4/19 Game Thread: Dodgers at Braves (Mourning Wood?)

bravesfanMatt said:
Still baffles me why fredi let Perez even hit with bases loaded and one out if he knew he was going to pull him soon. Not really trying to create a fredi hate chain. I guess he was hoping baby harang was going to get through that inning to get the win. But if your leash was that tight. Just pat him on the back and let him know that he will have other chances and then pinch hit for him and try and put that game away early.
Click to expand...

I was following on Gameday and was muttering to myself "Please strike out. Please strike out. Please strike out." I think the other people in the meeting were starting to wonder about me (if they weren't already). Of course, Williams puts it in play. Like you, I don't want to rag on Fredi and I'll give him a break here because he was probably in the clubhouse playing the cowbell for Teheran because we all know the only cure for a fever is more cowbell.
 
50PoundHead said:
I was following on Gameday and was muttering to myself "Please strike out. Please strike out. Please strike out." I think the other people in the meeting were starting to wonder about me (if they weren't already). Of course, Williams puts it in play. Like you, I don't want to rag on Fredi and I'll give him a break here because he was probably in the clubhouse playing the cowbell for Teheran because we all know the only cure for a fever is more cowbell.
Click to expand...

I was at the Phil's game but following this on at bat. Why wouldn't Perez just not swing at all? Strikeout if you need to. Why on earth swing the bat?
 
yeezus said:
I was at the Phil's game but following this on at bat. Why wouldn't Perez just not swing at all? Strikeout if you need to. Why on earth swing the bat?
Click to expand...

I was surprised that Fredi didn't send in a take sign.. maybe he thought he wouldn't make contact.. but yes, with Nick on deck, I liked our chances of him with 2 outs over Perez with 1 out... No chance he could hit one deep enough to score.. and anything on the ground is easy with chubby running.
 
last year we heard Wood was sacrificing velo for control and that he wasn't striking guys out because of AJP. Is he sacrificing striking guys out for a higher GB% this year? Bold strategy.
 
yeezus said:
last year we heard Wood was sacrificing velo for control and that he wasn't striking guys out because of AJP. Is he sacrificing striking guys out for a higher GB% this year? Bold strategy.
Click to expand...

What I saw last night . . . his velocity is up a tick from last year, but he had uncharacteristically poor command and was a bit unlucky. I think he'll get it turned around and has a good chance to perform like a #3 / 4 SP this year.
 
dak said:
What I saw last night . . . his velocity is up a tick from last year, but he had uncharacteristically poor command and was a bit unlucky. I think he'll get it turned around and has a good chance to perform like a #3 / 4 SP this year.
Click to expand...

We've been predicting turn around for soft Wood for what seems like years now. I think he will always remain a slightly below average pitcher. He's just not likely to firm up IMO.
 
yeezus said:
Sure it does. If the "near ace" pitcher you traded turns out to be a dud, you're losing less than you initially thought.
Click to expand...

Um, it might lessen the sting in retrospect, but it does not make the trade any better.

Wood and Peraza could have brought back a better return than Hector Olivera. Disagree?
 
Julio3000 said:
Um, it might lessen the sting in retrospect, but it does not make the trade any better.

Wood and Peraza could have brought back a better return than Hector Olivera. Disagree?
Click to expand...

Agree.
Lessening the sting more = makes it better, unless we want to get deep into semantics.
 
However, I bet plenty of teams were worried about the direction Wood was trending in and wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't valued as highly as he was on here, where one person told me "he's basically Cole Hamels."
 
yeezus said:
However, I bet plenty of teams were worried about the direction Wood was trending in and wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't valued as highly as he was on here, where one person told me "he's basically Cole Hamels."
Click to expand...

If we traded Cole Hamels for Olivera I would personally beat the crap out of everyone in the FO.
 
zbhargrove said:
We've been predicting turn around for soft Wood for what seems like years now. I think he will always remain a slightly below average pitcher. He's just not likely to firm up IMO.
Click to expand...

Remain a slightly below average pitcher? Wouldn't that mean he's been a slightly below average player, and not a 2.6 WAR pitcher the last two years?
 
yeezus said:
Agree.
Lessening the sting more = makes it better, unless we want to get deep into semantics.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change the fact that we made a **** deal and could've helped the team substantially more. It does mean that the result isn't as bad as it could have been. It doesn't make the deal smarter.

I mean, you're the one insisting on the half-full glass, and the semantic dodge. When we're talking total disaster vs. embarrassing setback, I think the spirit of the argument is on my side.
 
Julio3000 said:
It doesn't change the fact that we made a **** deal and could've helped the team substantially more. It does mean that the result isn't as bad as it could have been. It doesn't make the deal smarter.

I mean, you're the one insisting on the half-full glass, and the semantic dodge. When we're talking total disaster vs. embarrassing setback, I think the spirit of the argument is on my side.
Click to expand...

Substantially more? Do tell.
The trade wasn't all that bad at the time, and it's not just Braves homers who said that.
You can use hindsight and say we could've traded that package for something more useful, of course. But if Wood ends up a LOOGY and Peraza a super-sub, Dodgers fans could say they could've hypothetically traded Olivera (at the time) for something more than that result.
So yes, when someone said Wood is basically Cole Hamels and we traded him for Olivera, it's amusing to see him struggle to get outs against our terrible lineup. He could certainly turn it around, but that doesn't make it less fun at the moment.
 
Julio3000 said:
It doesn't change the fact that we made a **** deal and could've helped the team substantially more. It does mean that the result isn't as bad as it could have been. It doesn't make the deal smarter.

I mean, you're the one insisting on the half-full glass, and the semantic dodge. When we're talking total disaster vs. embarrassing setback, I think the spirit of the argument is on my side.
Click to expand...

Why bother with this clown?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top