2015 Lineup Construction

chop2chip said:
That correlation, when controlled for other factors, is weak though.

But you could make the argument that it's easier to turn a TV off when a game is boring where as most people won't leave the ball park because it's "just" a 2-1 pitcher duel. In fact, the Red Sox saw significant increases in attendance on games that Pedro Martinez started. This suggests teams are more inclined to watch games started by better pitchers. Ask yourself, would you rather watch Kershaw vs Felix where scoring is very likely to be low scoring or games started by worse pitchers where scoring will be higher?

Again your narrative makes sense but there just isn't any evidence that it's actually true.
Click to expand...

High profile pitchers can bring in the crowds. Dontrelle Willis for the Marlins for example several years ago. However on average I do believe high scoring games bring in the crowds. My 'evidence' may not be true. But attendance did spike when homeruns were flying out of the park and has decreased when pitching has become dominant. If the sport is as popular as ever you would think more people would show up to games.
 
Low scoring games are the best. I rather see two aces on the mound. The issue is when its only your team that is not scoring. Everyone hates a blow out.
 
Saying someone's not a great fan bc they are less interested in non-contending seasons is kind of dumb.

I'm more angry that our organization CHOSE this route for us… It's not like our good players left on their own. We sent them packing, guaranteeing us a loser. They will pay the consequence of theses actions with attendance, I'm sure.
 
thewupk said:
High profile pitchers can bring in the crowds. Dontrelle Willis for the Marlins for example several years ago. However on average I do believe high scoring games bring in the crowds. My 'evidence' may not be true. But attendance did spike when homeruns were flying out of the park and has decreased when pitching has become dominant. If the sport is as popular as ever you would think more people would show up to games.
Click to expand...

Well high scoring games are heavily correlated with bad pitching. The opposite of bad pitching is good pitching and good pitching is highly correlated with good pitchers. People are more likely to attend games headlined with good pitchers. (Think if you are deciding to choose a game in a 3 game series. Obviously, if all other conditions are equal, you are going to attend the game that has the most exciting pitchers.)

It's like I said earlier. Teams with new stadiums see immediate increases (see Georgia's own J.C. Bradbury for the data on honeymoon effect in baseball). The steroid era saw an unprecedented run of new stadium construction. You could argue that this is due to the rise of popularity of baseball due to the high offense era, but this ignores the fact that new stadiums were happening at the same rate with nearly every sport, so that weakens the argument that the run on stadiums was a side effect of the high offense era.

The game is more popular because it's eliminated geographical borders. I live 2000 miles from Georgia, but I have as much access to the Braves then any Georgian. Obviously my fandom isn't going to affect attendance because I don't live close enough to attend games.
 
Also lets not forget the obvious reason attendance has dipped since 2009...

The recession. It's not because offense has declined.

MLB_Attendance_1950-2013.png
 
sturg33 said:
Saying someone's not a great fan bc they are less interested in non-contending seasons is kind of dumb.

I'm more angry that our organization CHOSE this route for us… It's not like our good players left on their own. We sent them packing, guaranteeing us a loser. They will pay the consequence of theses actions with attendance, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

And keep them for 1 more year, not win a WS, and get nothing in return was a better plan?

Please.
 
Heyward said:
And keep them for 1 more year, not win a WS, and get nothing in return was a better plan?

Please.
Click to expand...

Would you just stop with the same tired arguments? Regardless what the best option was, the organization chose to gut the team. They will pay the price with lack of attendance.

And you are just amazing with your matter of fact statements. Again - I bet the SF Giants wished they gutted their team after 2013 with their 76 wins…
 
sturg33 said:
Would you just stop with the same tired arguments? Regardless what the best option was, the organization chose to gut the team. They will pay the price with lack of attendance.

And you are just amazing with your matter of fact statements. Again - I bet the SF Giants wished they gutted their team after 2013 with their 76 wins…
Click to expand...

Big difference.

SF won 2 of the last 4 WS prior to then, we havent even won a playoff series.

So.
 
sturg33 said:
We won more games than SF over the last 4 years.

Playoffs are a crapshoot.

So.
Click to expand...

Regular season means nothing if you cant perform in the postseason.

Whether you agree or not these are moves that had to be made to build the farm system back up, they werent doing much this year even if we kept Gattis/JUp/Jason.
 
I think for people really like baseball, like myself, they usually prefer a pitching duel to a slugfest. I definitely do, I love going to games with two really good pitchers. I'd rather see good pitching than pitchers getting lit up. I'm trying to think of another way to say the same exact thing.
 
yeezus said:
I think for people really like baseball, like myself, they usually prefer a pitching duel to a slugfest. I definitely do, I love going to games with two really good pitchers. I'd rather see good pitching than pitchers getting lit up. I'm trying to think of another way to say the same exact thing.
Click to expand...

Same way with soccer, or most other sports that aren't the NBA. People would rather watch a well played 0-0 draw in soccer that features amazing saves and great buildup then sloppy keeping or defense that leads to a 5-4 result. I personally like scoring in baseball. Not to obscene levels bt I like 4-2 type of games. Enough guys are getting on but the pitchers are doing their jobs.
 
yeezus said:
I think for people really like baseball, like myself, they usually prefer a pitching duel to a slugfest. I definitely do, I love going to games with two really good pitchers. I'd rather see good pitching than pitchers getting lit up. I'm trying to think of another way to say the same exact thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. Your purist and diehard baseball fans generally prefer this style of baseball. I think your casual fans prefer high offense. And I wager that there are more casual fans who get bored by your low scoring games.
 
thewupk said:
Certainly possible. But offense is more exciting for most fans.
Click to expand...

Given the choice between winning a game 10-9 and 1-0. Sure. I bet most would prefer that.

But fans are more excited about their team winning and if you feel like building a team on strong starting pitching is a better route to sustainable winning then it's a no brainier.

I have been on record here more than a few times stating how I feel like the demise of the Braves has been grossly overstated. They are going to be really bad for a couple years and quite possibly through the magical year of 2017, but I believe there is more talent in the organization today then there was in October. Will it work out in the long run? Maybe, maybe not, but as a mid market team (that should be a big market by all intents and purposes) they have to take risks on unknown quantities and try to sign guys that they believe the market undervalues. It's not fun, but rebuilding is never fun.

.
 
zitothebrave said:
Same way with soccer, or most other sports that aren't the NBA. People would rather watch a well played 0-0 draw in soccer that features amazing saves and great buildup then sloppy keeping or defense that leads to a 5-4 result. I personally like scoring in baseball. Not to obscene levels bt I like 4-2 type of games. Enough guys are getting on but the pitchers are doing their jobs.
Click to expand...

Sure, I don't mind 4-2 type game obviously. I don't mind high-scoring games. But if I had to choose between the two extremes, (1-0 or like 10-7) I prefer the 1-0.
 
chop2chip said:
Given the choice between winning a game 10-9 and 1-0. Sure. I bet most would prefer that.

But fans are more excited about their team winning and if you feel like building a team on strong starting pitching is a better route to sustainable winning then it's a no brainier.

I have been on record here more than a few times stating how I feel like the demise of the Braves has been grossly overstated. They are going to be really bad for a couple years and quite possibly through the magical year of 2017, but I believe there is more talent in the organization today then there was in October. Will it work out in the long run? Maybe, maybe not, but as a mid market team (that should be a big market by all intents and purposes) they have to take risks on unknown quantities and try to sign guys that they believe the market undervalues. It's not fun, but rebuilding is never fun.

Also, I can't think of a signing that's been overreacted to as much as the Markakis signing. If he continues to hit and field like he has for parts of the past two years then it's going to be bad contract. But it won't be crippling. By the time that contract becomes a constraint on the Braves (2017) it's going to have 2 years 22 million left on it. If he's close to the same player he is today at that point then that really isn't the heaviest of burdens.
Click to expand...

I think we have enough solid pieces already in place to be good in 2016. It's not a certainty, but it's possible.
 
yeezus said:
I think we have enough solid pieces already in place to be good in 2016. It's not a certainty, but it's possible.
Click to expand...

+1 especially if Hart can trade Minor for some hitting at the deadline if he rebounds.

And depending who they sign in FA, Fowler would be a good get.
 
Heyward said:
+1 especially if Hart can trade Minor for some hitting at the deadline if he rebounds.

And depending who they sign in FA, Fowler would be a good get.
Click to expand...

Say no to Fowler, he's got BJ part 2 written all over him. Having played at 2 of the wonkiest parks in baseball, very real chance his BABIP is a shadow.

I hope Minor bounces back and we don't trade him. I think the order I'd want our 4 rotation locks traded would go

Miller
Wood
Minor
Julio

Miller because he's gonna be expensive fast if he's good, and he's got arm issues written all over him. I don't trust Wood's mechanics, I think he could be a Beachy all over again. I severely hope I'm wrong and we have him and he's awesome for years, but letting him dominate then offloading him for top talent would probably be the smart thing to do. Minor could swap with wood, I have concerns with his mechanics. Julio **** I have concerns with too though his are more efficiency concerns the guys before I have timing concerns with.
 
Braves will be good far sooner than some feel on this board. I think we will be a mid 70s team this year and jump into the low to mid 80 in 16. Then anything can happen in 2017.

All this pitching will be flipped for bats. If you don't have pitching you'll never win a world series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top