Metaloctopus

quote:

---

Aranda’s last year here wasn’t the best

He luvs zone more than Blake

Blake will figure it out….still a young coach

---

Aranda's last year here didn't start well. But here's something that did happen, that our defenses haven't been able to do since: They got better... A LOT better. They completely shut down A&M, Georgia, Oklahoma (their 28 points was misleading considering how many possessions they had, with our offense scoring so quickly and so often) and Clemson.

I'd take that guy back as DC in a second.

quote:

---

People believing Cignetti is the new norm are stupid.

---

If you're Kentucky and you're expecting to make the playoffs year one, you could say this. But when you're a program like LSU and you hire a coach who's supposed to be elite, and you pay him 90 million dollars, and you spend 45 million, or whatever it was on the roster, you should absolutely expect to make a 12 team playoff.

How soft do we need to be as a fan base, if we can't expect a program that has won a championship with three different head coaches in the past 23 years, to make a 12 team playoff? That's a layup in comparison to how hard it used to be. But here we are, and we can't even beat Kentucky.

quote:

---

We come up with monikers like 3rd and Chavis for terrible defenses what do we call this? Baked Baker? The Red Sea defense because it’ll part in the clutch?

---

How about Baker's doesn't?

quote:

---

This is becoming less true by the day.

---

You saying it is becoming less true is not evidence of it becoming less true. It can only ever learn what information is fed into it. God gave people minds to learn. Machines don't have minds.

quote:

---

And guess who was the 1st poster in the ATL thread that said to trade Acuna? Years ago. And guess what. Yall laughed and mocked me then. And look who all is agreeing with me about trading his bitch arse today

---

I've been tired of Acuna's antics and lack of clutch hitting for years. I said earlier this year that it would be in our best interests, in my opinion, to trade him while we still can, because there is no way we should pay him what he'll want, and he can't even stay healthy, anyway.

One particular person just punted on addressing the issue and argued that we had bigger problems. if we extend Acuna, or let him walk for nothing, that will be a much bigger problem than anyone else on this roster, including Riley. We can't trade Riley. We can trade Ronald, and should. Some team out there will offer us more than we really should get for him, and we'll need those assets to start plugging our lineup holes.

I like Matt sometimes, but I notice he has a lot of "hot takes" like this that totally seem to miss the mark. Of course social security is a scheme. It's a socialist policy, what else would you expect? But claiming that old people are stealing from young people? Does he even know how SS works? You have to earn enough work credits in your lifetime to even qualify for checks when you retire. They've had their money taken from them for their entire working lives, and now that they want their money that was taken from them, that makes them thieves of younger people? Why? Everyone is playing by these rules, young and old.

And I'm so tired of the "you boomers voted for this" argument. Is every "boomer" at fault? Do conservative boomers not deserve their money because liberal boomers voted for something that was bad? What's the answer then, Matt? Screw the old people, because younger people somehow shouldn't have to deal with what everyone else does? And by the way, didn't social security come before boomers existed? I don't get it.

And I'm Matt's age, so I'm not saying this from a senior citizen's perspective. I just don't know why he goes down these rabbit holes and tries to sound like some tough guy who's telling it like it is, but making no sense in the process.

quote:

---

You're coming off as someone who likes to hear themselves talk. VADawg and Broski laid it out for you but you don't want to say this offense is lacking a lot for some reason and then respond by filibustering with a long post that says the same thing over and over again.

The Braves offense had ample opportunity to put the game away today and failed to do so by stranding a boatload of runners on base with less than 2 outs. It's a problem that has been plaguing this team for multiple years now,

This isn't 2023 anymore, the home run defense doesn't fly anymore, literally.

---

If you can read a thread involving the person I was talking to and conclude that I come off as someone who likes to hear himself talk, then you aren't paying attention. My point was clear. I at no point avoided saying what YOU want me to say about this offense. I "laid it out" for both of those posters what this offense is, and one of them wants to argue till he's blue in the face that I somehow defended the offense, when all I said is that those other teams were lucky to get good matchups, and that a lot of these teams have the same offensive problems.

Saying other teams have problems is not equal to saying "we're good, nothing to see here". But somehow, a couple of you seem to take it that way. Ok, friend. You want to pile on and argue with me that we're the only struggling offense who relies on home runs? How did the Phillies win the game yesterday?

Welcome to modern day offense. I don't like it any more than you do. But here we are, and I am somehow being controversial for pointing it out.

quote:

---

Then you should understand why living and dying on the home run and only the home run is a recipe for a short postseason.

Again, there is no better statistic to qualify an offense than wOBA, and ours is bad... our offense is bad.

Sorry to tell you.

---

Your entire problem is that you are so bent on being a contrarian, that you can almost never see the point that people are making. I never said this was a "good" offense. I just finished telling you that I have said for years that it's not a good playoff formula. But it's a formula that works enough when you aren't facing elite pitching all the time, which is WHY I said that those other teams were lucky with their matchups. We're not getting those kind of matchups. and don't figure to get them the rest of the way, either.

You totally let my point blow right over your head, and went straight into beating a strawman point that I never argued.

quote:

---

A toddler that understands the nuance of advanced metrics.


Sorry that you don't.

---

I understand metrics. Those help you understand variances over smaller and longer sample sizes. We're talking about an entire season. Advanced metrics don't say that this team is anything other than what their runs scored say they are.

They are weighed down by a low on base percentage, but held up by a high slugging percentage. It's not a good formula for playoff baseball, and I've said that for years. But we won game 1 by doing what we've done all year

quote:

---

You brought a chopstick (runs) to a bazooka fight.

---

A bazooka fight? Arguing with you is like arguing with a toddler. You are a self absorbed, know-nothing, blow hard. Only you think you ever "win" an argument.

quote:

---

Oh my goodness

---

And there he goes, ladies and gentlemen. Ignoring statistical facts that show what ignorant narrative he's pushing at a given moment to be either completely false, or highly exaggerated, and he responds with a laughing emoji.

You're a child.