6/21 gigantes

sturg33 said:
I think we've gotten smart enough to understand why Ks are important.

Pitchers can't typically control what happens when a ball goes in play... so a K results in either a HR or a .320 BA
Click to expand...

Apparently only a subset of posters here have reached that level of enlightenment.
 
jpx7 said:
Same. But the same goes, as well: winning games in 2017 is immaterial to that, and losing games may marginally improve their 2018 draft outcomes (and thus long-term contention window). Likewise, I don't think it's in the best interest of a "long run" for the front-office to pursue a course at the trade-deadline that attempts to make the team look more competitive in 2017, for their sparkly new suburban park; nor for the brass, this offseason, to make moves designed to "compete" in 2018, just because of the "quick rebuild" promises they made initially. They tore it down, for better or worse; it takes some patience to build it back up right, and halfway through is not the time to get anxious and abandon the program.
Click to expand...

I agree from an asset perspective. A harder longer rebuild would have in my view been the more likely to succeed. Trading a significant long term asset for short term assets to make a run at a wild card would be pretty foolish, but we also don't have a whole lot of evidence to suggest the front office would do it.

the biggest prospect sacrifices made thus far for immediate respectability are Povse and Yepez.

Trading for Kemp was a big sacrifice I think, but beyond that the Braves have not done much to hamper payroll.
 
Southcack77 said:
I agree from an asset perspective. A harder longer rebuild would have in my view been the more likely to succeed. Trading a significant long term asset for short term assets to make a run at a wild card would be pretty foolish, but we also don't have a whole lot of evidence to suggest the front office would do it.

the biggest prospect sacrifices made thus far for immediate respectability are Povse and Yepez.

Trading for Kemp was a big sacrifice I think, but beyond that the Braves have not done much to hamper payroll.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said I'd reserve judgment at least until after the trade-deadline—but I'll admit to having a sinking skepticism that they might rush things, given a lot of their messaging over the past year or so, alongside the spectre of SunTrust.
 
sturg33 said:
I think we've gotten smart enough to understand why Ks are important.

Pitchers can't typically control what happens when a ball goes in play... so a K results in either a HR or a .320 BA
Click to expand...

I think most of us understand the argument, but find it relatively academic. No one has five guys that strike out 11/game.
 
jpx7 said:
Which is why I said I'd reserve judgment at least until after the trade-deadline—but I'll admit to having a sinking skepticism that they might rush things, given a lot of their messaging over the past year or so, alongside the spectre of SunTrust.
Click to expand...

The Braves are 11.5 out of the wild card and 9.5 behind the Nats.

If the Braves make up 8 games in the next three weeks you might have something to worry about, but that isn't likely to happen and I still don't think the Braves would part with anything they see as a long term piece of the organization for anything less than something they think would be a better long term piece.

Every indication to me is that the Braves don't think their window has opened yet. Otherwise they wouldn't have built the team the way they did.

I do think its entirely possible that the Braves decide making a run at .500 is preferable to getting back negligible prospects. I personally would not prioritize that, but I have the sense that the organization wants to let the players and the fans feel like they are trying to help them. But overpay for a playoff run this year? No, I don't see that happening. But I could see them trading for some piece that might help this year and for years in the future.
 
sturg33 said:
I think we've gotten smart enough to understand why Ks are important.

Pitchers can't typically control what happens when a ball goes in play... so a K results in either a HR or a .320 BA
Click to expand...

So you'd rather have a strikeout pitcher that goes 5-6 innings bc of pitch count over a guy that doesn't strike out as many but goes 7-8 innings? I love strikeout pitchers too but I don't care how they get out as long as we win.
 
Hudson2 said:
So you'd rather have a strikeout pitcher that goes 5-6 innings bc of pitch count over a guy that doesn't strike out as many but goes 7-8 innings? I love strikeout pitchers too but I don't care how they get out as long as we win.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention how many runs each pitcher is giving up. It's extremely difficult to be a TOR without good strikeout numbers.
 
Hudson2 said:
So you'd rather have a strikeout pitcher that goes 5-6 innings bc of pitch count over a guy that doesn't strike out as many but goes 7-8 innings? I love strikeout pitchers too but I don't care how they get out as long as we win.
Click to expand...

A guy who pitches to contact will run deep counts too. A pure k machine will be better because of his ability to get out of trouble. Newk doesn't have to K 10 guys a game. Something around 7 per 9 would do wonders. A change up would probably get him there plus.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
A guy who pitches to contact will run deep counts too. A pure k machine will be better because of his ability to get out of trouble. Newk doesn't have to K 10 guys a game. Something around 7 per 9 would do wonders. A change up would probably get him there plus.
Click to expand...

The most masterful pitcher I ever saw had extremely low pitch counts and didn't strike out a ton of guys. Though he did get 3,000 for his career, I think.

All these things just sort of depend.
 
sturg33 said:
Without looking at the data, I'd be willing to bet that high k/ rates correlates with the best pitchers
Click to expand...

What do you consider a high strike out rate and what do you want to use to define the best pitchers. I totally agree that the Aces in the game are high strike out guys. That is the way it is now.
 
Southcack77 said:
The most masterful pitcher I ever saw had extremely low pitch counts and didn't strike out a ton of guys. Though he did get 3,000 for his career, I think.

All these things just sort of depend.
Click to expand...

Career 6.1 K/9 for Maddux, but in his best years he was around 7 K/9—which happens to be exactly what [MENTION=1828]bravesfanMatt[/MENTION] noted "would do wonders" for Newcomb. Meanwhile, if "these things [...] depend" on Newcomb being a generational, all-time talent ... well I won't hold my breath.
 
jpx7 said:
Career 6.1 K/9 for Maddux, but in his best years he was around 7 K/9 ... which happens to be exactly what [MENTION=1828]bravesfanMatt[/MENTION] listed "would do wonders." And if "these things [...] depend" on Newcomb being a generational, all-time talent ... well I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Well Newcomb is at 6.3 in a three game sample and a minors career rate somewhere between 10 and 11, so I think we can still keep our fingers crossed.
 
Southcack77 said:
What do you consider a high strike out rate and what do you want to use to define the best pitchers. I totally agree that the Aces in the game are high strike out guys. That is the way it is now.
Click to expand...

I'd say a high strikeout rate is over 8K/9

I'd say the best pitchers are the top 50 starters in FIP, and top 20 relievers in FIP
 
Southcack77 said:
Well Newcomb is at 6.3 in a three game sample and a minors career rate somewhere between 10 and 11, so I think we can still keep our fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely—that's all most of us are saying. It's good Newcomb has pitched some low-scoring games heretofore, but if he's going to keep it up, he needs to improve that strikeout rate, given his skillset. And—fingers crossed—he will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top