Albies to the IL
- Thread starter Mad Dog Murph
- Start date
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Fixed it for you!
Decent attempt at a burn.
Had Guillorme played a little before this injury he might be better positioned to actually contribute in the first 1-2 weeks. As it currently stands he will be in ST mode for at least a week after rotting on the bench.
But yeah, snit is awesome. Those people skills are unparalleled.
CyYoung31
Shift Leader
This is Luis Guillorme we’re talking about here. No amount of work is going to make him contribute with the bat.
Tapate50
Well-known member
You don’t understand regular season mode vs spring training mode obvs. There’s another level to Guillorme
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
If a few at bats helps him that much he is going to be a beast from all this playing time from Albies being on the DL. We have all stars all over the field. It's 3 weeks into the season and we had 2 straight days off before this stretch of games. We don't need to be giving all stars days off so a scrub can get at bats. For all we know those rest games could be forced on us by injury like with Albies. We don't have many old players who need days off. We really don't even need pinch hitters anymore with the pitcher not batting and no black holes in the lineup..... Except when our bench players start due to injury.
Even you can understand a rusty bad hitter is worse than a non-rusty bad hitter.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Whats better? An all star caliber hitter or Guillorme with a bat in his hands? The downgrade from playing Guillorme so he wont be "rusty" when he does play isnt worth the loss in offense for the game he would have subbed for a healthy player.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
you do realize that the Braves have won all three games that Ozzie has been out. Not that they don't miss him, but that no one player is the only reason we win. Giving guys days off so role players can stay sharp is not going to cost this team any wins...
This is the type of short sighted view I expect Dino-Snit takes. Yes, he takes a 1 game hit in performance at 1 spot in the order, and if the dozen braincells he is rubbing together can only comprehend that much of the world, then sitting a guy 1 extra day per month is nothing but a negative.
However, allowing a few more braincells into the mix lets you realize you gain:
- A more rested star who is less likely to get injured in a fatigue related play, usually soft tissue injuries. This is quite literally what load management is.
- A bench player who gets 3-4 starts per month who is now more ready to step in if needed, rather than needed a ST period for 1-2 weeks to ramp up.
- A selling point to future bench players that this team doesn't let guys rot away for months on end.
- A platoon advantage in the games you selectively allow these bench players to play. Grichuk vs a LHP isn't such a huge downgrade, for example.
So yeah, I would think the benefits of letting the primary bench IFer get 3-4 starts a month at the expense of 1 start per month from Riley/Arcia/Albies/Olson is probably a worthwhile trade to get all those listed benefits.
Last edited:
The difference is likely to be negligible at best and more likely it will have no difference at all. Bad hitters are bad hitters and no amount of consistent work is going to drastically affect the outcome of their performance.
Baseball players are notoriously routine fixated. Many players don't take days off, not out of some outdated macho mantra, but because they don't want to get out of rhythm.
Some players need days off. Some don't. It's the managers job to decide who that is. In the end, the players know their own bodies better than we ever could.
Some players need days off. Some don't. It's the managers job to decide who that is. In the end, the players know their own bodies better than we ever could.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
isn't a managers job to win a world series or at least put your team in the best position to win a world series. And if the current playoff structure is the way it is, a lot of days off, wouldn't it be prudent for said manager to actually lead and re-condition these bodies to adjust to time off?
I honestly can't see why anyone would ever argue for a manager NOT to rest players on a regular basis.
It's not about their bodily condition necessarily. A player's timing can get thrown off by taking time off. Their focus can lapse.
It isn't as black and white as you are making this out to be. Players have their own personalities and their own preferences. Interfering too much with that is likely to create more issues than you are really saving.
Yes, I’m sure the Braves managed to build a roster of guys who need to play 160 to stay in a rhythm. Those guys just somehow magically congregated on this roster.
I’m sure Dino-snit, revered by all for his supernatural people management skills, is powerless to convince these players a little extra rest would benefit the team as a whole. There’s no way even the best people person on the planet can combat the forces of nature responsible for these Ironman players coming together in the city of Atlanta.
I’m sure Dino-snit, revered by all for his supernatural people management skills, is powerless to convince these players a little extra rest would benefit the team as a whole. There’s no way even the best people person on the planet can combat the forces of nature responsible for these Ironman players coming together in the city of Atlanta.
Is that what I said?
Yeah, Guillorme is a career .260/.343/.332 hitter. We definitely don't care if he's a .200/.200/.300 hitter for 2 weeks while he gets back to being a .260/.343/.332 hitter. It's probably fine to have that .500 OPS in the lineup for 10+ games rather than that .675 OPS simply because they didn't want to give him 3-4 starts per month.
We definitely don't want to see the star with a career OPS of .758 vs RHP rested once a month so the bench player with a career OPS vs RHP of .704 can get some PAs to stay fresh. It would be catastrophic to drop from a .758 OPS to a .704 OPS for one game to help prevent that .675 OPS bench player from being a .500 OPS bench player if forced into action. Nevermind the other points listed above...that 50 point drop in OPS for 1 game is insurmountable.
There is simply no way to solve this dilemma, so they may as well just let the bench player rot and suffer with the .500 OPS for a couple weeks. Oh well, I guess some problems are simply unsolvable. Just keep using the sharpie to fill out the lineup and cuddle up for the nightly nap.
You really gonna support your position based on 10 PAs? If Ozzie comes back and Guillmore only has 2 at bats in 3 weeks but they are both homers, I assume I can come back here and rub it in your face?