Yes, it does. Just being honest. Watching way too many close pitches in those situations, especially this year.
To put some perspective on where the Braves are, for the layman if you will down here in our part of the country that might get, oh, a little too excited about a bad spell: They've played 31 of 162 games. Less than one-fifth. Kind of like an NFL team having a 2-1 record and having played horrible in that third game following a 2-0 start.
Absolutely, it's a seven-game skid, not a September collapse. Almost every good team in the majors is going to lose 5-8 in a row at some point. But the RISP and the RISP/2 out thing is becoming ridiculous, to the point where you fully expect them to fail in that situation. Shouldn't be like that. And you have to hope it's not in their heads. Of course, even if it is, that can all change with a couple of games where they get 4-5 hits in those situations. Things change, sometimes quickly.
Not like Fredi to stick a young guy so high in the order right away. Wouldn't expect to see La Stella batting leadoff anyway. Not a fast guy -- runs hard and well enough, but not a speed guy for leadoff. And with so little time in high minors and no big-league experience, don't think it'd be wise to hit him in top third of lineup right away.
La Stella. Got to see what he can do. He's 25, not 21.
The most they lost last season was 4 in a row. in 2012, they lost 8 in a row.
I'd probably go, right now: 1. B.J. Upton, 2. Simmons, 3. Heyward, 4. Freeman, 5. JUpton, 6. Gattis, 7. CJohnson, 8. 2B, 9. pitcher
Right now, given B.J.'s greatly increased OBP, etc.?
Did you spend much time on that one?
La Stella is what he is, a high-contact hitter who's hit for average and put up good OBPs at every level, college through the minors. On this team, he could be a real good fit with that, given that they certainly don't need another power guy with a ton of whiffs and low OBP. His defense will probably be similar to Uggla, serviceable. If he hits like he has in minors, doesn't need to hit homers. Gap-to-gap guy. They could use someone who puts the ball in play, particularly with runners on base. Braves brass likes him, wants to give him a chance to see what he can do at this level.
Back end of rotation guy at this point, coming off surgery and in his 30s, etc. Could be rough early on, given some of his rehab results, but in last outing he was much sharper, so maybe he's comfortable now. We'll see. He's got decent/good stuff, showed in spring that he still had that. But he's not a top-of-rotation starter, in my opinion. Hasn't been for some time.
Harang didn't "struggle" last night, he gave up two earned runs. He had one BAD start. One. No, I don't see them dumping him unless or until he has several more simile to Miami. Why is Hale "deserving" of a spot in the rotation more than Harang? Where would team have been early on without Harang?
Unless Braves have really changed their view on this, they much prefer Pena as a utiilty guy, has more value to them in that role. If they move him to second, their No. 1 utiilty guy is ... Pastornicky? Rev's a great dude and I think can grow into role as a solid backup, but right now Pena's so much more versatile and better defensively and also offensively, long as he's used right against certain pitchers, etc. Braves believe those matchups are important to his success, rather than throwing Pena in there every day against every pitcher. Those are two entirely different animals, the backup role where you can look for good situations to play a guy in, or the every day role where he's playing against lefties, righties, pitchers who throw hard or throw junk or whatever.
Yes. Braves made their bed, whether you like the style of bed or think it's garish or whatever. They strike out a ton, but they knew that when they assembled this collection of hitters, and believed the positives would outweight the K's. And they can live with the K's, still, if the team just had a better approach with runners on base, if they could once in a while play fundamentally sound baseball and move a runner over and get him in. That's just common sense, because even when your team is facing a pitcher who's not giving up longballs, you can try to scratch out a run by hitting a grounder to the right side to get him to third and give yourself a chance to get him in by making contact, putting the ball in play.
He didn't sit three times a week for the first month. He played almost every day. Just as he played almost every day last year until the Braves felt they just had to make a change late in the season. C'mon man, you can't say he hasn't had his chances. I love the guy, but he's had a LOT of chances the past 3 yrs to get back to being something close to the hitter he was, if it's going to happen.
Remember when Jaramillo was the hot hitting coach name out there, could do no wrong at Texas? Then he went to the Cubs. You hear his name bandied about as a genius anymore?
Little of everything, but I usually put the responsibility for MLB results on players themselves. Those who think a hitting coach has a great impact -- with rare exceptions, they do not. They get too much credit when things are going great, and too much blame when they're not. Justin Upton knew how to hit long before he came to ATL. A hitting coach isn't going to be responsible for his 12-homer April last year or for his 11 strikeouts in 15 at-bats over his past 4 games.
It's not a "tendency" when he only did it for a handful of games two years ago, and now. I don't think it much matters, to be honest. Just a gimmick type of thing to me, showing you're willing to try something "radical" to get team out of a rut, when it really isn't radical at all. Just radical by staid standards of baseball managers, who don't like to really reinvent the wheel, so to speak.
No, not at all. Laird is a veteran who is comfortable in his station and has a great relationship with Fredi, and thus isn't afraid to say what he feels instead of walking on eggshells or worrying about how everything is perceived, as so many younger players do.
But in answer to your question, I'd say 2 weeks or less would be a good guess, if Uggs doesn't really turn things around.
To be honest, don't know about the timing, as it was unusual for the Braves to do something like that at this point in a season. Unless it was possibly to let him know that, hey, even though you're struggling a bit lately, you're our guy. By doing it now it would kind of reinforce that. Only thing I can think of as a reason to do it now rather than wait a bit.
So no, he's not getting benched for Schafer to play more. Not if B.J. keeps doing what he's been doing past few weeks.
B.J. is making real progress in recent weeks, whether his critics care to recognize it or not. He has a .344 OBP w/ 18 H, 14 BB, 6 SB in past 21 games. I can only surmise that you didn't watch the Braves much last season or the first 2 weeks this season if you don't think that's real progress.
Alright, I've got this Future "Honest" CD playing, so I'll try to be, well, honest. But be reasonable and logical if you want me to address a question. I'm not answering or publishing blatantly rude or disrespectful garbage.