ADVERTISEMENT

2017 Atlanta Braves Thread (w/ occasional Red Sox talk for Hark)

Alright, now that I'm finally on a PC, I'm going to actually talk about this season a little more in tl;dr fashion.

I haven't been this excited about a Braves season in a good long while. No, I don't have high expectations for the team or anything, but I'm just really ready for baseball. It's, by far, my favorite sport, and I just need to watch the game again. Anyway, as for the Braves, this is truly going to be a very, very fun year. I fully expect a competitive team to take the field this year, no doubt about it. I'm not predicting a Wild Card berth, but this team will make some noise and let their presence known. This is going to be a team that just grinds games out and will fight until it's time to go home, and it's going to be extremely fun to watch. The organization has a FO that obviously has a clear vision for this franchise, so the Braves are definitely in good hands.

The rotation is just okay, IMO, but far and away better than the disaster last year. Teheran tailed off a little bit towards the end of the year, with the big exception being the final game at Turner Field, so I don't know if he will repeat his total dominance that he had in the first half of last season. He's the most sure thing that we have, so I expect another solid season for him. Something like 11-12 wins on this team with a 3.35 ERA isn't asking too much from him. Bartolo Colon will be Bartolo Colon. His ERA will be in the high 3's to low 4's, and he'll be fine just as he normally is. I don't know how he does it. He's the most out-of-shape dude I've ever seen in professional sports, throws only an 80s fastball so you know exactly what's coming 100% of the time, and yet, he continues to get people out. His biggest impact, however, will be in the clubhouse. His contagious personally will nothing but beneficial to everyone in there. I'm not feeling R.A. Dickey, to be honest. I think he'll be out be out of the rotation by June, and his spot will be given to either Wisler, Blair or Newcomb, if neither one looks to have figured it out. I just think Dickey is done. Maybe being back in the NL will help him, but I think his gimmick has passed him by. Jaime Garcia will be solid, but he'll hit the DL, no doubt about that. Collmenter will get some emergency spot starts because of this, and it will open more opportunities for some guys in the minors, which I'm okay with. When Garcia is pitching, he'll be fine. Nothing really special to talk about there. Folty is the big one. This HAS to be his year. Well, I guess it's not going to kill him if he doesn't perform as well as he could, but he REALLY needs to this year. This is the year we are going to be able to tell if he's a guy to build a rotation around, or if he's just another guy who throws hard and ends up in the bullpen. It's all about what's in his head. If he can get that screwed on straight, he's going to be really good, health permitting. He's shown flashes of greatness, so I know he can do it, it's just a matter of how he handles it. All eyes are going to be on him in the rotation, assuming he doesn't have a disastrous spring.

I absolutely LOVE this lineup. It's not sexy, but it's full of guys who know how to get the job done. It's balanced, and it's full of people who know what they're doing. Some speed, but not a ton, not a lot of power, but it's full of guys who have been there and done that, and they know how the game is played. It's perfect for a team in a transition year. Stack the lineup with good veteran players and show the kids how it's done. There are high average guys up and down the lineup, and those are the ones that are the most fun to watch, IMO. I would like a little more speed, but when you have guys all over the place that know how to hit and get on base, you're going to see results. You have guys like Freeman and Kemp who can change the game with one swing, if you need them to, so it's a lineup that can do damage. Ender Inciarte is a guy you want in center field. You win with players like Inciarte, nothing more to say. Dansby Swanson will definitely have his growing pains, but I'm so thrilled to have him. When you picture a baseball player in your head, you think of guys like Dansby Swanson. The dude just gets it, and the sky is the limit. Freddie Freeman will continue to do what he does. Matt Kemp really sped this rebuild up, and I think he'll continue to do what he did last year, with hopefully improved defense. Markakis is as solid as solid gets, and I love the addition of Brandon Phillips. His mentorship to Swanson will pay huge dividends.

I like the bullpen as a whole, but I'm not going to spend too much time on them. They'll be good enough. I'm so thrilled to have the FO that we have, and they have really put the Braves in an awesome situation. New ballpark, new team, new farm system, bright future. Baseball season has be absolutely pumped, and I can't wait to have to Braves back waiting for me after work every night again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
What do you guys think about the changes they're trying to make to speed the game up?

I like the idea of a pitch clock.
I like not having to waste the time of throwing the pitches on an intentional walk (although this will shave what, 30 seconds off maybe a third of the games in the season?)

The MLBPA is too powerful to really get anything major instituted (at least until the next CBA). But I've heard some other ideas tossed around that could be good:

- Relievers would only get 2 warmup tosses once they get to the mound, just to get used to the mound as opposed to the bullpen. There's no need for anymore than that - they should be fully warmed up before they step out of the pen.
- Extra innings would begin with a man on second base (probably whoever made last out in the previous inning). This would cut down on the 17 inning snooze fests. I'd be in favor of this for the regular season, but go back to the current way for playoffs.
- A more radical idea I heard was to cut down the count to only needing 3 balls for a walk or two strikes for a strikeout (or starting the batter with a 1-1 count, however you want to look at it) I don't see that one passing anytime soon because baseball purists would absolutely hate it. Plus that would really up the value of starters and lower the value of bullpens (starters would be able to go much deeper into games that way).

I wish they could figure out a way to limit throws over to 1st (or any other base) from the pitcher. However it seems like it could never be done, as if you put a limit like 4 throws over. Once a pitcher hit that limit, the runner could take a lead 3/4 way to the next base because he couldn't be picked off.

They need to figure out a way to speed up the games though. 162 games at 3 hours a pop is too much for most people to sit through.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
What do you guys think about the changes they're trying to make to speed the game up?
Click to expand...
I think it's fukkin dumb. MLB just needs to accept that it will never again be the most popular sport like it was from 1900 to ~1985. Society just likes football and basketball more. It's just how it is.

Speeding the game up won't do anything except alienate the hardcore fans. People don't watch baseball because they find it boring due to the nature of the game (start, stop). It's not a time duration thing.

I think it's dumb. MLB is so proud of their "no intentional walks" thing, even though they admitted it would only save 1 minute every 2.5 games. So why even frickin do it? Oh yeah, lemme tell you, that one minute saved is really gonna bring back the 18-35 demographic.

Now if you wanna discuss shortening the season? Absolutely. MLB and NBA both need to cut their seasons by 25% at least. But they'll never do it because it would be taking away revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coolwaterunc
TarHeelNation11 said:
Speeding the game up won't do anything except alienate the hardcore fans. People don't watch baseball because they find it boring due to the nature of the game (start, stop). It's not a time duration thing.
Click to expand...

I do think the time duration is a factor, granted not the main factor. For a game that starts at 8pm, for someone who has to go to bed at a reasonable hour to get up for work in the morning (say 11pm) they're not going to bother watching the game if they think they'll have to go to bed in the 7th inning without seeing the end because it drags on too long.

I do think that the start/stop non-constant action nature is a drawback as well. But by putting in a pitch clock, and even by shortening the count, you're forcing the "start" action to happen quicker and less or shorter "stops". To equate it to football, it'd be like if football had 8 downs to get 20 yards. You'd see a lot more 2 yard dives and start/stop action. By shortening the line to gain to 10 yards and with less downs more action is happening.

TarHeelNation11 said:
Now if you wanna discuss shortening the season? Absolutely. MLB and NBA both need to cut their seasons by 25% at least. But they'll never do it because it would be taking away revenue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a certainty that teams that sellout their parks and have good TV ratings would lose revenue by shortening the season. However, I wonder if the teams that don't would lose a ton a revenue. Obviously they couldn't charge as much for the season ticket holders, but for the retail buyers - with less games they could get a larger portion of the stadium filled if people wanted to fill a personal quota of say "5 games a year" they'd have less options to spread that out over. Maybe TV ratings would go up for the games if there were less of them and therefore they mattered more.

coolwaterunc said:
Wanna speed up the game? Stop making the umps go put on headphones and listen to the replay center for a 30 minute replay review.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There should be a dedicated MLB official (spare ump or whatever) who's only job is to listen to the replay center and signal the call to the umps on the field to speed up the review process.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I do think the time duration is a factor, granted not the main factor. For a game that starts at 8pm, for someone who has to go to bed at a reasonable hour to get up for work in the morning (say 11pm) they're not going to bother watching the game if they think they'll have to go to bed in the 7th inning without seeing the end because it drags on too long.
Click to expand...
Okay, but at what point do you stop tinkering with your sport and just say "you know what, let's maximize what we can deliver to our current fans and not lose them, rather than trying to draw in non-fans or casual fans."

Because if you add a pitch clock and shit, you're going to turn off the hardcore fans. A pitch clock is so anti-baseball that it's kinda disgusting. And hell this is me saying this... I never played past little league baseball.

How far do you want to change your sport entirely just for the almighty dollar?
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
Okay, but at what point do you stop tinkering with your sport and just say "you know what, let's maximize what we can deliver to our current fans and not lose them, rather than trying to draw in non-fans or casual fans."

Because if you add a pitch clock and shit, you're going to turn off the hardcore fans. A pitch clock is so anti-baseball that it's kinda disgusting. And hell this is me saying this... I never played past little league baseball.

How far do you want to change your sport entirely just for the almighty dollar?
Click to expand...

The owners would sell the sport down the river for the almighty dollar if they could. If the fans are hardcore fans, they'll gripe about the changes (at least at first until they realize how much time they're actually saving), but they won't abandon the game. And changes that would bring in the more casual fan could be good for the game.

I played baseball up through High School. It had always been my favorite sport to play, and even to watch, until I graduated High School. Then my time became more valuable and I couldn't dedicate 3+ hours 162 days/nights for the season.

Plus, dedicating all that time just to watch a team get swept out in 3 games in the playoffs is beyond frustrating (Red Sox last year). I couldn't imagine investing all that time to watch them lose the 1 game wildcard playoff, or worse, not even make the damn playoffs.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
The owners would sell the sport down the river for the almighty dollar if they could. If the fans are hardcore fans, they'll gripe about the changes (at least at first until they realize how much time they're actually saving), but they won't abandon the game. And changes that would bring in the more casual fan could be good for the game.

I played baseball up through High School. It had always been my favorite sport to play, and even to watch, until I graduated High School. Then my time became more valuable and I couldn't dedicate 3+ hours 162 days/nights for the season.

Plus, dedicating all that time just to watch a team get swept out in 3 games in the playoffs is beyond frustrating (Red Sox last year). I couldn't imagine investing all that time to watch them lose the 1 game wildcard playoff, or worse, not even make the damn playoffs.
Click to expand...
A couple things to touch on here:

1. When you say you can't dedicate 3 hours a day for 162 days....I honestly think you're not supposed to. And MLB knows this. Baseball is the ultimate background sport. I put the game on when I get home and I'll leave it on while I make dinner, do stuff I need to get done, work out, or whatever. If I need to go to the store, I'll pop the game on the radio while I'm out. You kinda just let baseball wash over you (but in a good way) while you go about your life.

2. I agree 100% on the stupidity of a 5- or 7-game playoff series after an 162 game season. I know @coolwaterunc and I have discussed this a lot. I'd be completely in favor of just going to a balanced schedule and having a pennant race in each league. One team wins the National League, one team wins the American League. And then they meet up in a Best of 11 World Series that lasts roughly 2/3rds of a month. Eliminate Interleague play and restore the mystique of pulling for "your" league, be it National or American.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
TarHeelNation11 said:
A couple things to touch on here:

1. When you say you can't dedicate 3 hours a day for 162 days....I honestly think you're not supposed to. And MLB knows this. Baseball is the ultimate background sport. I put the game on when I get home and I'll leave it on while I make dinner, do stuff I need to get done, work out, or whatever. If I need to go to the store, I'll pop the game on the radio while I'm out. You kinda just let baseball wash over you (but in a good way) while you go about your life.

2. I agree 100% on the stupidity of a 5- or 7-game playoff series after an 162 game season. I know @coolwaterunc and I have discussed this a lot. I'd be completely in favor of just going to a balanced schedule and having a pennant race in each league. One team wins the National League, one team wins the American League. And then they meet up in a Best of 11 World Series that lasts roughly 2/3rds of a month. Eliminate Interleague play and restore the mystique of pulling for "your" league, be it National or American.
Click to expand...

True, baseball is the best sport to passively pay attention to.

Your proposal in 2. could be good. Maybe shorten the regular season and have the top two teams in each league play in a 7 game CS and then followed by a 9 or 11 game WS. Longer series would do better to ensure that the better team actually won, as opposed to something like we saw out of the Giants when Bumgarner got 3 of their 4 wins or whatever he did. No way a pitcher is getting 5 of 6 wins in an 11 game series.

I think interleague play should be eliminated until the NL finally catches up with the times and adopts the DH. The home team has way too much of an advantage the way its currently set up. Once they adopt the DH though, maybe they could throw some interleague games back in.

TarHeelNation11 said:
an 162 game season.
Click to expand...

As an aside, is this how you're supposed to write this (with "an")? If you wrote it out, the word starts with a vowel so I can see that, but the sound it makes is that of a "w" so I wasn't sure.

I defer to you on all things grammar so just trying to get some knowledge here.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I think interleague play should be eliminated until the NL finally catches up with the times and adopts the DH.
Click to expand...
Die.

Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
As an aside, is this how you're supposed to write this (with "an")? If you wrote it out, the word starts with a vowel so I can see that, but the sound it makes is that of a "w" so I wasn't sure.

I defer to you on all things grammar so just trying to get some knowledge here.
Click to expand...
It's a gray area. For words that start with a vowel, you don't always precede them with "an." In this case, in my head I pronounced 162 as "a hundred sixty-two"....thus why I used "an" to go before "a hundred." If you pronounced it "one hundred" you'd precede it with an "a."

Another example, the following is correct though it may look wrong:

"He is a UNC student"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
TarHeelNation11 said:
2. I agree 100% on the stupidity of a 5- or 7-game playoff series after an 162 game season. I know @coolwaterunc and I have discussed this a lot. I'd be completely in favor of just going to a balanced schedule and having a pennant race in each league. One team wins the National League, one team wins the American League. And then they meet up in a Best of 11 World Series that lasts roughly 2/3rds of a month. Eliminate Interleague play and restore the mystique of pulling for "your" league, be it National or American.
Click to expand...
I like this, but you and I both know it would never work. The biggest reason for this is the scenario where there are 1-2 great teams in a league that are head and shoulders above anyone else. Those two teams' games are essentially the only games that matter throughout the entire season. That third place team, which is a good team in its own right, is playing for nothing for the remainder of the year going into June. Just not good, IMO. Baseball thrives on close pennant races, hence the addition of the second wild card team, which I hate but it does drive interest. Here's what I would do. Like your suggestion, drop divisions and just have the National League and the American League. That way, you don't have the .500 San Diego Padres making the playoffs, which is an embarrassment. Take the top five teams of each league and start the playoffs, with the first place teams getting a first round bye. Best of 7 throughout, so definitely no best of 5's or, even worse, that one-game playoff debacle for the two wild cards. Solves a lot of problems, IMO, while still keeping the excitement throughout the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010 and TarHeelNation11
coolwaterunc said:
I like this, but you and I both know it would never work. The biggest reason for this is the scenario where there are 1-2 great teams in a league that are head and shoulders above anyone else. Those two teams' games are essentially the only games that matter throughout the entire season. That third place team, which is a good team in its own right, is playing for nothing for the remainder of the year going into June. Just not good, IMO. Baseball thrives on close pennant races, hence the addition of the second wild card team, which I hate but it does drive interest. Here's what I would do. Like your suggestion, drop divisions and just have the National League and the American League. That way, you don't have the .500 San Diego Padres making the playoffs, which is an embarrassment. Take the top five teams of each league and start the playoffs, with the first place teams getting a first round bye. Best of 7 throughout, so definitely no best of 5's or, even worse, that one-game playoff debacle for the two wild cards. Solves a lot of problems, IMO, while still keeping the excitement throughout the season.
Click to expand...
I dig it.
 
coolwaterunc said:
Take the top five teams of each league and start the playoffs, with the first place teams getting a first round bye. Best of 7 throughout, so definitely no best of 5's or, even worse, that one-game playoff debacle for the two wild cards. Solves a lot of problems, IMO, while still keeping the excitement throughout the season.
Click to expand...

Do the 1st place teams get double byes in your scenario? Fine by me, as it would put a lot of importance on the regular season.

But if you have top 5 make it, then have the 1st place team get a bye, you're left with 3 teams in each league after the first round.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
Do the 1st place teams get double byes in your scenario? Fine by me, as it would put a lot of importance on the regular season.

But if you have top 5 make it, then have the 1st place team get a bye, you're left with 3 teams in each league after the first round.
Click to expand...
They'd have to in a 5-team (per league) situation. I'd dig that setup for sure. Makes the regular season very meaningful for probably 60% of the league, if you figure 8 teams in each league (and that number is conservative) will vie for a playoff spot
 
Another thing that would never happen due to money (and other things) but would be awesome if it did would be contraction. Cut 3 teams from each league that are perpetual cellar dwellers and/or have crappy following/attendance and make each league 12 teams. The quality of team would be so much better in that scenario.

My cut votes:
AL: Rays, A's, Twins
NL: Marlins, Dbacks, Padres
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
Do the 1st place teams get double byes in your scenario? Fine by me, as it would put a lot of importance on the regular season.

But if you have top 5 make it, then have the 1st place team get a bye, you're left with 3 teams in each league after the first round.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they would. haha It's Friday, and I'm not supposed to think. Double byes would be a huge reward for first place teams, which I'm perfectly okay with, but the big issue you'd have with that is the team wouldn't play any games for two entire playoffs series. That would play way too big of a factor for it to really work, IMO. The advantage would clearly go to the team that's been playing games. Maybe it should go to 6 teams with top two receiving byes or four teams with no byes.
 
Well, if you guys are saying pitchers should hit in baseball for the humor of it, then I see your point. That's definitely a good way to get interest in the game - by having a comedy show every 9th batter.



P.S. - #teamDD ad in the background.... sucks for team KK
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
Well, if you guys are saying pitchers should hit in baseball for the humor of it, then I see your point. That's definitely a good way to get interest in the game - by having a comedy show every 9th batter.



P.S. - #teamDD ad in the background.... sucks for team KK
Click to expand...
Call me crazy, but I think a player should actually have to get off their ass for more than five minutes in a game. A DH barely meets the definition of a baseball player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coolwaterunc
Yankees have A LOT of young talent. Look out for them in the fall. I think they're another year or two from being an "actual" contender, but if their pitching staff stays healthy?!

Ok sorry. Back to yalls Braves bs.
 
watching the stadium tour on tv...it doesn't look like there's much difference in suntrust and turner field...i missed the beginning of it, though.

are there any character differences bewtween the parks?...right field wall looks higher...anything else?
 
gteeitup said:
watching the stadium tour on tv...it doesn't look like there's much difference in suntrust and turner field...i missed the beginning of it, though.

are there any character differences bewtween the parks?...right field wall looks higher...anything else?
Click to expand...
It's the complete opposite of Turner. I'm so excited to check out the park. I can see it from my apartment.

One major difference is right field is higher but also shorter. 375 to power alley instead of 390. Freeman literally just hit a homer there as I'm typing this. Good recap of changes in this article.

Also the capacity has significantly been scaled down and the seating is much tighter to improve sightlines.
 
Ball looks like it's carrying really well so far. The Braves PTB want/wanted to make SunTrust Park still a "fair" park for both hitters and pitchers, but they wanted to make it much more fair to hitters than Turner was. As Freeman and many others have said, they never hit a cheap homer in Turner.
 
the cap is terrible...tell me that's spring training gear...that tomahawk makes it like it's from spencer's.
 
gteeitup said:
syndergaard looks like a complete f'n douchetool with that hair.
Click to expand...
Bumgarner don't look much better with his trailer park hair, but them Southern boys can pitch.

It's an effing crime that a country legend like Bumgarner pitches for Left Coast Giants instead of the Braves. I also wish he had followed through with his commit to Carolina (obviously he made the right choice, I'm just being selfish)
 
Any and all updates are welcome! Because of MLB's archaic radio broadcast rules, I *can't* stream the game on the radio, but I *can* walk (literally) 35 feet out of my office into my car and turn on the same radio station and hear the game.
 
how long before ron washington takes over?

seriously, i can't stand this hanging on to old days/ways...i realize snitker is liked, but why wouldn't they clean house?...was it based on the finish down the stretch last year?

phillips with the first hit of the year for the braves.
 
gteeitup said:
how long before ron washington takes over?

seriously, i can't stand this hanging on to old days/ways...i realize snitker is liked, but why wouldn't they clean house?...was it based on the finish down the stretch last year?

phillips with the first hit of the year for the braves.
Click to expand...
From every thing I've seen and read and heard, Copollela (the GM) and Hart had every intention of replacing Snitker but then a few things happened that made it so they changed their mind:

1. The final half of the season. We played .500 baseball starting in mid July and then we finished the last 30 with a .667 winning pct. If you wanna play Devil's advocate and say all of that winning coincided with the Matt Kemp trade, you wouldn't be wrong.

2. Freddie Freeman -- who for better or worse is the bell cow that the Braves front office is going to ride with -- really went to bat for Snitker and made it clear he wanted Snitker to be retained. He said it publicly and went to Coppy behind closed doors as well.

3. Word got out that Coppy was interviewing Bud Black for the job. I don't know if this was intentional as a "test the waters" of what the fanbase thinks about it, but it was NOT well received by Braves Country. Local radio went nuts about it and slammed the potential move.

All that being said, they only put Snit on a one-year deal, so who knows what the long term managerial plan is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

David Sisk

A different thought about the roster and how to game manage it

Replies
26
Views
1K
Four Corners
Newoikkin
N
NorCalTarheel

Razor Thin Margin for Error

Replies
63
Views
3K
Tar Heel Radar
TPFKAPFS
T
RobJones__

Random Rex Chapman / UNC Story

Replies
6
Views
319
Four Corners
RobJones__
RobJones__
Maddrummer

Coach Cal . Typical NO SHAME !

Replies
0
Views
356
Four Corners
Maddrummer
Maddrummer
andrew jones
  • Sticky

I will be off the grid for a while today...

Replies
40
Views
757
Four Corners
DSouthr
D
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back