|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 23, 2018 13:16:26 GMT -5
Well, maybe In AAA.
|
|
jryanw
Drafted
Collection of random letters
Posts: 242
Likes: 31
|
Post by jryanw on Jun 25, 2018 6:17:41 GMT -5
Culberson deserves to play. dansby-no. Get out of here with this mess. Culberson is our utility guy nothing more. Be happy he has played well in that role but don't expect more.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Jun 25, 2018 6:51:21 GMT -5
Oz has made some adjustments. I like this less-power, more efficiency Oz.
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 25, 2018 7:06:11 GMT -5
Culberson deserves to play. dansby-no. Get out of here with this mess. Culberson is our utility guy nothing more. Be happy he has played well in that role but don't expect more. who has played better in the past month? I’ll wait.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Jun 25, 2018 8:21:33 GMT -5
Get out of here with this mess. Culberson is our utility guy nothing more. Be happy he has played well in that role but don't expect more. who has played better in the past month? I’ll wait. Fair point, but Culberson is not going to play in front of Dansby for the foreseeable future. Dansby is considered a building block for the team long-term. Like it or not, that's the way it is. If he continues to stink with the bat, that could change, but it's not to that point yet.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 25, 2018 9:04:26 GMT -5
Culbersons OPS is about 300 points higher than Dansby’s over the last five weeks. I get that he is supposed to be the future, but make the kid earn it. That’s not what’s happening when Acuna comes back and Culberson sits.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 25, 2018 9:05:38 GMT -5
Dansby is young. Some time on the bench and being forced to earn his job would do him some good.
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 25, 2018 9:41:16 GMT -5
Baseball is the only sport where draft stock position outweighs performance.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 25, 2018 10:13:58 GMT -5
I didn't mind so much that they sped him through the system, I trusted they knew what they were doing. But at this point we're far enough into it to see that there are some issues with his bat, and just sticking him out there every day no matter what is maybe not the best idea. Especially when he's being out played by a wide margin by other players on the team. Maybe that's just me, but I was raised tough and I raise my kids tough, nobody ever got handed anything. That should be true no matter who you are, in my opinion. I'm not saying he shouldn't play at all or that he should be sent to the minors, but he should be getting plenty of bench time as long as he's struggling and others aren't. I don't mean as a punishment, but as a teachable moment type thing, let him get some perspective and watch some games from the bench.
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 25, 2018 10:37:50 GMT -5
I didn't mind so much that they sped him through the system, I trusted they knew what they were doing. But at this point we're far enough into it to see that there are some issues with his bat, and just sticking him out there every day no matter what is maybe not the best idea. Especially when he's being out played by a wide margin by other players on the team. Maybe that's just me, but I was raised tough and I raise my kids tough, nobody ever got handed anything. That should be true no matter who you are, in my opinion. I'm not saying he shouldn't play at all or that he should be sent to the minors, but he should be getting plenty of bench time as long as he's struggling and others aren't. I don't mean as a punishment, but as a teachable moment type thing, let him get some perspective and watch some games from the bench. That’s been my entire problem with the dansby situation from day 1. He’s never had to earn any of his promotions or his starting job.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Jun 25, 2018 12:25:23 GMT -5
I didn't mind so much that they sped him through the system, I trusted they knew what they were doing. But at this point we're far enough into it to see that there are some issues with his bat, and just sticking him out there every day no matter what is maybe not the best idea. Especially when he's being out played by a wide margin by other players on the team. Maybe that's just me, but I was raised tough and I raise my kids tough, nobody ever got handed anything. That should be true no matter who you are, in my opinion. I'm not saying he shouldn't play at all or that he should be sent to the minors, but he should be getting plenty of bench time as long as he's struggling and others aren't. I don't mean as a punishment, but as a teachable moment type thing, let him get some perspective and watch some games from the bench. That’s been my entire problem with the dansby situation from day 1. He’s never had to earn any of his promotions or his starting job. I don't disagree with either of you. I'm not defending Dansby, but his defense and his speed both play pretty well. If the bat doesn't come around, though, it's time for some tough love, so to speak. He's had almost 2 years of ML time, and it's been a steady regression since his first exposure in 2016 (which was at the tail end of a losing season, which undoubtedly made it easier to put up good stats). It's put up or shut up time for Lieutenant Dan, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jun 25, 2018 14:25:01 GMT -5
Why even have set starters at all? If you struggle, you sit. Amirite?
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 25, 2018 15:06:45 GMT -5
Why even have set starters at all? If you struggle, you sit. Amirite? Exactly, but Bobby Cox started it and it's been around since--guys get jobs and roles handed to them at the start of the season, and it's theirs. The end.
The thinking is that a guy can relax and just play, without the pressure of having to perform well. It works for some people and not for others. When it's not working, it needs to be adjusted. But it isn't.
It becomes worse to me when other guys are performing well and then sit. It's one thing if you're going to be a 70-92 team and don't have any players who could really do much better anyway, but we're beyond that point. This is for real now.
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jun 25, 2018 15:15:07 GMT -5
Why even have set starters at all? If you struggle, you sit. Amirite? Exactly, but Bobby Cox started it and it's been around since--guys get jobs and roles handed to them at the start of the season, and it's theirs. The end.
The thinking is that a guy can relax and just play, without the pressure of having to perform well. It works for some people and not for others. When it's not working, it needs to be adjusted. But it isn't.
It becomes worse to me when other guys are performing well and then sit. It's one thing if you're going to be a 70-92 team and don't have any players who could really do much better anyway, but we're beyond that point. This is for real now.
I question the idea of a revolving starting lineup, because since streaks aren't predictive, you have to really base your lineup around larger sample sizes. Hence the reason why Swanson still starts over say Culberson or Camargo.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 25, 2018 15:19:33 GMT -5
Exactly, but Bobby Cox started it and it's been around since--guys get jobs and roles handed to them at the start of the season, and it's theirs. The end.
The thinking is that a guy can relax and just play, without the pressure of having to perform well. It works for some people and not for others. When it's not working, it needs to be adjusted. But it isn't.
It becomes worse to me when other guys are performing well and then sit. It's one thing if you're going to be a 70-92 team and don't have any players who could really do much better anyway, but we're beyond that point. This is for real now.
I question the idea of a revolving starting lineup, because since streaks aren't predictive, you have to really base your lineup around larger sample sizes. Hence the reason why Swanson still starts over say Culberson or Camargo. I don't disagree with that premise, but what large sample size shows that Dansby deserves to be our starting SS EVERY day?
Go back over the last 5 weeks and compare Dansby's numbers to Culberson and Camargo. Five weeks is not a huge sample size, but it is big enough to be significant. If we were talking a week or two, that's different. But it's been a significant period now.
|
|