10/5 GDT | Anibal "Dirty" Sanchez VS Clayton Kersh*t | Braves @ Dodgers 7:37 on FS1

Buzzworm said:
As much as I hate seeing how awful we have been the last two games, the young arms have showed well.
Fried and Touki have both showed why they were rated so highly and give us hope for a better rotation next season or in the case of Fried maybe an elite bullpen arm.
If I would have told you our bullpen would give up 1 run in two games this series I think we all would have taken that in a heartbeat.
Seems to me the Braves have to look at RF,CF and C as the 3 places to upgrade if they want to legitimately compete the next few years for a title.
Will be very interesting to see what we do in the offseason after seeing how much of a talent gap there is with the elite teams.
Click to expand...

Ender is the least of our problems tbh.
 
[tw]1048436492782120961[/tw]

Has this team never heard of adjusting? Did they not think the organization most versed in analytics wouldn’t be privy to the same information?

Maybe they need to forget the analytics, and go back to see ball, hit ball ala the regular season.
 
CyYoung31 said:
[tw]1048436492782120961[/tw]

Has this team never heard of adjusting? Did they not think the organization most versed in analytics wouldn’t be privy to the same information?

Maybe they need to forget the analytics, and go back to see ball, hit ball ala the regular season.
Click to expand...

Making Adjustments during the game is on Snitsker.
 
I feel like we will score tomorrow, but I have no confidence in gausman. When I say score, I mean like 4 runs
 
Perfect Cell said:
Making Adjustments during the game is on Snitsker.
Click to expand...

The problem with analytics is that they don't predict a change in context, which is what happened here. One can blame Snitker (and I'm not averse to doing that), but the premise was incorrect from the get-go. It assumed that a pitcher of Kershaw's talent couldn't adjust his approach.
 
In addition to having the superior team the Dodgers have out adjusted us. And to top it all off, the BABIP gods have turned on us. Braves need make a sacrificial offering.

The thing that has annoyed me the most are the home runs on the 0-2 pitches.
 
It’s fine to swing at first pitch strikes...if you hit them. Just like it’s fine to take first pitch strikes if you find another hittable pitch later in the PA.

Nobody was complaining when Acuna scorched that leadoff double.
 
You're seeing what I said you would see, a team good enough not to suck but not good enough to realistically win.

When the Braves are swept tomorrow without scoring run we will hear:

1. The economics of baseball suck (which really means the economics of Braves baseball sucks)

then

2. The playoffs are a crap shoot (which misses the point which is teams can get hot and win not that it's some random event)

then

3. Team management is bad (one or two or ten instances will be pointed out as bad moves, ignoring the fact that no moves are necessary if men can't get on base)

etc. etc.

The real answer is that the rebuild was accelerated by unexpected (and unsustainable for some) play and good luck throughout the season (the rest of the division was bad). This created the illusion that this team is better at this point in time than it really is and as fans we see what we want to see.

Once this is done, we enter a very dangerous time, where the pressure will be on to get better, since we are almost there in theory, so the focus is adding at the ML level for the now and less concern will be made of the future. But, if the now is a false now,, how smart to carve into the future? It might work out like the short run for KC going from rebuild to good to WS winner only to crater back into rebuild. Or, it may be more like the Pittsburgh journey with a longer stretch of good, no real stretch of great, and a slower fade into rebuild.

This rebuild was short circuited through plan and circumstances which has provided a short sugar burst. Will we convert into maintainable energy or burn through it fast and crash?
 
Horsehide Harry said:
You're seeing what I said you would see, a team good enough not to suck but not good enough to realistically win.

When the Braves are swept tomorrow without scoring run we will hear:

1. The economics of baseball suck (which really means the economics of Braves baseball sucks)

then

2. The playoffs are a crap shoot (which misses the point which is teams can get hot and win not that it's some random event)

then

3. Team management is bad (one or two or ten instances will be pointed out as bad moves, ignoring the fact that no moves are necessary if men can't get on base)

etc. etc.

The real answer is that the rebuild was accelerated by unexpected (and unsustainable for some) play and good luck throughout the season (the rest of the division was bad). This created the illusion that this team is better at this point in time than it really is and as fans we see what we want to see.

Once this is done, we enter a very dangerous time, where the pressure will be on to get better, since we are almost there in theory, so the focus is adding at the ML level for the now and less concern will be made of the future. But, if the now is a false now,, how smart to carve into the future? It might work out like the short run for KC going from rebuild to good to WS winner only to crater back into rebuild. Or, it may be more like the Pittsburgh journey with a longer stretch of good, no real stretch of great, and a slower fade into rebuild.

This rebuild was short circuited through plan and circumstances which has provided a short sugar burst. Will we convert into maintainable energy or burn through it fast and crash?
Click to expand...

There is something to what you say. I was looking at how the team projected in 2019 if we had a status quo off-season and we come out to be about an 85 win team. There is some risk in thinking that 2019 is the year to go for it. I'd rather preserve our prospect capital and go for economical ways of improving. And I would avoid the long-term financial risks associated with big free agent contracts.

To me the most logical way to try to improve is to replicate some of the "deep depth" that teams like the Dodgers and Cubs have deployed so effectively. We have that on the pitching side thanks to all the investment of draft picks we have made there. On the position player side we need to make sure to avoid any situation where we have to rely on guys like Flaherty and Tucker. We should be looking to pick up players from the same group we should have been looking at at the deadline: Escobar/Cabrera/Dietrich/Solarte. We can add someone like Ian Happ to the list.

Beyond that there is an obvious need to find someone at catcher and corner outfield. But I would not look for stars there. I'd rather be cheap and go for competent pros. We need to be patient and let the team grow organically. By that I mean wait for Acuna, Albies, Camargo and maybe Riley to move into their primes. Also be patient with the pitching. We need be very careful not to trade away the one that ultimately turns out to be the best of the bunch. Right now there is no way to know. A year ago it looked like Gohara and Soroka would be the best of the bunch. Things can change suddenly with young pitching, both for the worse and the better. We need to be patient and wait for those guys along with the young hitters to get through their growing pains.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
The deadline moves showed AA knows where this team really is on the win curve.
Click to expand...

He does seem to be playing a long game. Hoarding the prospect capital and letting the team improve organically. The trades basically fill some gaps with competent pros. But he avoided the temptation to go for "that guy."
 
50PoundHead said:
The problem with analytics is that they don't predict a change in context, which is what happened here. One can blame Snitker (and I'm not averse to doing that), but the premise was incorrect from the get-go. It assumed that a pitcher of Kershaw's talent couldn't adjust his approach.
Click to expand...


I dont believe the premise is incorrect. He tends to pitch early strikes so it makes sense to be agresive early. Its just that this is chess. If the opponent adapts then its on us to adapt to their adaptation. So its on Snitsker and the coaching staff for not changing the plan. It was clear on the later innings especially that they were hacking early still. They never adapted to Kershaw and the Dogers game plan
 
Perfect Cell said:
I dont believe the premise is incorrect. He tends to pitch early strikes so it makes sense to be agresive early. Its just that this is chess. If the opponent adapts then its on us to adapt to their adaptation. So its on Snitsker and the coaching staff for not changing the plan. It was clear on the later innings especially that they were hacking early still. They never adapted to Kershaw and the Dogers game plan
Click to expand...

The idea with great pitchers like Kershaw is once they get ahead in the count you basically are screwed. So be aggressive early in the count. It is not a bad theory. I don't think Kershaw is the same pitcher he was a few years ago. Maybe this is what we got wrong in our approach last night. The plan was better designed for the Kershaw of two or three years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top