's great for the fans and popularity of the game but the best teams rarely are world champiosn anymore.

yet the Giants have won three recently without a ton of power. they don't strike out and pitch well.

[sturg33]

That's what teams that don't win in the playoffs say.

Giants must be really good at getting hot at the right time.

Yeah, we need to trade for their magic potion

Or Madison Bumgarner

[thewupk]

That's what teams that don't win in the playoffs say.

Giants must be really good at getting hot at the right time.

Cox, LaRussa, and Torre have all said this. I guess they never had teams that won in the playoffs.

[thethe]

Do you have any proof of this?

I do not and that is why I prefaced it with the words "I think".

[thewupk]

yet the Giants have won three recently without a ton of power. they don't strike out and pitch well.

They have also had insane pitching at the right time. Don't need to score much at that point.

[ChapelHillMatt]

Cox, LaRussa, and Torre have all said this. I guess they never had teams that won in the playoffs.

I just don't agree with it. Teams that have clutch hitting and great pitching win in the playoffs. Teams that win championships aren't 'lucky'. That's basically what you are inferring when you say all you have to do is "get hot at the right time"

[thethe]

I just refuse to believe the Giants got lucky 3 out of 5 years. Its not all by design but its not all luck.

[thewupk]

I just don't agree with it. Teams that have clutch hitting and great pitching win in the playoffs. Teams that win championships aren't 'lucky'. That's basically what you are inferring when you say all you have to do is "get hot at the right time"

So you don't think the Giants were lucky that Madison Bumgardener decided to have the best month of his life? They were just clutch? If the Giants and Royals were so clutch why didn't they have more wins in the regular season? Again, anything can happen in a short series. The best teams generally don't win the world series. That's the nature of the playoffs. You can win 87 games and ride 1 pitcher to the title.

[gilesfan]

yet the Giants have won three recently without a ton of power. they don't strike out and pitch well.

They were league average in terms of power and k rate in 2014 (above league average when you account for home park)
They were below league average in terms of k rate in 2012, but league average in power (above when you account for home park)
They were slightly below average in terms of k rate in 2010, but significantly above average in power.

[ChapelHillMatt]

Then why even have the playoffs. Just crown the team with the best record the champion. You are really devaluing the playoffs when you say stuff like this. Also why is it the Braves never luck their way to a title? It's always other teams.

[gilesfan]

I do not and that is why I prefaced it with the words "I think".

Then what is the purpose of saying if it's coming from thin air and has absolutely no value.

[thethe]

So you don't think the Giants were lucky that Madison Bumgardener decided to have the best month of his life? They were just clutch? If the Giants and Royals were so clutch why didn't they have more wins in the regular season? Again, anything can happen in a short series. The best teams generally don't win the world series. That's the nature of the playoffs. You can win 87 games and ride 1 pitcher to the title.

You don't subscribe to the idea that teams could take a few months to get into their groove.

An individual team can look different at the end of the season than they do at the beginning. Thats why I think just looking at average performance is not really indicative of the best team by the end of the season.

[gilesfan]

I just don't agree with it. Teams that have clutch hitting and great pitching win in the playoffs. Teams that win championships aren't 'lucky'. That's basically what you are inferring when you say all you have to do is "get hot at the right time"

Why don't the Giants have clutch hitting in the regular season or in odd number years? They just decide to be clutch in the playoffs of even number years?

[thethe]

Then what is the purpose of saying if it's coming from thin air and has absolutely no value.

Because this is a message board...

[ChapelHillMatt]

I believe the playoffs is a different animal. All games are pressure packed, some players can raise their level of play and some can't. They are different than regular season games.

[gilesfan]

Then why even have the playoffs. Just crown the team with the best record the champion. You are really devaluing the playoffs when you say stuff like this. Also why is it the Braves never luck their way to a title? It's always other teams.

Playoffs are something to draw revenue. If the purpose was to give an award to the best team, it would be based on the 162 game season. The English Premier League crowns a champion based on the regular season. Why would you play 162 games when it comes down to possibly 4 games?

Whether or not someone is devaluing the playoffs or not, the best team often doesn't win. That is the case in pretty much every sport. Much of the playoffs is decided on matchups, healthy, and streaks.

[gilesfan]

I believe the playoffs is a different animal. All games are pressure packed, some players can raise their level of play and some can't. They are different than regular season games.

Then why isn't this repeatable or predictable?

[ChapelHillMatt]

It is for some players. Two examples would be Jeter and Ortiz. They have great postseason numbers. Teams like the Yankees, Cardinals, and Giants seem to do well in the playoffs when they get there. Teams like the Braves tend to struggle. I don't think that's just the roll of the dice. We simply disagree (as usual)

[VirginiaBrave]

Most of the time, the guys who hit for big power strike out a lot, too.
We can sit and weep about JUp being gone, but he was an incredibly frustrating hitter for this reason. I loved his power and when he was hot, he was RED hot. But when he went cold, every AB was completely unproductive. Sometimes a ball just needs to be put in play, or contact made in some way, and a lot of times, he couldn't do it - here comes another strikeout. He wasn't great with RISP during his time here. I get that a lot of that is based on luck, but it's also the kind of hitter he was. 171 Ks in 154 games is detrimental. Those Ks can come at crucial times. You're not even giving yourself a chance.

Homers are more good than Ks are bad. But, balance is best. I don't know that power is anymore important than before. Look at the two teams in the WS last year.

Thats the problem with power guys today. They don't mind strikeouts. There are exceptions, but very few are willing to do what Nick did first inning last night. That was masterful.

[ChapelHillMatt]

In 1995 when we won the World Series, was your reaction

Cool but we just got lucky. Or did you feel we deserved credit for playing well and winning a championship?

[thewupk]

You don't subscribe to the idea that teams could take a few months to get into their groove.

An individual team can look different at the end of the season than they do at the beginning. Thats why I think just looking at average performance is not really indicative of the best team by the end of the season.

Sure teams can have key injuries or whatever for the first part of the year and they are totally different by September. But I mean the Royals were 15-11 which is good while the Giants were just 13-12 so it's not like they were all world at the end of the season. but they surely were in the playoffs.

I just think the 162 game season should mean something. And that's been diluted heavily with 5 teams making the playoffs. In other sports it doesn't matter with the way those sports operate. The better teams will generally win. In baseball an average team can go along way in short series with 1 dominate starter.

[sturg33]

It is for some players. Two examples would be Jeter and Ortiz. They have great postseason numbers. Teams like the Yankees, Cardinals, and Giants seem to do well in the playoffs when they get there. Teams like the Braves tend to struggle. I don't think that's just the roll of the dice. We simply disagree (as usual)

Jeter is basically the same player in the post season as regular season. Ortiz is too once you get to the Boston years (he just wasn't as good of player in Minnasota)

[thethe]

Sure teams can have key injuries or whatever for the first part of the year and they are totally different by September. But I mean the Royals were 15-11 which is good while the Giants were just 13-12 so it's not like they were all world at the end of the season. but they surely were in the playoffs.

I just think the 162 game season should mean something. And that's been diluted heavily with 5 teams making the playoffs. In other sports it doesn't matter with the way those sports operate. The better teams will generally win. In baseball an average team can go along way in short series with 1 dominate starter.

I agree with the argument that over the long haul you can identify the better teams but baseball is a grind and I don't believe that every player gives their all eveyr game. That changes in the playoffs and we need to acknowledge that and figure out some way to account for it.

[thethe]

Jeter is basically the same player in the post season as regular season. Ortiz is too once you get to the Boston years (he just wasn't as good of player in Minnasota)

Being the same player in the postseason means you are better because you are typically going against a better quality pitcher on average.

[gilesfan]

It is for some players. Two examples would be Jeter and Ortiz. They have great postseason numbers. Teams like the Yankees, Cardinals, and Giants seem to do well in the playoffs when they get there. Teams like the Braves tend to struggle. I don't think that's just the roll of the dice. We simply disagree (as usual)

Jeter essentially hit the same in the playoff as he did in the regular season. (virtually identical if you eliminate his last 2 regular seasons in which he sucked and they didn't make the playoffs.)

Ortiz is slightly better in the playoffs due to walking more.

You guys listen to the main stream/ESPN media too much without looking at things objectively.

[thewupk]

In 1995 when we won the World Series, was your reaction

Cool but we just got lucky. Or did you feel we deserved credit for playing well and winning a championship?

Well the Braves were the best team in baseball before the playoffs started so that's not really fair. And I'm not trying to say that teams that win should be happy about what they accomplished. But it's much more difficult for great teams to win a world series right now then it was 20+ years ago. I think most people would agree with that. And I would prefer that the playoff format go back to that.

[gilesfan]

Thats the problem with power guys today. They don't mind strikeouts. There are exceptions, but very few are willing to do what Nick did first inning last night. That was masterful.

holy crap.

[gilesfan]

In 1995 when we won the World Series, was your reaction

Cool but we just got lucky. Or did you feel we deserved credit for playing well and winning a championship?

Happy to win the World Series, what was yours?

Whether we were lucky or good, the result doesn't change so why would it affect my emotions?

[thewupk]

I agree with the argument that over the long haul you can identify the better teams but baseball is a grind and I don't believe that every player gives their all eveyr game. That changes in the playoffs and we need to acknowledge that and figure out some way to account for it.

There is not a way to account for it. And I just agree with what some of the best baseball minds around think and that it's a crapshoot.

[thewupk]

It is for some players. Two examples would be Jeter and Ortiz. They have great postseason numbers. Teams like the Yankees, Cardinals, and Giants seem to do well in the playoffs when they get there. Teams like the Braves tend to struggle. I don't think that's just the roll of the dice. We simply disagree (as usual)

So what happened in that long stretch where the Yankees were constantly getting kicked out early of the playoffs? Did they forget how to be clutch?

[sturg33]

In 1995 when we won the World Series, was your reaction

Cool but we just got lucky. Or did you feel we deserved credit for playing well and winning a championship?

Think about in 2012 when we had to play the Cards in a 1 game playoff, after winning I think 8 more games than them in the regular season...

I guess they were just better and more clutch because they won that single game

[ChapelHillMatt]

Just seems to me as you wouldn't enjoy winning a World Series as much if you think luck plays into it that much. I think winning a championship is hard and teams should be praised for doing what it takes to win one. Especially when you do it as much as the Giants have. My guess is the reaction would be a lot different around here if the Braves won more. We are a regular season team and choke in the playoffs so our opinions are influenced by that. I used to feel the way you guys do, I don't anymore. I don't care how many regular season games we win if we keep getting knocked out in the 1st round.

[ChapelHillMatt]

Think about in 2012 when we had to play the Cards in a 1 game playoff, after winning I think 8 more games than them in the regular season...

I guess they were just better and more clutch because they won that single game

Chipper throwing the ball into RF didn't help, neither did the infield fly rule call.

[thethe]

I think its a lazy cop out to say that teams just get lucky.

Conversely, I think its also foolish to discount what a team does in the regular season.

[sturg33]

Chipper throwing the ball into RF didn't help, neither did the infield fly rule call.

Right. So 162 games, which proved we were a whole lot better than them, was wiped out on a flukey game.

I wonder if we shoulda traded heyward to SF for the magic potion

[sturg33]

Chipper throwing the ball into RF didn't help, neither did the infield fly rule call.

Right. So 162 games, which proved we were a whole lot better than them, was wiped out on a flukey game.

I wonder if we shoulda traded heyward to SF for the magic potion

[gilesfan]

Just seems to me as you wouldn't enjoy winning a World Series as much if you think luck plays into it that much. I think winning a championship is hard and teams should be praised for doing what it takes to win one. Especially when you do it as much as the Giants have. My guess is the reaction would be a lot different around here if the Braves won more. We are a regular season team and choke in the playoffs so our opinions are influenced by that. I used to feel the way you guys do, I don't anymore. I don't care how many regular season games we win if we keep getting knocked out in the 1st round.

So you don't want to believe in luck because it would diminish your enjoyment if the Braves won it all?

How many times over the past 15 years have the Braves had the best team in baseball?

[gilesfan]

Chipper throwing the ball into RF didn't help, neither did the infield fly rule call.

Neither of these have luck involved?

[ChapelHillMatt]

Neither of these have luck involved?

Hmmm.....no. It was a bad play by Chipper. Hence why they gave him an error on the play.

[thewupk]

Hmmm.....no. It was a bad play by Chipper. Hence why they gave him an error on the play.

So the Cards weren't lucky that Chipper made a horrible play that he generally has no issues with?

[VirginiaBrave]

Ok how do you explain Eric Gregg in 1997? If that were not pure dumb luck for the fish I have never seen it?

[thewupk]

I think its a lazy cop out to say that teams just get lucky.

Conversely, I think its also foolish to discount what a team does in the regular season.

It's not all luck but getting hot at the right time does have a good amount of luck involved. There was a time in the summer of 2013 that if the playoffs started I have no doubt the Braves would have steamrolled through the playoffs. They were hot and playing the best at the time. The current format gives too much leeway for non great teams to play at that level for a few weeks.

You can call it whatever you like but the best teams in baseball aren't rewarded anymore for being the best. They are punished. And I understand why when you look at this from a business stand point. But that doesn't change the fact that over time the sport of baseball has gone from winning the marathon to merely being good enough to be in the top 5 and winning the sprint.

[gilesfan]

Hmmm.....no. It was a bad play by Chipper. Hence why they gave him an error on the play.

What about the infield fly rule?

[ChapelHillMatt]

What about the infield fly rule?

Bad call

Part of the game

Not everything that happens in a game is going to go perfectly.

Errors and bad calls are not luck.

If they are then put an asterisk next to every win a team gets because of an error from the opposing team.

[sturg33]

Hmmm.....no. It was a bad play by Chipper. Hence why they gave him an error on the play.

The Cards were just clutch for making Chipper make an error and the ump blowing a call!!

[yeezus]

There's definitely luck involved in the SSS that is the playoffs.
But, the Giants weren't just lucky 3 out of the last 5 years. Having Bochy certainly plays a role as well. The Cardinals, Giants, and Royals were not power teams last year. Yet they did pretty well. You do not need big power. The way our team was built was not working. We were eaten alive by good pitching and there's a lot of that in the playoffs. That certainly plays a role too. Good pitchers beat good hitters a large majority of the time.

[gilesfan]

bad calls are not luck.

why not?

[ChapelHillMatt]

why not?

Because at some point every team is the victim of them. The game is played and officiated by humans, humans are imperfect. At some point you'll get bad calls to go your way and at other times you'll have them go against you. How you respond says a lot about the character of your team. It's what you call mental toughness. The great teams are able to overcome the bad calls. Another word people use is 'makeup'. Fans like to focus on the bad calls that they feel cost them a game but sports are made up of games that have a lot of twist and turns. You can do other things in the game that can win or lose a game, one bad call should not be the reason you win or lose.

[50PoundHead]

To lump 2013 and 2014 together as two teams that "scored less than 700 runs" is completely illogical. In 2013 we scored 688 runs and were fourth in the NL in runs scored. But in 2014 we scored 573 runs ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN runs fewer than in 2013 and were 14th in the NL in runs scored. In fact in both seasons only 2 of 15 NL teams scored 700 runs. The average runs per NL team was 648 in 2013 and 640 in 2014. So, the Braves scored 40 more runs than the league average in 2013 and 67 fewer runs than the league average in 2014.

Those two seasons were far more dissimilar than similar any way you cut it.

I was trying to justify the downward trend in run scoring in baseball as part of the overall discussion. Your synopsis is correct. The question will always be which year was the aberration. If our swing-and-miss at strike ratio didn't improve, I think we look more like the latter team than the former team. A whole year of La Stella instead of Uggla may have helped, but as long as Chris Johnson and Melvin Upton were in the line-up, it was going to be a problem.

[50PoundHead]

The batting average doesn't matter stems from the fact you can't tell how good a hitter is just from batting average alone. That's why people say it doesn't matter. But the best hitters in the league generally have non crappy batting averages.

Thank you.

[MadduxFanII]

I feel like the word "luck" sort of throws these conversations off track, because it implicitly removes any sense of responsibility for the outcome of a game. People hear "luck" and they think you're saying that no player or coach can be criticized for what happened in a a playoff game, and that's just not the case.

"Luck," in this case, is really just a one-word stand-in for the idea that small sample sizes are a bitch in baseball, and that a postseason series is the ultimate in high-stakes small sample sizes. Was it "luck" that the Cardinals beat us in the wild card game? Was it luck that the Dodgers took three of four from us in 2013? Not really- those teams out-played us in those games. That wasn't lucky or unlucky, it was just how the teams played in those series (using the word "series" loosely in the 2012 context).

The conflict is whether or not those results really have any significance beyond the games in which they occurred. I, and a lot of other people, basically think that four games (and certainly one game) tell us nothing about the strength of the teams involved. We've out-scored the Marlins 14-3 in two games this season. We're probably going to be worse than them once the entire season is played. We took the season series from the Nationals last year, and we finished approximately 723 games behind them in the standings.

It's not at all unlikely for a noticeably worse team to win one game, as the Cardinals did in 2012. And it's barely more unlikely for a worse team to win three of four, as the Dodgers did in 2013. I mean, we see things like this in the regular season all the time, don't we? Inferior teams wins a series in June, no one blinks an eye. It happens in October, and all of a sudden that says something deep and significant about the teams involved.

[Russ2dollas]

Luck is big part of the game, especially in a short series.

I also think there are teams that are built for the regular season vs the playoffs. It seems like having 5 quality starters is the best way to pile up wins in the regular season. But in the playoffs you are better off having a Stud and crap behind him. B/c if you can drop starter 5 and maybe starter 4.

I think power arms do better in the playoffs than other guys. Vs the best teams/hitters you have to miss more bats.

I guess I'm saying it's a slightly different game in the playoffs than the regular season. So if you were building a team you'd do it differently for the marathon vs the sprint.

[thethe]

I feel like the word "luck" sort of throws these conversations off track, because it implicitly removes any sense of responsibility for the outcome of a game. People hear "luck" and they think you're saying that no player or coach can be criticized for what happened in a a playoff game, and that's just not the case.

"Luck," in this case, is really just a one-word stand-in for the idea that small sample sizes are a bitch in baseball, and that a postseason series is the ultimate in high-stakes small sample sizes. Was it "luck" that the Cardinals beat us in the wild card game? Was it luck that the Dodgers took three of four from us in 2013? Not really- those teams out-played us in those games. That wasn't lucky or unlucky, it was just how the teams played in those series (using the word "series" loosely in the 2012 context).

The conflict is whether or not those results really have any significance beyond the games in which they occurred. I, and a lot of other people, basically think that four games (and certainly one game) tell us nothing about the strength of the teams involved. We've out-scored the Marlins 14-3 in two games this season. We're probably going to be worse than them once the entire season is played. We took the season series from the Nationals last year, and we finished approximately 723 games behind them in the standings.

It's not at all unlikely for a noticeably worse team to win one game, as the Cardinals did in 2012. And it's barely more unlikely for a worse team to win three of four, as the Dodgers did in 2013. I mean, we see things like this in the regular season all the time, don't we? Inferior teams wins a series in June, no one blinks an eye. It happens in October, and all of a sudden that says something deep and significant about the teams involved.

Fair argument.

[thewupk]

Seems like this thread is a good showing that the offseason is now offically over and we're back to having baseball arugments on the daily. We've covered a lot of ground today. Can't say I've seen a thread quite like this in some time.

[thethe]

Seems like this thread is a good showing that the offseason is now offically over and we're back to having baseball arugments on the daily. We've covered a lot of ground today. Can't say I've seen a thread quite like this in some time.

Heyward's 0-4 today.

[thewupk]

Heyward's 0-4 today.

I see what you did there

[50PoundHead]

I feel like the word "luck" sort of throws these conversations off track, because it implicitly removes any sense of responsibility for the outcome of a game. People hear "luck" and they think you're saying that no player or coach can be criticized for what happened in a a playoff game, and that's just not the case.

"Luck," in this case, is really just a one-word stand-in for the idea that small sample sizes are a bitch in baseball, and that a postseason series is the ultimate in high-stakes small sample sizes. Was it "luck" that the Cardinals beat us in the wild card game? Was it luck that the Dodgers took three of four from us in 2013? Not really- those teams out-played us in those games. That wasn't lucky or unlucky, it was just how the teams played in those series (using the word "series" loosely in the 2012 context).

The conflict is whether or not those results really have any significance beyond the games in which they occurred. I, and a lot of other people, basically think that four games (and certainly one game) tell us nothing about the strength of the teams involved. We've out-scored the Marlins 14-3 in two games this season. We're probably going to be worse than them once the entire season is played. We took the season series from the Nationals last year, and we finished approximately 723 games behind them in the standings.

It's not at all unlikely for a noticeably worse team to win one game, as the Cardinals did in 2012. And it's barely more unlikely for a worse team to win three of four, as the Dodgers did in 2013. I mean, we see things like this in the regular season all the time, don't we? Inferior teams wins a series in June, no one blinks an eye. It happens in October, and all of a sudden that says something deep and significant about the teams involved.

I've always thought about it in terms of investments. There's the long run, which is composed of a stream of short runs. A stock may fluctuate up or down depending on all types of dynamics and could out-perform the more reliable bet for a period of time. It's just more apparent in baseball because there aren't playoffs in the stock market.

[Heyward]

I mean, he's a flawed hitter.

The flawed hitters were more-so Gattis, Uggla, BJ, CJ than Heyward/JUp but yall can continue to be mad Heyward is gone.

[Heyward]

Haha, yea we're mad about Heyward. :)



Alot of yall are, there isnt really any question around it.

[Heyward]

Babe Ruth went 0-4 today, surprised we got no updates.

[sturg33]

Babe Ruth went 0-4 today, surprised we got no updates.

It seems like it's always you and ilk who bring his name up