Braves @ Dodgers (Aug 30-Sep 1st)

[CrimsonNagus]

Can we option Snit to Gwinnett?

 

[81usaf92]

I've always thought making pitching decisions based striclty on R vs L or L vs R is moronic.

You firstly go with who has the hotter hand and/or how they have fared vs individual batters in the past.

A good hitter is going to hit. Unless you have Mariana Rivera in there then a pitcher isn’t going to have a decisive advantage coming in relief. Because all these guys have seen 100 mph fastballs and weird curveballs. There is a reason that relievers are relievers. You go with the hot hand and live with the consequences.

 

[81usaf92]

Can we option Snit to Gwinnett?

No he is more suited for Pearle

 

[81usaf92]

Snitker is the biggest coward in the game and the manager that watches the most baseball. He is like all the dumb Alabama fans who can’t be satisfied dominating people. I swear I have never seen a manager have so much of an impact on a game than Brian Snitker.

August 31st Bottom 7th: I need some excitement so I’m going to let Jackson face Bellinger instead of Matzek

Snitker September 1st bottom of 8th: seeing Matzek vs Turner is boring after he just struck out mookie let’s spice things up with Martin.

If I was Morton and Fried I would give him the same treatment Brett Hart gave Vince after Montreal. Because Snitker screwed up 2 great outings against an elite lineup.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Glad I did not bother and went to bed early.

 

[bvandegraff]

Snitker is the opposite of that old adage about Bear Bryant. Snitker can take his and lose to yours, and can take yours and lose to his. Don't expect him to be replaced anytime soon by someone with an IQ above 15, though, because the Denver-based corporate ownership of the Braves doesn't have winning championships at the top of its priority list. They only want to field a reasonably competitive team on the cheap - the team is just one item in a portfolio.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It's not like they need the help....I mean, they signed 2 key players to the Nats' 2019 WS title as if they were on sale at Walmart.

That's the thing.

NOBODY denies that the Dodgers are a fine organization and a good team, basically like the Braves of the 90s (with the same almost bare trophy case).

I don't know how old you are (sorry, hey hey), but if you're old enough to remember when NBC showed "MLB Game of the Week" every Saturday, we have all those fans who wax nostalgic about how "I remember when that one game we got every week was a big deal."

Puh-leeze. It was terrible. Yeah, we got one game per week (until Billionaire Ted shared the Braves with the world), and of the 26 Saturdays we got games, 23 of them would always be:
Yankees
Dodgers
Mets
Cubs
Red Sox (they were a bit higher in the late 70s because they were decent while the Mets were terrible).

If you were a Mariners fan, your only hope of seeing your team was they were playing the Yankees that week. Fact is that baseball has been all but honest about saying, "We hope the Dodgers and Yankees play in the World Series every year."

Free agency comes in 1976. We have NO REPEAT champions from 1978-1992. In those 15 different baseball seasons, we had 13 different champions, something that never happened in the entire history of MLB. The Yankees don't win a series for 18 years - and they only make it once because baseball wants them in the 1981 playoffs thanks to a "split season" concept. (As Tony LaRussa - then an unknown manager of the White Sox - noted, they never would have gone for that guarantee if the division winners weren't LA and NY).

So the Yankees can't win, but Steinbrenner cries every year about "how is it fair that the Royals won the 1985 WS when they would have finished fifth in the AL East?" At which point Bud "Molehill" Selig ruins baseball with the wildcard concept and reduces the regular season to virtually uselessness.

Do you really think it's a coincidence that the moment they added the wildcard, the Yankees suddenly began winning left and right? Yes, I know that wasn't the ONLY reason - in fact, the Yankees dynasty was put into motion by Steinbrenner getting banned for three years and not running off all the good players, too. So, not to take anything away from the Yankees (who were undoubtedly the best in baseball in 98-99), but they were not in 1996, 1997, or 2000.

Then they invented the play-in game - aka the "let's make sure Boston/New York/Los Angeles...ONE of them at least....makes the playoffs every year."

I figure one day they'll just scrap the season entirely and play the Yankees-Red Sox best of 162 World Series every year. Notice this is not in blue font.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Snitker is the opposite of that old adage about Bear Bryant. Snitker can take his and lose to yours, and can take yours and lose to his. Don't expect him to be replaced anytime soon by someone with an IQ above 15, though, because the Denver-based corporate ownership of the Braves doesn't have winning championships at the top of its priority list. They only want to field a reasonably competitive team on the cheap - the team is just one item in a portfolio.

Liberty media cares about "Manager of the Year" trophies. Snitker will probably win that this year because the voters are idiots.

 

[CB4]

Well it was about what I thought over the last 8 games - 2-6. In fairness, I thought we would drop both to the Yankees and take one game each from the Giants and Dodgers.
It is close games against quality teams that usually “tells the tale”. Go back and look at these three against the Dodgers, especially the last two. Those are the “25% of games” during the course of a 162 game season where managerial decisions make the difference.
I’m done. CFB has started and, as big of Braves fan as I am, I have other things to occupy my time now. Even if they hold on to the East and make the playoffs, Snit will find a way to screw it up.

 

[81usaf92]

Liberty media cares about "Manager of the Year" trophies. Snitker will probably win that this year because the voters are idiots.

Aaron Boone or Girardi probably win it. But Snitker will get idiot votes “well he did the best with what he had available”. Well I’m reminded that Shula was doing the best with what he had too and the constant “well you may not like the replacement” arguments.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I guess it's kind of tempting to think the 80s and my development were a golden age of baseball, but the Boomers think the same thing, and they're crazy. Simply look at who played in the World Series. From 1947-1964, there were 36 slots available in the World Series, and it was almost as one-sided as the CFP is now.

New York Yankees - 15 slots
Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers - 8 slots
New York Giants - 3 slots

So 26 of the 36 World Series slots in an 18-year span were taken up by three teams all located in the SAME AMERICAN CITY. The Polo Grounds (Giants) was 11 miles from Ebbets Field (Dodgers), which was 18 miles from Yankee Stadium.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that the REST of the large country was enthralled with this setup?

If you didn't live in NYC in that period, you didn't count. Period. Bear in mind that Brooklyn lost the 1950 pennant in the last inning of the season to Philadelphia, and the Yankees won 103 games but didn't win the pennant in 1954.

Football passed baseball as the nation's number one sport in the late 60s and what did baseball decide the problem was? "Well, that's when CBS bought the Yankees, and they weren't any good (1965-75)." Except as football proved, parity was good.

Of course, I've been two-faced on this issue, too. When the Braves were dominant (in the NL anyway) in the 90s, I'd hear all the whining about how "KC and Pittsburgh can't compete with big money teams like Atlanta." Which was hilarious because when Atlanta was awful, these same morons would say, "It's what you DO with the money that matters, and the Braves are run by idiots" (which was true).

The moment Atlanta became as regular as a 72-year old after his morning coffee, everyone started crying.

We've had two ultra-competitive/parity eras in baseball:
1978-1994
2002-present

And that's a big reason why they have to make sure these guys make the playoffs.

 

[81usaf92]

Of course, I've been two-faced on this issue, too. When the Braves were dominant (in the NL anyway) in the 90s, I'd hear all the whining about how "KC and Pittsburgh can't compete with big money teams like Atlanta." Which was hilarious because when Atlanta was awful, these same morons would say, "It's what you DO with the money that matters, and the Braves are run by idiots" (which was true).

Anyone that ever suggests the Braves are a poor team or that Liberty is the main issue really hasn’t researched what the Braves actually spend on the team. 20% of winning a WS is because of ownership, 20% is because of what is on the field, and 20% is because of a manager. The other 40% is because decisions made by the GM.

All the Braves fans saying that Liberty Liberty Liberty fail to realize that the Royals have played for two World Series in the last 10 years. The Royals that have constantly been pillaged by the Yankees and Sox.

This is what competent GM, a competent manager, and a good team did with an insanely small budget

 

[bvandegraff]

Anyone that ever suggests the Braves are a poor team or that Liberty is the main issue really hasn’t researched what the Braves actually spend on the team. 20% of winning a WS is because of ownership, 20% is because of what is on the field, and 20% is because of a manager. The other 40% is because decisions made by the GM.

All the Braves fans saying that Liberty Liberty Liberty fail to realize that the Royals have played for two World Series in the last 10 years. The Royals that have constantly been pillaged by the Yankees and Sox.

This is what competent GM, a competent manager, and a good team did with an insanely small budget
View attachment 18524

I'll say Anthopolous deserves some credit for some good pickups at the deadline. Pederson, Soler, Rodriguez, and last night Rosario, along with guys like Ynoa and D'arnaud coming off the DL have allowed the Braves to finally win the games they should, even with Snitker having no idea how to arrange them in a lineup or how to use basic analytics to deploy his bullpen properly. (AA deserves less credit for the Will Smith and Drew Smyly signings, though). Unfortunately, part of the "Braves Way" is to hang on to managers way past their use-by date, which in Snitker's case was 5 years before he took the helm in Atlanta.

Of course, those pickups were nothing like LA breaking open their bottomless piggy bank to acquire Scherzer and Trae Turner, who, to be honest, they didn't even really need. Roberts is as bad as Snitker, but his margin for error is enormous because there are no holes in his roster.

 

[CB4]

I wish Walt would walk over to Snitker after about the 4th inning of each game, hand him a jello tapioca pudding cup and plastic spoon and say “here…enjoy a snack and get a nap. I’ll take it from here….”

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The Braves-Dodgers pretty much always ends the same way. The only actual exceptions are 1991 and 1996. Otherwise, they've pwned us through history.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I want to have hope, I guess.

The Yankees owned the Red Sox from the moment they snagged Babe Ruth until that incredible 2004 comeback from 0-3. Ever since then the Red Sox have owned the Yankees. (I'm serious - the Sox NEVER got the best of the Yanks EVER for all those years. Yeah, the Sox won some pennants...when the Yankees were terrible teams, but never when they were the two top dogs).

I wish Atlanta could do the same thing. OK, Atlanta DID edge the Dodgers in 1982, I failed to mention that one, but we all knew it was a fluke.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Just to show I'm not exaggerating (by much anyway), here's the 1979 NBC Game of the Week schedule culled from the TV listings of the era. Reminder of what I said:

I don't know how old you are (sorry, hey hey), but if you're old enough to remember when NBC showed "MLB Game of the Week" every Saturday, we have all those fans who wax nostalgic about how "I remember when that one game we got every week was a big deal."

Puh-leeze. It was terrible. Yeah, we got one game per week (until Billionaire Ted shared the Braves with the world), and of the 26 Saturdays we got games, 23 of them would always be:
Yankees
Dodgers
Mets
Cubs
Red Sox (they were a bit higher in the late 70s because they were decent while the Mets were terrible)

Now, I would modify this only slightly. Cubs and Mets games were more common in the 1980s when they were good and the Reds were....not like they were in the 70s. My point, though, is still correct: they only showed a few teams.

April 7 - Yankees vs Brewers
April 14 - Cardinals vs Pirates
April 21 - Royals vs Red Sox
April 28 - Dodgers vs Mets (Cardinals vs Reds is alternate game)
May 5 - A's vs Yankees
May 12 - Mariners vs Red Sox
May 19 - Angels vs Yankees (Reds vs Pirates is alternate game)
May 26 - Reds vs Dodgers (regional: Giants vs Braves)
June 2 - Phillies vs Reds
June 9 - Yankees vs Royals
June 16 - Royals vs Brewers
June 23 - Giants vs Reds
June 30 - Red Sox vs Yankees
July 7 - Tigers vs Brewers (alternate is Indians vs Twins)
July 14 - Dodgers vs Phillies (alternate is Twins vs Blue Jays)
July 21 - Astros vs Pirates (alternate is A's vs Yankees)
July 28 - Reds vs Braves (alternate is Cubs vs Mets)
August 4 - Regional Saturday but most folks get Red Sox vs Brewers
August 11 - Red Sox vs Brewers
August 18 - Red Sox vs White Sox (alternate is Braves-Expos)
August 25 - Reds vs Mets (alternate is Red Sox-Royals)
September 1 - Royals vs Yankees (alternate is Red Sox-Rangers)
September 8 - Red Sox vs Orioles
September 15 - Reds vs Dodgers
September 22 - Pirates vs Cubs (alternate is Red Sox vs Tigers)
September 29 - Reds vs Braves

Okay, so in 1979, there were 26 games on "NBC Game of the Week." TWENTY-ONE of the 26 games shown nationally featured one of four teams - Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, or Reds.

Look, I get that they want ratings, and to be fair not ALL of these choices were wrong, either. For example, Carl Yastrzemski had 2,998 hits going into the September 8 game with the Orioles, who had the best record in baseball. And at that time, only 14 other players had 3,000 hits, so it was a big deal. My point is not "every selection was wrong."

What I'm trying to point out is that back then - when we hear all the nostalgia:
1) you got TWO games per week at most, one on Saturday and ABC's Monday Night Baseball
2) ABC gave a slightly better lineup of teams but not much better
3) if you were a fan of the Indians or Twins or Blue Jays - better hope you're playing the Yankees or Red Sox (you know...like nowadays with ESPN)
4) you got the same teams over and over

This is why Ted Turner putting the Braves on WTBS was so huge. Imagine being a Padres fan and you go from "I have to hope we play the Reds early in the year or we won't be on TV" (notice they're not there) to "wow, we play the Braves 18 times and WTBS is showing 15 of our games this year!"

We remember it better than it was, and nobody in his right mind wants to go back to that telecasting of games. In fact, NBC got sued for breach of contract because they cut away early from the Braves-Reds game on July 28 to show a sports festival. The score was 8-6 and highly competitive for the time.

 

[Padreruf]

To break in a bit...Selma -- update on your uncle and aunt?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

To break in a bit...Selma -- update on your uncle and aunt?

I've heard nothing at all today.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Let's see if we notice a continuing trend......the lead broadcast went to basically everywhere but the local markets of those two teams....

1980 "MLB GAME OF THE WEEK" TELECASTS

Note: the first telecast (barring a regional day) was shown to about 80% of the country; I'm only counting the lead telecast but notice how often the same names are the backup game. When a contest was rained out, the entire country got the game not rained out.

April 12 - Yankees vs Rangers (or depending on area, Dodgers vs Astros)*
April 19 - Red Sox vs Rangers (or Pirates vs Cardinals)
April 26 - Orioles vs Royals or Red Sox vs Tigers
May 3 - Dodgers vs Phillies or Cubs vs Reds
May 10 - Phillies vs Reds (or Orioles-Brewers)
May 17 - Reds vs Expos (or Orioles-Tigers)
May 24 - Dodgers vs Cubs or Indians vs Red Sox
May 31 - Brewers vs Red Sox or Phillies vs Cubs
June 7 - Cardinals vs Expos or Pirates vs Mets
June 14 - Red Sox vs Angels or Yankees vs A's
June 21 - Red Sox vs Angels or Cardinals vs Reds
June 28 - Red Sox vs Orioles or Tigers vs Blue Jays
July 5 - Red Sox vs Orioles or Astros vs Reds
Jully 12 - Cardinals vs Mets or Brewers vs Blue Jays
July 19 - Dodgers vs Pirates or Twins vs Red Sox
July 26 - Red Sox vs Twins or Reds vs Mets
August 2 - Angels vs Blue Jays or Cubs vs Giants
August 9 - Phillies vs Pirates or White Sox vs Red Sox
August 16 - Reds vs Dodgers or Expos vs Pirates
August 23 - Yankees vs Angels or Orioles vs A's
August 30 - Reds vs Pirates or Rangers vs Royals
September 6 - Reds vs Cubs or Pirates vs Braves
September 13 - Yankees vs Red Sox or Pirates vs Expos
September 20 - Expos vs Cardinals or Yankees vs Red Sox
September 27 -Expos vs Phillies or Reds vs Astros
October 4 - Expos vs Phillies or Braves vs Reds

Total Telecasts? 26
Telecasts With AT LEAST one of the "Big Four"? 18
Percentage? 69.2%
Telecasts where at least one of the Big 4 was on as alternative game not included: 3

And then remember that the only reason this year was lower is because the Expos were in first place on September 15. Without that, we'd have gotten more of the four.

Same teams. Every damned week.

The Red Sox finished NINETEEN GAMES out of first place and were the lead game EIGHT times (nearly 1/3)


* - a Dallas rainstorm prevented the Yankees-Rangers game from being played so the national TV audience was forced to endure the Dodgers vs Astros. Endure - as the game went 17 innings and lasted more than 5 1/2 hours. It cut into the prime time network TV and got 210 calls complaining that the TV show "BJ and the Bear" wasn't on. Just remember...this was the same network that got blasted for cutting away from an NFL game to show "Heidi." If you don't know what "BJ and the Bear" was about...it was this moronic show with this good looking guy who named his monkey "Bear" after "Bear Bryant" and rode around the country in a big rig that looked like the car from "Starsky and Hutch" on 18 wheels. He'd score with babe after babe, but he never left his monkey. Indeed, he spent a lot of time....I'll leave it at that!