Oh Fredi haters.?

VirginiaBrave said:
And to top it all off they are not cellar dwellers, Three good weeks to end August, winning series could make September interesting if the Nats and Mets keep screwing around.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The team on pace for 74-88 is going to make it interesting in September against two teams on pace for 83-79 and 86-76. We aren't even competitive in a division where 86 wins is likely to take it down. Sad.
 
Undortunately if we kept same team as last year, we would prolly be 5 games up in division.

Lol off competiting with Mets and Nats now.
 
gilesfan said:
Undortunately if we kept same team as last year, we would prolly be 5 games up in division.

Lol off competiting with Mets and Nats now.
Click to expand...

Everything went wrong in 2014 and they won 79 games. Not sure they would be 5 games up, but I could definitely see them winning more than 86 games, especially if Hart had decided to use some of his creativity to fix the team instead of gut it.
 
clvclv said:
They have been "competitive" - meaning that they aren't constantly blown out and they battle. They've won some games they shouldn't have and lost some they shouldn't have, but they typically stay in games. They are what they were expected to be without the above mentioned disappointments - which should have turned them into cellar dwellers much earlier.

That's the definition of being competitive - they're less talented than many of their opponents but they aren't pushovers. Some of the veterans (including KJ and Uribe) deserve some credit for that as well, but other than Pierzynski let's be fair - they haven't been major producers, and mainly have served as great examples of how to be professional, always be prepared when your name's called, and how to fight until the last out is recorded. Those are all the things our numerically-inclined group says can't be quantified and therefore don't count for anything.
Click to expand...

How do you think the 2015 Braves fare vs. the 2014 Braves in terms of average margin of loss?

I'm not disputing your opinion of the team . . . because I can't, really. It's all based on your opinion of its character, and I've pointed out a couple of places where my opinion and yours overlap. I can't, and I'm not trying to, invalidate your feelings about the team. I'm trying—in a common thread across a lot of different discussions—to separate our opinions from the things that can be quantified.
 
sturg33 said:
The Braves rank 24th in MLB in attendance - at 25,770 per game.

Last year they were 18th at 29,065 per game

Attendance has dropped 12% this year
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I'm sure we havne't had as many home weekend series yet so that's why attendance is down. At least that's what the excuse was earlier in the year.
 
Julio3000 said:
How do you think the 2015 Braves fare vs. the 2014 Braves in terms of average margin of loss?

I'm not disputing your opinion of the team . . . because I can't, really. It's all based on your opinion of its character, and I've pointed out a couple of places where my opinion and yours overlap. I can't, and I'm not trying to, invalidate your feelings about the team. I'm trying—in a common thread across a lot of different discussions—to separate our opinions from the things that can be quantified.
Click to expand...

Good question - and one that I can't answer since I haven't looked at run-differential numbers to be honest. As someone who has always leaned more toward the scout side rather than the numbers side, I personally think "competitive" is often mischaracterized when considered in that manner. I certainly understand why the more numerically-inclined look at that, since it's another one of those things like "protection", "clutch", etc. that's almost impossible to quantify.

The reason I think it fails (for me) is that being competitive is more something that you "see" than measure. Run-differential falls short (again, JMO) because while it may tell you something, it only measures things over a longer term. For instance, when the pen was SO BAD earlier on the numbers would likely be pretty inflated when comparing the difference over the last 4-6 weeks. Of course, that leads us back to the sample size issue. The problem I have with that is that almost none of those Pitchers are still with the organization.

It really is just more of a "feel" thing for me personally - my eyes tell me that guys like Markakis, Pierzynski, Gomes, Grilli, Jim Johnson, KJ, and Uribe have contributed to making players like Peterson, Maybin, and others become much better players in the long run. Having Simmons and his constant, unrelenting focus has helped them greatly as well IMO. Those intangibles that they're able to see less-talented players put to use every day will hopefully go a long way to making them solid regulars moving forward. Being able to struggle at this level while having someone to help them through the slumps that isn't a Manager or Coach makes them better prepared to help the younger players that will be breaking in as we start to see the Albieses/Smiths/etc. when they struggle.

Just my opinion, but part of the problem we had before when we had the uber-talented guys was that there really weren't any players they could learn much from - as many have pointed out, our bench pieces were simply placeholders to keep the organization from having to rush prospects. It always seemed like the game was over when an opponent ran an "Ace" out there or scored 4 or 5 early runs against us. There just didn't seem to be any "fire" - which is another of those unquantifiable attributes of course - like there is in the current clubhouse today. That feeling of "hey, EVERY AB or IP matters - another team might see something they like in you and give you a better shot".

I think that's a big part of the reason we haven't seen Shelby get flustered. He watches closely when he's not pitching and realizes that eventually they'll start pushing some runs across for him as well - just keep doing your job and encouraging the others because you don't need 5, 6, or 7 runs on days when you pitch. Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz all had to win a lot of 2-1 and 3-2 games to get to the HOF.
 
clvclv said:
Good question - and one that I can't answer since I haven't looked at run-differential numbers to be honest. As someone who has always leaned more toward the scout side rather than the numbers side, I personally think "competitive" is often mischaracterized when considered in that manner. I certainly understand why the more numerically-inclined look at that, since it's another one of those things like "protection", "clutch", etc. that's almost impossible to quantify.

The reason I think it fails (for me) is that being competitive is more something that you "see" than measure. Run-differential falls short (again, JMO) because while it may tell you something, it only measures things over a longer term. For instance, when the pen was SO BAD earlier on the numbers would likely be pretty inflated when comparing the difference over the last 4-6 weeks. Of course, that leads us back to the sample size issue. The problem I have with that is that almost none of those Pitchers are still with the organization.

It really is just more of a "feel" thing for me personally - my eyes tell me that guys like Markakis, Pierzynski, Gomes, Grilli, Jim Johnson, KJ, and Uribe have contributed to making players like Peterson, Maybin, and others become much better players in the long run. Having Simmons and his constant, unrelenting focus has helped them greatly as well IMO. Those intangibles that they're able to see less-talented players put to use every day will hopefully go a long way to making them solid regulars moving forward. Being able to struggle at this level while having someone to help them through the slumps that isn't a Manager or Coach makes them better prepared to help the younger players that will be breaking in as we start to see the Albieses/Smiths/etc. when they struggle.

Just my opinion, but part of the problem we had before when we had the uber-talented guys was that there really weren't any players they could learn much from - as many have pointed out, our bench pieces were simply placeholders to keep the organization from having to rush prospects. It always seemed like the game was over when an opponent ran an "Ace" out there or scored 4 or 5 early runs against us. There just didn't seem to be any "fire" - which is another of those unquantifiable attributes of course - like there is in the current clubhouse today. That feeling of "hey, EVERY AB or IP matters - another team might see something they like in you and give you a better shot".

I think that's a big part of the reason we haven't seen Shelby get flustered. He watches closely when he's not pitching and realizes that eventually they'll start pushing some runs across for him as well - just keep doing your job and encouraging the others because you don't need 5, 6, or 7 runs on days when you pitch. Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz all had to win a lot of 2-1 and 3-2 games to get to the HOF.
Click to expand...

I'm not beefing with any of that. Just questioning statements like this team "stays in games and doesn't get blown out." Specifically because my continuing issue is with people making statements about the team based on a preconceived notion, and not being willing to alter them in the face of information that suggests the contrary. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts about the quality of the "veteran presence" on the team, and, like I said, I agree with it to some degree.

Run differential is one thing . . . and this team is laps behind last year's in this department. But don't you think that knowing the average loss margin for a team would speak somehow to how often a team is blown out? Because by that measure . . . which team do you think is better? The veteran-led, scrappy battlers of 2015 or the rudderless, malcontent, exemplars-of-all-things-awful crew of 2014?
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm not beefing with any of that. Just questioning statements like this team "stays in games and doesn't get blown out." Specifically because my continuing issue is with people making statements about the team based on a preconceived notion, and not being willing to alter them in the face of information that suggests the contrary. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts about the quality of the "veteran presence" on the team, and, like I said, I agree with it to some degree.

Run differential is one thing . . . and this team is laps behind last year's in this department. But don't you think that knowing the average loss margin for a team would speak somehow to how often a team is blown out? Because by that measure . . . which team do you think is better? The veteran-led, scrappy battlers of 2015 or the rudderless, malcontent, exemplars-of-all-things-awful crew of 2014?
Click to expand...

I am very curious to the answer... don't hold out on us. Tell us
 
clvclv said:
While Fredi doesn't deserve all the credit, is it really that hard for some people to give him part of it for keeping things together and not having the team roll over (as someone mentioned earlier)?

I've agreed with those who felt this was a 70-75 win team from day one. And that was as constructed. Since then...

Callaspo shows up out of shape and flames out.

Minor went down for the season.

Teheran and Wood struggled mightily for stretches.

Bethancourt struggled and had to be sent down.

The middle relief innings became a disaster.

Jason Grilli went down for the season.

Jim Johnson was traded.

Freddie Freeman misses 36 games (29.5% of the season so far).

Given that the team's three best SPs (according to most since the naysayers panned Miller from day one) vastly underperformed, the "only offense" the team had hasn't played in roughly 1/3 of the games, and CJ was CJ, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say Fredi's done a pretty good job of keeping things together. Quite a few people said the offense was going to be "historically bad" and while it hasn't been "good", if you'd own up to saying that this team would be beyond terrible if Freeman missed significant time you'd have to admit you were wrong.

They have been "competitive" - meaning that they aren't constantly blown out and they battle. They've won some games they shouldn't have and lost some they shouldn't have, but they typically stay in games. They are what they were expected to be without the above mentioned disappointments - which should have turned them into cellar dwellers much earlier.

That's the definition of being competitive - they're less talented than many of their opponents but they aren't pushovers. Some of the veterans (including KJ and Uribe) deserve some credit for that as well, but other than Pierzynski let's be fair - they haven't been major producers, and mainly have served as great examples of how to be professional, always be prepared when your name's called, and how to fight until the last out is recorded. Those are all the things our numerically-inclined group says can't be quantified and therefore don't count for anything. If that is indeed the case, you have to give their share of the credit to Fredi as well.
Click to expand...

How about when the team essentially all gave up on Fredi at the end of last season though? Still haven't gotten that bad taste out of my mouth
 
Also the difference per game in attendnace from last year is 3624. Only Texas and Philly have larger dropoffs. And this is with attendnace going up 400 per game league wide. Payroll definatley could be an issue going forward.
 
NYCBrave said:
How about when the team essentially all gave up on Fredi at the end of last season though? Still haven't gotten that bad taste out of my mouth
Click to expand...

Not to mention that only the bad things happening were listed there. How about Maybin, KJ, and AJ all playing above their heads at different times? We can all look at the bad things that happened and think what might have been. But hardly look at the good things that were unexpected and act like they were for sure things all along. The Braves clusterluck at the start of the year with avg with RISP is another thing as well.
 
clvclv said:
Good question - and one that I can't answer since I haven't looked at run-differential numbers to be honest. As someone who has always leaned more toward the scout side rather than the numbers side, I personally think "competitive" is often mischaracterized when considered in that manner. I certainly understand why the more numerically-inclined look at that, since it's another one of those things like "protection", "clutch", etc. that's almost impossible to quantify.

The reason I think it fails (for me) is that being competitive is more something that you "see" than measure. Run-differential falls short (again, JMO) because while it may tell you something, it only measures things over a longer term. For instance, when the pen was SO BAD earlier on the numbers would likely be pretty inflated when comparing the difference over the last 4-6 weeks. Of course, that leads us back to the sample size issue. The problem I have with that is that almost none of those Pitchers are still with the organization.

It really is just more of a "feel" thing for me personally - my eyes tell me that guys like Markakis, Pierzynski, Gomes, Grilli, Jim Johnson, KJ, and Uribe have contributed to making players like Peterson, Maybin, and others become much better players in the long run. Having Simmons and his constant, unrelenting focus has helped them greatly as well IMO. Those intangibles that they're able to see less-talented players put to use every day will hopefully go a long way to making them solid regulars moving forward. Being able to struggle at this level while having someone to help them through the slumps that isn't a Manager or Coach makes them better prepared to help the younger players that will be breaking in as we start to see the Albieses/Smiths/etc. when they struggle.

Just my opinion, but part of the problem we had before when we had the uber-talented guys was that there really weren't any players they could learn much from - as many have pointed out, our bench pieces were simply placeholders to keep the organization from having to rush prospects. It always seemed like the game was over when an opponent ran an "Ace" out there or scored 4 or 5 early runs against us. There just didn't seem to be any "fire" - which is another of those unquantifiable attributes of course - like there is in the current clubhouse today. That feeling of "hey, EVERY AB or IP matters - another team might see something they like in you and give you a better shot".
Click to expand...

Nah, the last 6 weeks are higher than the season average. That's why I question what you (or I or anyone else) "see."

I'll go ahead an answer—2015 loss margin is about a quarter of a run higher than 2014.

being competitive is more something that you "see" than measure

I'm not the one to make the argument that your eyeballs are worthless and that the non-quantifiable has no place in the discussion. Far from it. But I so often read about what people "see" and note that it dovetails perfectly with their preconceptions . . . don't you think that's a trap we all fall into from time to time?

You see a team of gutsy battlers that is fun to watch. I see a team of tryhards and scrubs which is slightly exceeding expectations. Which one of us is right?
 
NYCBrave said:
How about when the team essentially all gave up on Fredi at the end of last season though? Still haven't gotten that bad taste out of my mouth
Click to expand...

Fredi's teams almost always "give up" on him in September. I think it is more about how he uses people throughout the year than any real matter of them giving up, though.
 
gilesfan said:
Undortunately if we kept same team as last year, we would prolly be 5 games up in division.

Lol off competiting with Mets and Nats now.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The presence of Markakis, Miller, Peterson and Maybin make up for some of the production we would have gotten from Heyward, Upton, Gattis and Kimbrel. There's maybe a 3ish WAR difference between those 4 players.
 
Julio3000 said:
Nah, the last 6 weeks are higher than the season average. That's why I question what you (or I or anyone else) "see."

I'll go ahead an answer—2015 loss margin is about a quarter of a run higher than 2014.

being competitive is more something that you "see" than measure

I'm not the one to make the argument that your eyeballs are worthless and that the non-quantifiable has no place in the discussion. Far from it. But I so often read about what people "see" and note that it dovetails perfectly with their preconceptions . . . don't you think that's a trap we all fall into from time to time?

You see a team of gutsy battlers that is fun to watch. I see a team of tryhards and scrubs which is slightly exceeding expectations. Which one of us is right?
Click to expand...

Probably both - to an extent.

For me, I didn't have any preconceived notions heading into the season. I've said since Day One that I agreed with those that felt this club had a ceiling of 70-75 wins. Since some folks like to lump those of us that see some good in things together, I won't bother to answer the baiting posts. To list a few...

I "thought" Jace Peterson could prove to be a pretty serviceable player. He has become exactly that.

I "thought" Cameron Maybin had a chance to be much better than many said when they were looking at the numbers. He has exceeded everyone's expectations - mine included - and I've been his biggest supporter (hands down).

I "thought" the Heyward trade was a win for us and that Miller was trending in the right direction based on a smaller, but more recent sample size. Tough for anyone to argue that one.

None of this makes me Nostradamus - not even close.

I do see "a team of gutsy battlers that is fun to watch" to an extent. The difference between me and many others is that I'm content to wait for the talent to be added. Freeman (when healthy) can be a franchise player. Simmons is one of the best weapons in the game simply because of his defense. People howl the same about Heyward (and I understand their point), but as they also love to point out - you can only have so many gritty, intangible, defense-first guys. The Braves can't afford to give one of those $20+ million/season and hope to contend. Teams built with those "gutsy battlers that are fun to watch and slightly exceed expectations" quickly turn into threats when you add a couple of talented players to the mix - see San Francisco. If it weren't for the ability of the Giants to continuously develop solid players to plug in around a couple stars, they wouldn't be who they are. They've had arguably as many bad contracts to deal with as we have - Cain/Lincecum/Scutaro/Pagan (for the most part). They've made one really good trade (Pence), signed or traded for a couple of scrappy veteran-types (Huddy and Peavy), and surrounded them with solid players that have good streaks. The thing they've done so well is keep a continuous supply of those useful players coming - Belt/Crawford/Aoki/Blanco/Panik/Duffy/etc. - which is something we weren't going to be able to do without the trades and signings Hart & Company made. There were no Jace Petersons/Eury Perezes/Adonis Garcias/Mallex Smiths/etc. that can be those useful players that don't hurt you if they have to play everyday. Without our "Braves-colored glasses" on, we all knew deep down that our Todd Cunninghams and Joey Ts just weren't going to turn into those types of players.

What I think the upside to all of this has been is that they've rebuilt the pitching depth that's necessary to trade for a couple of impact players that CAN make a huge difference - if need be. If (a big if, we all know) Olivera somehow works out, he becomes our Pence to their Posey (Freeman). Contenders aren't typically built with All-Stars like the Yankees/Gnats/Dodgers are trying to do. The goal (for me, and Hart it seems) is to have players that can step in when needed to make you have to pitch to Olivera and Freeman much like the Giants force you to have to pitch to Pence and Posey at some point. We're now in a position to add those impact players (again, if need be) and go get them - through trades or free-agency - even if they're expensive.
 
Julio3000 said:
Nah, the last 6 weeks are higher than the season average. That's why I question what you (or I or anyone else) "see."

I'll go ahead an answer—2015 loss margin is about a quarter of a run higher than 2014.
Click to expand...

As for the difference over the last 6 weeks, I don't doubt that you're right at all - like I said, I didn't make that statement based on actually looking at the run-differential. No Freeman I'm sure has hurt that to an extent. My point about the difference is that I personally don't feel nearly as much like a deer in the headlights when Fredi goes to the pen now. I definitely did earlier this season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top