The Trade Scenario no one has mentioned

[rico43]

What might ought to be remembered is the Dansby Swanson Rule (let's call it that), which in 2015 was created to allow MLB teams to trade that year's draft picks beginning the day after the World Series ends. Before 2015, teams had to wait a year to deal anyone from that June's draft. In the grand scheme of things, that means that just because the Braves don't draft someone doesn't mean they don't have a way of getting them later.

If the Braves wait until the end of the season to, say, trade Teheran, they could easily find some of this year's draft gems available in a package.

I'm not saying that's the way i would go -- I think his trade value will be its highest at the trade deadline -- but the upcoming offseason is going to be nuts.

[nsacpi]

I thought you might be headed somewhere else with your idea for a trade that has not been discussed. The one that comes to mind for me is trading away one of Swanson or Albies if both develop defensively in a way to suggest they can be above average defensive major league shortstops. That would be really the only way of maximizing value from the two of them.

[The Chosen One]

I thought you might be headed somewhere else with your idea for a trade that has not been discussed. The one that comes to mind for me is trading away one of Swanson or Albies if both develop defensively in a way to suggest they can be above average defensive major league shortstops. That would be really the only way of maximizing value from the two of them.

If we keep trading away Curacaon players, sooner or later the next-generation of kids there will never want to sign or play for us.

[smootness]

I thought you might be headed somewhere else with your idea for a trade that has not been discussed. The one that comes to mind for me is trading away one of Swanson or Albies if both develop defensively in a way to suggest they can be above average defensive major league shortstops. That would be really the only way of maximizing value from the two of them.

Heeeeeeeck no.

Their value can absolutely still be maximized with one of them playing 2B. I don't know where that idea came from.

[bravos4evr]

I thought you might be headed somewhere else with your idea for a trade that has not been discussed. The one that comes to mind for me is trading away one of Swanson or Albies if both develop defensively in a way to suggest they can be above average defensive major league shortstops. That would be really the only way of maximizing value from the two of them.

Um, 2nd base value would be helped by their defense if they continue to hit. I wouldn't throw away that potential 6 year value (not to mention the chance of an extension while they are young) Unless the return was all star quality already (and under control )

[nsacpi]

Does anyone think Cal Ripken's value would have been greater playing any position other than short? Andrelton Simmons? Ozzie Smith? Even average or below average fielders like Derek Jeter. If a player can stick at short, then his maximum value is derived from playing him there. Full stop. End of argument.

[auyushu]

Does anyone think Cal Ripken's value would have been greater playing any position other than short? Andrelton Simmons? Ozzie Smith? Even average or below average fielders like Derek Jeter. If a player can stick at short, then his maximum value is derived from playing him there. Full stop. End of argument.

Their value as a player sure, but we are talking about their value to the Braves, that's a different thing altogether. They have far more value as an elite 2B for us than we'd get in trade (barring some GM being an idiot like the Dbacks).

[bravos4evr]

Does anyone think Cal Ripken's value would have been greater playing any position other than short? Andrelton Simmons? Ozzie Smith? Even average or below average fielders like Derek Jeter. If a player can stick at short, then his maximum value is derived from playing him there. Full stop. End of argument.

welll....... it really depends. Jeter's awful defense meant he would have probably provided more value at 2b or 3b once they got A-Rod. For big time defense guys, sure you keep them at SS at all possible. But, if you have two guys who are SS capable, and you have need at 2b AND SS you put the best defender at SS and the other guy at 2b, problem solved! YAY for 6 years of control for 2 solid young middle infielders!

[GovClintonTyree]

Does anyone think Cal Ripken's value would have been greater playing any position other than short? Andrelton Simmons? Ozzie Smith? Even average or below average fielders like Derek Jeter. If a player can stick at short, then his maximum value is derived from playing him there. Full stop. End of argument.

I understand and intellectually agree with your argument.

I don't like it.

[GovClintonTyree]

Heeeeeeeck no.

Their value can absolutely still be maximized with one of them playing 2B. I don't know where that idea came from.

Hey, with the proliferation of shifting we should just slide one to third. They'll play short a third of the time that way.

[nsacpi]

I understand and intellectually agree with your argument.

I don't like it.

I don't like it either. I'm a fan of both Swanson and Albies. But some team will likely have a higher valuation on the one we move to second than the player can realize by staying at second.

[depley]

I think that having Albies and Swanson creates a problem elsewhere, in the outfield you have Inciarte and Mallex Smith, if you add Albies, to Mallex and Inciarte you have a pretty weak lineup with speed but little power, I am not sure you want all 3 playing at the same time, as Swanson, also has speed to go with his game. I am pretty high on Inciarte over Mallex just because I feel he is a far superior defense CF. You need power to come from somewhere, so if has to be 1B, corner of spots and 3b. 3b the only power guy we currently have is a lousy fielder, and we have no power in the outfield to speak of. Where does one go from here? I certainly do not know, but I would see Mallex Smith as a tradeable asset, I would see Garcia as a tradeable asset to an AL team. I am sure the FO sees Francoeur and Beckham, and hope some of the RP have some value at the deadline, not sure if they do, but there is hope.

[bravos4evr]

I think that having Albies and Swanson creates a problem elsewhere, in the outfield you have Enciarte and Mallex Smith, if you add Albies, to Mallex and Enciarte you have a pretty weak lineup with speed but little power, I am not sure you want all 3 playing at the same time, as Swanson, also has speed to go with his game. I am pretty high on Enciarte over Mallex just because I feel he is a far superior defense CF. You need power to come from somewhere, so if has to be 1B, corner of spots and 3b. 3b the only power guy we currently have is a lousy fielder, and we have no power in the outfield to speak of. Where does one go from here? I certainly do not know, but I would see Mallex Smith as a tradeable asset, I would see Garcia as a tradeable asset to an AL team. I am sure the FO sees Francoeur and Beckham, and hope some of the RP have some value at the deadline, not sure if they do, but there is hope.

power is great to have, but WAR is WAR and value is value. If you get lots of production from your players in ANY POSSIBLE MANNER then the team will do well. There is still a corner spot, 3b, catcher and 1B that could hit dingers. I will take 3 speed OBP guys and Swanson (has a bit more pop than the others) along with 3 20-25 home run guys and a 2 win catcher any day of the week.

and where do we go from here? we cash in some of those prospects for bats, we promote, we look at free agency and the international markets, and we are patient.

[Braves1976]

power is great to have, but WAR is WAR and value is value. If you get lots of production from your players in ANY POSSIBLE MANNER then the team will do well. There is still a corner spot, 3b, catcher and 1B that could hit dingers. I will take 3 speed OBP guys and Swanson (has a bit more pop than the others) along with 3 20-25 home run guys and a 2 win catcher any day of the week.

and where do we go from here? we cash in some of those prospects for bats, we promote, we look at free agency and the international markets, and we are patient.

I mostly agree with you here as far as believing we can have all four of Albies, Swanson, Inciarte and Smith and be fine as long as we fill most of the other positions with some players that have some power, etc. However, we will need to find a way to move Markakis to make that work.

[Enscheff]

I don't think the Braves should trade away any young position players other than one of Inciarte or Mallex (I don't think there is room in the OF of a contender for 2 guys with zero power, but that's a totally separate topic). Assuming Albies is the one that moves to 2b, he will likely be well above average at the position and will earn a lot of defensive WAR there.

[bravos4evr]

I mostly agree with you here as far as believing we can have all four of Albies, Swanson, Inciarte and Smith and be fine as long as we fill most of the other positions with some players that have some power, etc. However, we will need to find a way to move Markakis to make that work.

If he can get his numbers back up to the .275/.360/.370 range before the deadline and the braves agree to kick in say $3 mill a year or so, I think they might be able to find a new home for him. His signing was my #1 "wtf?" that happened when the new regime took over, it made absolutely zero sense relative to everything that followed.

[bravos4evr]

I don't think the Braves should trade away any young position players other than one of Inciarte or Mallex (I don't think there is room in the OF of a contender for 2 guys with zero power, but that's a totally separate topic). Assuming Albies is the one that moves to 2b, he will likely be well above average at the position and will earn a lot of defensive WAR there.

I agree, 2b and SS are hard to fill with good value, no reason to trade any of our young middle infielders unless better options arrive.

I'd keep Inciarte too, I think he's the better player long term.

[chipchildress]

I don't like it either. I'm a fan of both Swanson and Albies. But some team will likely have a higher valuation on the one we move to second than the player can realize by staying at second.

i just scanned a prospect list from before this season and he's like the 17th best shortstop or something listed, and that's already being a top 100 player. there may have been one listed second baseman on the list. my econ grades weren't great but something about supply and demand make me have to question this assumed notion that albies would achieve maximum value as a shortstop. if all of the top prospects every year are shortstops, that tells me that there's a lot of damn shortstops our there who are young. with 16 guys listed better than albies as a shortstop, how do you think you'll get anybody to give you some great return for him when half of the teams out there already have a shortstop prospect just as highly rated as he is or better, while most of those other teams out there probably already have shortstops that can play on their big league rosters.


just to repeat...there are 16 shortstops listed as better prospects than albies. there are one or two second basemen. i get that players move positions and shortstops turn into second basemen and all that, but i can't get past the sheer numbers of talented shortstops out there. they are everywhere. hell, the braves have the fewest number of good position players throughout their organization i've ever seen and they still have freaking swanson and albies.

[bravos4evr]

well to be fair, something like slightly less than half of all minor league top 100 SS's end up playing SS in MLB long term. (see Chipper, Hanley and others) and because SS has so much positional value, teams generally try to keep guys there as long as possible so as to maintain value .


hell, the braves have the fewest number of good position players throughout their organization i've ever seen and they still have freaking swanson and albies.


go look at the Angels farm system! it's so barren their top 5 might not make anyone in the top 25's top 20.

[nsacpi]

I'll make my point one more way. Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandburg were Hall of Fame second basemen. They had a lot of defensive value at second. My point is if they had the arm to play short and played there for the bulk of their careers, their value would have been even higher.

[nsacpi]

i just scanned a prospect list from before this season and he's like the 17th best shortstop or something listed, and that's already being a top 100 player. there may have been one listed second baseman on the list. my econ grades weren't great but something about supply and demand make me have to question this assumed notion that albies would achieve maximum value as a shortstop.

I think you have to dig a little deeper and try to find the answers to two questions. First, how many of those other shortstops are considered likely to stay at the position. Second, how many of them are considered defensively superior to Albies. Just because is the 17th shortstop on the list does not imply that he is the 17th best defensively among that group.

[DirkPiggler]

To put nsacpi's point another way, if someone offered a corner OF or power hitting 3B of equivalent expected value and proximity to the majors for Albies would you take it? Just an example as the teams don't really match up here, but would you do a Benintendi for Albies trade? I think you have to do that kind of deal if it's available.

I don't really buy the WAR is WAR argument - at least not when a team has a glaring deficiency in a major area such as power. If you have a team full of guys whose primary value is in their defense you're going to lose a lot of 2-1 and 1-0 games. Likewise if your team is all mashers who don't quite get what that leather thing on their non-throwing hand is for, you end up playing (and losing) 8-7 games. A team with Mallex, Inciarte, Albies, Swanson, Ruiz (or some equivalent who lacks power), Markakis, and a normal catcher with only Freeman as a power source is going to have to rely on stringing together a lot of singles to score.

[smootness]

Altuve is one of the most valuable players in baseball, and it's because he's a 2B. While you usually put a player who can stick at short at SS, that by no means indicates that the value there is greater than it would be at 2B. An elite-fielding 2B who hits as well as Albies or Swanson will still be as valuable as they would be at SS.

[Horsehide Harry]

Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS are a fantastic option so long as all the other areas around them are addressed appropriately. If you are going to play Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS, and I think they should, then you can't have BOTH Inciarte and Mallex in the OF, you can't have Markakis in RF, you can't have Ruiz at 3B UNLESS his power develops to a 20-30HR/year rate and you can't have a no hit catcher behind the plate. Even Freeman at 1B is a little power short when compared to the very best 1B around the league and traditionally.

[NinersSBChamps]

So the idea is to trade proven major league talent for prospects again? When are fans/front office going to understand that this can't be the answer to everything.

[mqt]

Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS are a fantastic option so long as all the other areas around them are addressed appropriately. If you are going to play Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS, and I think they should, then you can't have BOTH Inciarte and Mallex in the OF, you can't have Markakis in RF, you can't have Ruiz at 3B UNLESS his power develops to a 20-30HR/year rate and you can't have a no hit catcher behind the plate. Even Freeman at 1B is a little power short when compared to the very best 1B around the league and traditionally.

Wait, what? Our lack of power is not likely to be solved through SS or 2B. If Albies and Swanson are what we hope they will be, it's not a problem for our lineup. It would be a plus, as it would mean we have 25% of our lineup set.

I understand the theory behind trading Albies or Swanson instead of keeping both, but I don't agree with it. If you can get excess value, you should be open to making any deal, but short of actually seeing that value, my preference is to just let them be a potentially great MI duo.

[Heyward]

You can play Swanson/Albies together but do agree you have to have some power bats to offset it.

Especially with Mallex, Incierte and questions at C long-term.

[Horsehide Harry]

Wait, what? Our lack of power is not likely to be solved through SS or 2B. If Albies and Swanson are what we hope they will be, it's not a problem for our lineup. It would be a plus, as it would mean we have 25% of our lineup set.

I understand the theory behind trading Albies or Swanson instead of keeping both, but I don't agree with it. If you can get excess value, you should be open to making any deal, but short of actually seeing that value, my preference is to just let them be a potentially great MI duo.

I think you missed the point. The point was that you CAN'T count on Albies and Swanson to supply the needed power at SS and 2B. Therefore, you MUST address it elsewhere. Which means you can't have light hitting outfielders, 3B and catcher, no matter what their WAR.

[bravos4evr]

I'll make my point one more way. Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandburg were Hall of Fame second basemen. They had a lot of defensive value at second. My point is if they had the arm to play short and played there for the bulk of their careers, their value would have been even higher.

but that's the rub isn't it? many guys who were SS prospects don't end up MLB SS's. they either came up with teams who had better defensive options there, or they weren't up to the challenge. An avg SS defensively will have roughly the same WAR value as an above avg 2b defensively if the bats are identical. So, if it is in the best interest if the team to move Albies or Swanson to 2b, they won't have their MLB value harmed much. It only really harms them if word gets out 'oh he can't play SS" and that's only in trade value. Remember the defensive adjustment takes position into account.

[bravos4evr]

I think you missed the point. The point was that you CAN'T count on Albies and Swanson to supply the needed power at SS and 2B. Therefore, you MUST address it elsewhere. Which means you can't have light hitting outfielders, 3B and catcher, no matter what their WAR.

then you don't understand how WAR works. value is value, this is an established FACT regardless of your acceptance of it (kinda like evolution or gravity) a team with 40 collective WAR will generally have the same record (of course with slight variation) as another team with 40 collective WAR whether they gain it mostly from offense, defense ,pitching, power or equally between the 4. All manner of team construction has produced runs, be it loads of power, loads of OBP, speed, doubles and steals...etc If your bats get on base at a productive level and hit a lot of doubles and steal a lot of bases, you can get away without 3-4 big power bats, you might only need 2.... you might only need 1. I know that it's hard to let go of the cliche's of lineup construction as they have been driven into our heads for 100+ years, but there are other ways to build an offense aside from the "standard model" and be successful.

[nsacpi]

Lotsa ways to peel a kumquat

[bravos4evr]

Lotsa ways to peel a kumquat

yep!

I think that fans have had the standard model of a lineup drilled into their heads so much that they think alternatives won't work. But they can and do work. (of course the manager needs to run the offense properly....cough cough)

[smootness]

I think you missed the point. The point was that you CAN'T count on Albies and Swanson to supply the needed power at SS and 2B. Therefore, you MUST address it elsewhere. Which means you can't have light hitting outfielders, 3B and catcher, no matter what their WAR.

What? Hardly anybody gets their power from SS and 2B. Swanson and Albies would not be some kind of light-hitting MIF combo.

[bravos4evr]

indeed, Swanson has had Jeter comps for his bat and Albies ues speed to generate doubles and triples. it's not like we are talking The Pac Man and Lemke out there!

[clvclv]

It's all pretty simple IMO, and SHOULD be able to be accomplished without trading anyone. Everybody has varying opinions - particularly when it comes to whether or not we'll spend money, but with the young Pitchers making the strides they seem to be making there's little reason to think we can't absolutely splurge on either a right-handed bat to hit behind Freddie this winter. It's also pretty obvious who it should be.

I can - and have - made the argument that we COULD have signed bats in LF and at 3B this past winter, and still think it's still entirely feasible that we could do so again this winter to make a huge splash as the new park opens, but will just point out one for this thread. The ONLY salary of consequence that's on the books is Freeman's. You can unload Markakis at any time if you want his money off the books. If you can't get any prospects you're happy with right this moment, don't worry - if the Braves were to DFA him they'll have plenty of takers. Even if they were to release him, there's a better than 95% chance that someone takes his salary off their hands. So...

You go spend WHATEVER IT TAKES to get Cespedes to play LF and hit behind Freddie. If it's 5 years and $150 million, so be it. You move Inciarte to RF and you've got one of the best (if not the best) defensive OFs in baseball. You watch Ender, Mallex, and Albies closely the rest of the season and decide who you want leading off next season. For my money, it's Mallex. As others have mentioned, I'm much more interested in production - even at the expense of power. While he may not be the power so many people want, adding Swanson to this lineup is going to be a lot like adding a Lorenzo Cain. In essence, you're going to be moving everyone other than Mallex down at least three spots in the order, meaning you're not going to need NEARLY as much production from them.

CF- Mallex
SS- Swanson
1B- Freeman
LF- Cespedes
3B- Beckham/Garcia/d'Arnaud
C- Flowers
RF- Inciarte
SP
2B- Albies/Beckham/d'Arnaud


Keeping Julio allows you to trade from the prospects in the event you want to try to go get a C or a 3B - Jenkins or Gant and Sims for Lucroy, Profar, or Gallo would pique my interest. You keep the other one of those arms for AAA depth.

You're then free to draft BPA at #3. If Lewis slides, you can take him and dangle Inciarte in a year or so if he's on the fast track. If you want the faster moving college arm and Puk slides, you'll have him to replace Sims on the depth chart in short order. If our scouts like Moniak or Rutherford better than the other options, a Cespedes signing buys them time to develop at their own pace.


I know the idea of a big contract will get some people around here squirming, but overpaying for Cespedes is the easiest way to turn this whole thing around - in a hurry. Other than Freddie, no player in this organization stands to make $10+ million before 2019 unless the brass starts signing players to early extension. The Braves have never been in a better position to go get a big-time free-agent.

[bravos4evr]

I am on the Cespedes train.(assuming a Neck trade) I am not opposed to signing Wilson Ramos for 3 years either.

this lineup looks much better:

LF/CF- Mallex
2b- Albies
1b- Freeman
RF- Cespedes
SS- Swanson
CF/LF- Inciarte
C- Ramos
3b- Beckham/Garcia/??? (could swap this around with Ramos)


EDIT: maybe Cespedes asks for a 3 year opt out again and we might avoid the danger decline years???

[bravos4evr]

and maybe you end up with Swanson hitting 3rd and Freeman dropping to 4th with Cespedes 5th.... lots of options with a lineup like above.

Tho, it could be improved by a trade to add a power hitting 3b. I wouldn't be opposed to Gallo for some of our arms, his K rate could be hidden well at #5 in the lineup with Swanson or Inciarte hitting behind him with more OBP and contact skills.

[Heyward]

Cespedes does have an opt out clause, hes having a really good year and seems to love NY.

So could stay, or opt out and try to land one more huge deal.

Not many good outfielders on the FA market so it will be tough.

[bravos4evr]

true, if Cespedes renegotiates with the Mets, there is Reddick, Bautista (old) Rasmus, Carlos Gomez , Austin Jackson and most everyone else is worse........ ugh

[mqt]

Cespedes does have an opt out clause, hes having a really good year and seems to love NY.

So could stay, or opt out and try to land one more huge deal.

Not many good outfielders on the FA market so it will be tough.

As long as Cespedes doesn't fall off a cliff or get seriously hurt, there's no chance in hell he fails to opt out. Even if he loves New York, he'd still opt out and negotiate with the Mets on a new contract.

[Horsehide Harry]

then you don't understand how WAR works. value is value, this is an established FACT regardless of your acceptance of it (kinda like evolution or gravity) a team with 40 collective WAR will generally have the same record (of course with slight variation) as another team with 40 collective WAR whether they gain it mostly from offense, defense ,pitching, power or equally between the 4. All manner of team construction has produced runs, be it loads of power, loads of OBP, speed, doubles and steals...etc If your bats get on base at a productive level and hit a lot of doubles and steal a lot of bases, you can get away without 3-4 big power bats, you might only need 2.... you might only need 1. I know that it's hard to let go of the cliche's of lineup construction as they have been driven into our heads for 100+ years, but there are other ways to build an offense aside from the "standard model" and be successful.

I understand WAR, I just don't agree that it is the be-all end -all that some do. I think environment matters which means such things as roster construction, etc. Some of the guys achieve a certain WAR because they are in a lineup that allows them to. If you put a team of Andrelton Simmons, Keirmeir, Heyward, etc. on the field they aren't going to hit enough to win. Pitchers will have no fear. Even if you sprinkle the lineup with high average guys, it still has an effect on opposing pitching.

I think WAR is a useful metric just like other metrics. But, it's not the holy grail of baseball stats that some want to think it is. People want to point to the Royals as some kind of affirmation that you can win without power. The problem with that is that they were almost league average in power last year and had the benefit of playing in a horrible division all year.

Baseball is really two seasons IMO. the regular season which requires a good mix of pitching, defense and run creation fueled by power. Once you reach the playoffs, that changes somewhat due to weather, game times and spacing, umpiring - specifically a tightening of the strike zone and an overall improvement of the function and player focus. You have to have power in most instances (at least for the last 25 years) to get through the regular season. Once you are through, then things change a bit due to altered conditions.

[Horsehide Harry]

What? Hardly anybody gets their power from SS and 2B. Swanson and Albies would not be some kind of light-hitting MIF combo.

I never said or hinted that the Braves should expect above average power from Swanson or Albies. In fact, exactly the opposite. My point was that if you don't get above average power at SS and 2B, you can't afford to have below average power elsewhere which is why the whole Mallex, Inciarte, Albies, Swanson, Ruiz rosters are setting up disaster.

[smootness]

I never said or hinted that the Braves should expect above average power from Swanson or Albies. In fact, exactly the opposite. My point was that if you don't get above average power at SS and 2B, you can't afford to have below average power elsewhere which is why the whole Mallex, Inciarte, Albies, Swanson, Ruiz rosters are setting up disaster.

The solution to that is finding good hitters at other positions, not getting rid of answers at SS and 2B to do it. Having really good players at both MIF spots is a big advantage on other teams. That will actually allow the Braves to be slightly weaker offensively at a position like 3B, not the opposite.

[Braves1976]

I never said or hinted that the Braves should expect above average power from Swanson or Albies. In fact, exactly the opposite. My point was that if you don't get above average power at SS and 2B, you can't afford to have below average power elsewhere which is why the whole Mallex, Inciarte, Albies, Swanson, Ruiz rosters are setting up disaster.

I never said anything about Ruiz, I am not that high on him making it as a starter. More likely a bench bat in the long run. I've said that you can have Albies, Swanson, Smith and Inciarte on the team and still have enough power. Somebody needs to go from the outfield but it isn't one of them, it's Markakis. Then you fill his spot with someone with power for LF and also add a bench piece with some power to play vs some tough lefties for Smith and/or Inciarte some days. I'd also try to add some power at the catching and third base position too.

[UNCBlue012]

The Braves have done a lot of things over the last three years that have left me guessing, but I can't see us taking a lineup with little-to-no power into the 2018 season (If not 2017 even). This year was supposed to be a throw-away, even if the FO acted as if it wasn't.

[Horsehide Harry]

The solution to that is finding good hitters at other positions, not getting rid of answers at SS and 2B to do it. Having really good players at both MIF spots is a big advantage on other teams. That will actually allow the Braves to be slightly weaker offensively at a position like 3B, not the opposite.

I don't get how you are attributing to me any idea that either Swanson OR Albies should be traded. I have NEVER said that. Now, if you want to talk the wisdom of trading Freeman, Teheran, Inciarte, Markakis, Viz, Grilli, etc. then I'm your guy.

[GovClintonTyree]

then you don't understand how WAR works. value is value, this is an established FACT regardless of your acceptance of it (kinda like evolution or gravity).

That's one of the most arrogant statements I've seen on this site in a while. And that's saying something.

In December 1799, an otherwise healthy George Washington caught a cold riding fences at Mt. Vernon and they called the leading physician of the day, Dr. Benjamin Rush, in to care for him. In keeping with the very best standard of care, Dr. Rush bled five pints of blood off the father of our country, and, of course, inexplicably, he expired a week later.

You may not know what you don't know.

The idea of WAR is a good one, but the methodology and derivation of value of the fielding component in particular is highly subjective and hardly settled in my mind and Bill James', among others.

It's probably tough to grasp, but I'll bet a team with 20 pitching WAR and 20 other WAR is a better club than a team with 50 pitching WAR and -10 other WAR. But please, carry on berating people with different opinions than yours.

[Horsehide Harry]

I never said anything about Ruiz, I am not that high on him making it as a starter. More likely a bench bat in the long run. I've said that you can have Albies, Swanson, Smith and Inciarte on the team and still have enough power. Somebody needs to go from the outfield but it isn't one of them, it's Markakis. Then you fill his spot with someone with power for LF and also add a bench piece with some power to play vs some tough lefties for Smith and/or Inciarte some days. I'd also try to add some power at the catching and third base position too.


You GENERALLY need to be league average in HR to be competitive each year. Over the last 25 years, less than 5% of teams that were below league average in HR have made the playoffs. It changes each year but league average in HR is usually somewhere around 140 in the NL. So, let's look at your lineup:

1B Freeman 25HR
2B Albies 5
SS Swanson 15
CF Inciarte 5
LF M Smith 10
RF ?
3B ?
C ?

Bench 10

So, adding up the "known" elements you get 70HR, roughly half what you need to get to league average. That means that you have to find 70HR between RF, 3B and C. You could do that in a number of ways 25/25/20; 30/30/10; 30/20/20; 60/5/5; 70/0/0. But the better way, the way that allows for more margin of error is to remove either M Smith or Inciarte or both and replace them with players who are more traditional in their power production.

140 is the MINIMUM. You shouldn't build the club for the minimum but maybe 20% above the minimum so if injuries or other issues strike you have enough offense left to still be competitive. So, IMO, you want to build the team that under ideal circumstances is capable of hitting 170HR, understanding that it will be highly unlikely that everything will be ideal throughout the season.

***Of COURSE I understand that HR power isn't the totality of a good offense, but a component. But it's a measurable component that can and should be used when building a team. You don't want 8 Rob Deer or Adam Dunn any more than you want 8 Andrleton Simmons. You need a minimum of 140HR with a LO hitter who gets on base at a rate of .340 or better who has some speed and see's a lot of pitches and hopefully isn't one of your major power producers. You need guys who get on base and hit some doubles and stay out of the double play and limit the K's to a rate acceptable as balance by their OBP and power. You need a lineup that's a tough navigation for opposing pitchers where they know if they make a mistake it's more costly than giving up a walk or a single.

[Braves1976]

You GENERALLY need to be league average in HR to be competitive each year. Over the last 25 years, less than 5% of teams that were below league average in HR have made the playoffs. It changes each year but league average in HR is usually somewhere around 140 in the NL. So, let's look at your lineup:

1B Freeman 25HR
2B Albies 5
SS Swanson 15
CF Inciarte 5
LF M Smith 10
RF ?
3B ?
C ?

Bench 10

So, adding up the "known" elements you get 70HR, roughly half what you need to get to league average. That means that you have to find 70HR between RF, 3B and C. You could do that in a number of ways 25/25/20; 30/30/10; 30/20/20; 60/5/5; 70/0/0. But the better way, the way that allows for more margin of error is to remove either M Smith or Inciarte or both and replace them with players who are more traditional in their power production.

140 is the MINIMUM. You shouldn't build the club for the minimum but maybe 20% above the minimum so if injuries or other issues strike you have enough offense left to still be competitive. So, IMO, you want to build the team that under ideal circumstances is capable of hitting 170HR, understanding that it will be highly unlikely that everything will be ideal throughout the season.

***Of COURSE I understand that HR power isn't the totality of a good offense, but a component. But it's a measurable component that can and should be used when building a team. You don't want 8 Rob Deer or Adam Dunn any more than you want 8 Andrleton Simmons. You need a minimum of 140HR with a LO hitter who gets on base at a rate of .340 or better who has some speed and see's a lot of pitches and hopefully isn't one of your major power producers. You need guys who get on base and hit some doubles and stay out of the double play and limit the K's to a rate acceptable as balance by their OBP and power. You need a lineup that's a tough navigation for opposing pitchers where they know if they make a mistake it's more costly than giving up a walk or a single.

I am looking to follow the KC Royals model or some combo of it and the SF Giants model. The Royals finished dead last in MLB in homers with 95 in 2014 and came one win away from winning a World Series. I am not saying we can pull off finishing dead last in homers and do something similar but I do think you're overstating things in making it as if you cannot have those four players and that you have to hit that amount of homeruns. I would argue that if you lack a little in power you'll need to make up for it in other areas such as speed, defense, baserunning, and pitching. The type of team I'd build would have less power than yours but it would also be more balanced in other areas, IMO.

[nsacpi]

140 is the MINIMUM.

I have yet to see a convincing case that this is so.

No one is arguing that more home runs is not a good thing. But so is more more walks. Fewer strikeouts. More stolen bases. Better defense. Value comes in the form of home runs, but many other things as well.

[Braves1976]

I have yet to see a convincing case that this is so.

No one is arguing that more home runs is not a good thing. But so is more more walks. Fewer strikeouts. More stolen bases. Better defense. Value comes in the form of home runs, but many other things as well.

Exactly my point too.

[Heyward]

I am looking to follow the KC Royals model or some combo of it and the SF Giants model. The Royals finished dead last in MLB in homers with 95 in 2014 and came one win away from winning a World Series. I am not saying we can pull off finishing dead last in homers and do something similar but I do think you're overstating things in making it as if you cannot have those four players and that you have to hit that amount of homeruns. I would argue that if you lack a little in power you'll need to make up for it in other areas such as speed, defense, baserunning, and pitching. The type of team I'd build would have less power than yours but it would also be more balanced in other areas, IMO.

Ditto, for once we agree, small world.

[Heyward]

We do need more bats, but you can win without the HR.

It's not the end all be all.

[Braves1976]

Ditto, for once we agree, small world.

So you're saying signs of the apocalypse? :)

Seriously, you agree with me more than you make it seem--even if you don't like admitting so. :)

[bravos4evr]

That's one of the most arrogant statements I've seen on this site in a while. And that's saying something.

In December 1799, an otherwise healthy George Washington caught a cold riding fences at Mt. Vernon and they called the leading physician of the day, Dr. Benjamin Rush, in to care for him. In keeping with the very best standard of care, Dr. Rush bled five pints of blood off the father of our country, and, of course, inexplicably, he expired a week later.

You may not know what you don't know.

The idea of WAR is a good one, but the methodology and derivation of value of the fielding component in particular is highly subjective and hardly settled in my mind and Bill James', among others.

It's probably tough to grasp, but I'll bet a team with 20 pitching WAR and 20 other WAR is a better club than a team with 50 pitching WAR and -10 other WAR. But please, carry on berating people with different opinions than yours.

lmao, the arrogance is all your's sir. People are welcome to their own opinions but they are not welcome to their own facts. Value is value regardless of where it is derived. A 40 WAR team tends to be a 40 WAR team regardless (with variation of course). One thing too many people do in stats is decide that a modern metric doesn't match their preconceived notions so they either ignore it or cherry pick the parts they like and turn their nose up at the rest. This a logical fallacy and unacceptable in discussion. If you want to call me arrogant for demanding a little logical consistency then I am guilty as charged.

as far as your second claim, please present evidence to back it up or retract it as the nonsense that it is.


P.S. - OH, and your appeal to ignorance is noted from your amusing anecdote you posted about george washington.
and look up two thing for me: Confirmation Bias and the Dunning/Kruger Effect

[bravos4evr]

I am looking to follow the KC Royals model or some combo of it and the SF Giants model. The Royals finished dead last in MLB in homers with 95 in 2014 and came one win away from winning a World Series. I am not saying we can pull off finishing dead last in homers and do something similar but I do think you're overstating things in making it as if you cannot have those four players and that you have to hit that amount of homeruns. I would argue that if you lack a little in power you'll need to make up for it in other areas such as speed, defense, baserunning, and pitching. The type of team I'd build would have less power than yours but it would also be more balanced in other areas, IMO.

well, that is true about the Royals, but they hit a TON of homers in the postseason (at a pace that would have made them one of the most homer hitting teams in regular season history) so to compare their post-season to regular season performance is a bit unfair really.

I tend to think you need power, but you don't have to have a lot of it as long as you have sufficient OBP and contact elsewhere.

[bravos4evr]

BTW, I never said WAR was the be all and end all, but, right now, it IS the best system we have for comparing players to each other and their entire production. It will improve over time. I get irritated when people dismiss things because they don't like what it has to say about their favorite players. (or diminishes it because their confirmation bias doesn't allow them to face the facts)

WAR is a math equation, it applies to everyone, even if you disagree with some factors of it, the ratio between players would be the same because the error (if any) applies equally. (in fact, there is an equal chance WAR undervalues defense as overvalues it)

[bravos4evr]

You GENERALLY need to be league average in HR to be competitive each year. Over the last 25 years, less than 5% of teams that were below league average in HR have made the playoffs. It changes each year but league average in HR is usually somewhere around 140 in the NL. So, let's look at your lineup:


well, between 2006 and 2015 the following teams are in the bottom 10 in home runs - royals, giants,dodgers,pirates,cardinals,A's, Nats. 6 teams who have had recent playoff appearances (and some major playoff results) the top 10 features the Phillies, Reds, Brewers and O's, teams that haven't had as much success.

if you go back further it appears homers mean more, but now it appears that getting total value plays better as the teams over the last decade with the highest cumulative WAR tended to have had better long term success.

[auyushu]

lmao, the arrogance is all your's sir. People are welcome to their own opinions but they are not welcome to their own facts. Value is value regardless of where it is derived. A 40 WAR team tends to be a 40 WAR team regardless (with variation of course). One thing too many people do in stats is decide that a modern metric doesn't match their preconceived notions so they either ignore it or cherry pick the parts they like and turn their nose up at the rest. This a logical fallacy and unacceptable in discussion. If you want to call me arrogant for demanding a little logical consistency then I am guilty as charged.


While I agree with your general point, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone not believing in the defensive parts of WAR to be highly accurate. There are tons of people, myself included, who don't exactly think they are 100% accurate. Hell, depending on which defensive metrics you use you can have wildly different WAR values for players. BR and Fangraphs WAR are often vastly different for the same players. There is a ton of variation between different defensive metrics, and in the end it is people watching games making judgement calls on defensive stats, and those can be flawed. There are plenty of reasons to be doubtful of the accuracy of defensive WAR, I'll never give someone crap for valuing offensive WAR more highly.

Offensive WAR is facts, there is no debate. There is plenty to debate with defensive WAR, not that it's valuable, but how much so.

[clvclv]

well, between 2006 and 2015 the following teams are in the bottom 10 in home runs - royals, giants,dodgers,pirates,cardinals,A's, Nats. 6 teams who have had recent playoff appearances (and some major playoff results) the top 10 features the Phillies, Reds, Brewers and O's, teams that haven't had as much success.

if you go back further it appears homers mean more, but now it appears that getting total value plays better as the teams over the last decade with the highest cumulative WAR tended to have had better long term success.

All the more reason - for me - to splurge on Cespedes. You get some of the power everyone loves, but your main upgrades come from adding overall production in Swanson and Albies and slotting weaker hitters lower. Those three additions would SERIOUSLY deepen the lineup IMO (and two of them cost you nothing).

[bravos4evr]

While I agree with your general point, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone not believing in the defensive parts of WAR to be highly accurate. There are tons of people, myself included, who don't exactly think they are 100% accurate. Hell, depending on which defensive metrics you use you can have wildly different WAR values for players. BR and Fangraphs WAR are often vastly different for the same players. There is a ton of variation between different defensive metrics, and in the end it is people watching games making judgement calls on defensive stats, and those can be flawed. There are plenty of reasons to be doubtful of the accuracy of defensive WAR, I'll never give someone crap for valuing offensive WAR more highly.

Offensive WAR is facts, there is no debate. There is plenty to debate with defensive WAR, not that it's valuable, but how much so.

well sure, but it is what we have and nobody said you can't take two numbers and avg them out. Nobody said it's perfect, we know there is probably little difference between a 4.8 WAR season and a 5.4 WAR season due to random variance, but we can generally all agree that the players each had great years anyway.

people don't seem to demand perfection from the old baseball card stats, but they do from modern stats..... I always smell agenda when I hear stuff like above. and yeah maybe i come off like a dick, but I am really sick of old farts ranting about how stat nerds "know nothing about the game" the only good thing is that eventually they will all die off and the new generations will take over. That's usually the only way anything gets done in the first place.


but the argument is always "DEFENSE DOESN'T COUNT THAT MUCH!" it is never the other way, and if there is error (which there surely is in defensive WAR) the odds are that it could easily be AGAINST the defense not for it.

[bravos4evr]

All the more reason - for me - to splurge on Cespedes. You get some of the power everyone loves, but your main upgrades come from adding overall production in Swanson and Albies and slotting weaker hitters lower. Those three additions would SERIOUSLY deepen the lineup IMO (and two of them cost you nothing).

I agree, if Swanson and Albies can be 2 WAR players their rookie year (gonna be conservative and try not to dream too much) cespedes a 3-4 someone like Ramos with Flowers at catcher good for 3 WAR total, cobble 2 WAR out of 3b and 5 WAR out of the mallex and inciarte we'd all of a sudden have a chance to be a 76 -lower 80's win team, and more if the pitching improves as well.

competing in 2017 IS possible, it would take some free agent work as well as quick development by 3 or 4 youngsters tho.

[Heyward]

So you're saying signs of the apocalypse? :)

Seriously, you agree with me more than you make it seem--even if you don't like admitting so. :)

You make some good points but its been proven you can win without having a lot of HR hitters.

[nsacpi]

I agree, if Swanson and Albies can be 2 WAR players their rookie year (gonna be conservative and try not to dream too much) cespedes a 3-4 someone like Ramos with Flowers at catcher good for 3 WAR total, cobble 2 WAR out of 3b and 5 WAR out of the mallex and inciarte we'd all of a sudden have a chance to be a 76 -lower 80's win team, and more if the pitching improves as well.

competing in 2017 IS possible, it would take some free agent work as well as quick development by 3 or 4 youngsters tho.

I think the "default" is about a .500 team next year assuming we find guys to play catcher and third who can contribute about 2 wins each. That's our spot on the expected win curve. Of course, luck could blow us off course by 5 games in either direction. But we are going to have a competitive team next year.

[bravos4evr]

I hope you are right, if we don't improve RF/3b and C, we could be looking at a ceiling of 72ish wins.

[nsacpi]

I hope you are right, if we don't improve RF/3b and C, we could be looking at a ceiling of 72ish wins.

I've become increasingly optimistic that the starting pitching will deliver about 10 to 12 WAR in 2017. Right now it looks like reasonable projections for next year would look like this:

Teheran 2.5-3.5 wins
Wisler 2-3 wins
Folty 1.5-2.5
Perez 1-2
Blair or Gant 1-2

In addition to those six, we'll have some depth in AAA in 2017: Sims, Newcomb, Jenkins, Ellis, maybe Povse. Maybe one or two will be in the major league pen. But we will have some backup options in the event of injuries or under performance.

[Enscheff]

The idea isn't to add "power" bats, the idea is to add "impact" bats. Impact bats typically come with at least MLB average power, but sometimes a guy like Gwynn or Altuve or Ichiro provide impact without bringing much power to the table. However, those are the exceptions, so it would be silly to try to build a team around guys you hope turn into the next Tony Gywnn or Jose Altuve.

There aren't many impact bats available this offseason unfortunately, but there ARE a few guys that could improve the Braves areas of biggest need (3b, OF, C) just by being average or a little above average. Guys like Ces and Braun should be available for the OF. Guys like Prado, Freese and Desmond should be available for 3b. Guys like Castro, Ramos and Lucroy should be available for C.

If the Braves make 3 additions and promote Albies and Swanson, they will line up down thing like this:

C - Castro/Flowers
1b - Freeman
2b - Albies
SS - Swanson
3b - Freese/Prado/Desmond
LF - Braun/Cespedes
CF - Smith/Inciarte
RF - Inciarte/Markakis

Those are all moves the Braves can absolutely make, and fill the lineup with MLB average or better players. That is a .500 team that could get better as the young guys mature, and none of the veterans (other than Ces) will require any sort of major long term commitment.

[bravos4evr]

I agree with yer plan, but a lot of fans would crap bricks if we brought in Braun.

[GovClintonTyree]

lmao, the arrogance is all your's sir. People are welcome to their own opinions but they are not welcome to their own facts. Value is value regardless of where it is derived. A 40 WAR team tends to be a 40 WAR team regardless (with variation of course). One thing too many people do in stats is decide that a modern metric doesn't match their preconceived notions so they either ignore it or cherry pick the parts they like and turn their nose up at the rest. This a logical fallacy and unacceptable in discussion. If you want to call me arrogant for demanding a little logical consistency then I am guilty as charged.

as far as your second claim, please present evidence to back it up or retract it as the nonsense that it is.


P.S. - OH, and your appeal to ignorance is noted from your amusing anecdote you posted about george washington.
and look up two thing for me: Confirmation Bias and the Dunning/Kruger Effect

Boy, you're rife with high-minded canons, aren't you?

You missed my point. Auyushu explains it again for you later, so I won't bother. I don't generally disagree with WAR or your arguments but there's work to be done. Just suggesting you make a little room in your absolute rectitude now and then. Or, just be a dick. Your call. Have a great day.

[bravos4evr]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but when people just hand wave stuff away because it doesn't back up their confirmation bias it irks me. I don't understand why anytime there is a saber debate it's always the pro metrics people put on the defensive. it's a giant appeal to tradition fallacy and it really needs to go away.

[GovClintonTyree]

well sure, but it is what we have and nobody said you can't take two numbers and avg them out. Nobody said it's perfect, we know there is probably little difference between a 4.8 WAR season and a 5.4 WAR season due to random variance, but we can generally all agree that the players each had great years anyway.

people don't seem to demand perfection from the old baseball card stats, but they do from modern stats..... I always smell agenda when I hear stuff like above. and yeah maybe i come off like a dick, but I am really sick of old farts ranting about how stat nerds "know nothing about the game" the only good thing is that eventually they will all die off and the new generations will take over. That's usually the only way anything gets done in the first place.


but the argument is always "DEFENSE DOESN'T COUNT THAT MUCH!" it is never the other way, and if there is error (which there surely is in defensive WAR) the odds are that it could easily be AGAINST the defense not for it.

Ok, I'm old (not that old, I coach my middle school age kid, but not a young buck, either). But there are a couple of things that piss me of, too. The biggest one is that I can't find a message board where I fit. The AJC and braves.com (for instance) ones are frequented by simple-minded morons who just don't get....anything.

This message board has a lot of intelligence and a lot of wit but every ****ing issue gets boiled down to a ****ing statistical pissing match where everybody picks out their favorite new stat - wOBA and FIP and XFIP and the Mac daddy of them all, WAR. And they're so sure of their stat that they call it fact. My God, I've seen huge disparities between bWAR and fWAR.

Yet you treat it as gospel. It ain't. And, if I may remind you, past performance is no guarantee of future results, either. It's a good predictor. Looking at BABIP and seeing somebody is undervalued and hitting in bad luck is useful data, for sure.

I have two advanced degrees and have been fortunate to have put together a nice career. Because I don't toe the line with your exact interpretation of events (and they are interpretations, not facts) doesn't make me an old school dinosaur. It means I appreciate the game that's played on dirt as well as a spreadsheet.

My firm has decided to try and call on people who sell our products that a statistician has determined have a "propensity to buy" and customers who have a "propensity to sell." They've rated them accordingly and have decided to pursue these people to the exclusion of the local knowledge that our existing reps have of those sellers, instead putting a big bet on big data.

We're 21% behind plan this year. Relying on statistical indicator hasn't worked. I think we weigh certain indicators too heavily, others are missing, but without local knowledge it doesn't matter. The whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster.

My preference, you might have guessed, is for belly-to-belly meetings and sales and mining the opinions of our reps and relationships. What is not as obvious is that I like to augment that with statistical knowledge and make decisions using both. If the numbers tell a different story from my eyes I triple check and adjust course, but I make the decision, not the data.

I think it's the same with baseball. Matt Wisler doesn't strike out enough guys to sustain the success he's having. His BABIP is unsustainable. Yet, he's savvy, has a great fastball, uses his breaking stuff to great effect, is working on his change (with Tom Glavine, which the numbers don't tell you), has rebounded strongly from adversity, seems to be maturing. So which is it?

Saber guys would say "unsustainable BABIP and low K/9 rate. Sell him now before they figure out he's just another guy," but my eyes say otherwise. Eventually I think the stats will, too, but it won't have been the predictive value of the stats that govern the decision, they'll just be post hoc confirmation that we got it right.

My point is this: Matt Wisler is not a series of statistical entries on a spreadsheet. He's a young man, with muscles and bones and brains and guts. I'm never going to overlook that, because I shouldn't.

It's very popular on this board to make fun of anyone who doesn't back their argument with strict statistical analysis (no such thing as grit or clutch, right?). But I played a long time and have coached even longer, and I promise you, it's more than random when some people rise to the occasion and others wilt. Or when one guy develops and another doesn't.

Do I over rely on those things with my decisions? Probably I do. But I'm okay with that. I'm aware when I go against a trend or a stat. Doesn't make me a moron or a dinosaur, it means I value more than the statistical analysis. I realize you don't agree with that, but does it make sense?

[GovClintonTyree]

I've become increasingly optimistic that the starting pitching will deliver about 10 to 12 WAR in 2017. Right now it looks like reasonable projections for next year would look like this:

Teheran 2.5-3.5 wins
Wisler 2-3 wins
Folty 1.5-2.5
Perez 1-2
Blair or Gant 1-2

In addition to those six, we'll have some depth in AAA in 2017: Sims, Newcomb, Jenkins, Ellis, maybe Povse. Maybe one or two will be in the major league pen. But we will have some backup options in the event of injuries or under performance.

Why doesn't Povse get more ink?

[bravos4evr]

Yet you treat it as gospel. no stats are "gospel" but the modern ones are simply better than the old ones. this is the nature of things. wRC+ is better than batting avg or RBI's to determine production. UZR and DRS are better than fielding % or errors, FIP is a better predictor of future success than ERA, WAR is the best way to compare different player's overall contribution to the game. These are all mathematical facts. We know we want to know how productive a hitter is, well looking at the factors that makeup wOBA or wRC+ and comparing those things to batting avg and rbi's we discover that wOBA and wRC+ tally more data and give a better result. WAR is kinda the only "overall" comparative tool ,and nobody said it was perfect. But to hand wave it away when it doesn't agree with the extremely fallible "eyeball test" yet use it when it does agree is intellectually dishonest. arguing about baseball without stats is pointless. Stats are the way we measure the game, without them we might as well be having a philosophical debate with no end....


(no such thing as grit or clutch, right?) sure there are gritty players, but there is no evidence this has any benefit towards production. and clutch exists as a scenario but not as a skill. there is no evidence that some players perform better than their career numbers in "clutch" situations. Playoffs are such a small sample size that any data from them is pretty much noise. (but again, the larger the sample the closer the data regresses towards the mean.



My firm has decided to try and call on people who sell our products that a statistician has determined have a "propensity to buy" and customers who have a "propensity to sell." They've rated them accordingly and have decided to pursue these people to the exclusion of the local knowledge that our existing reps have of those sellers, instead putting a big bet on big data.


apples and oranges. sales metrics and attempts to lure buyers are not even remotely close to looking at actual data sets of players and comparing them to each other. the players DID the stuff we measure. attempting t shift some sales strategy based on "50 year old white males tend to like our product in the northern suburbs if they have a red door" is not the same as "player A had 40 doubles, 20 homers, 90 singles, 8 triples, struck out 170 times and walked 90 times in 418 plate appearances and this gives him a "saberstate" of XYZ.


I think it's the same with baseball. Matt Wisler doesn't strike out enough guys to sustain the success he's having. His BABIP is unsustainable. Yet, he's savvy, has a great fastball, uses his breaking stuff to great effect, is working on his change (with Tom Glavine, which the numbers don't tell you), has rebounded strongly from adversity, seems to be maturing. So which is it?

Saber guys would say "unsustainable BABIP and low K/9 rate. Sell him now before they figure out he's just another guy," but my eyes say otherwise. Eventually I think the stats will, too, but it won't have been the predictive value of the stats that govern the decision, they'll just be post hoc confirmation that we got it right.


this is where you are going wrong, baseball is nothing like your description of sales metrics and sabre guys wouldn't look at such a small sample size and make a claim of certainty from it. If Wisler had a history in the upper minors of similar play,(like say Williams Perez) then maybe you would think "well, he is what he is" but if you look at the DATA, you would see that he's starting to regress towards the mean of his pretty good AAA numbers and maybe towards his better AA numbers. he is young, it takes time to have enough data to make firm decisions on players. (Glavine was the same way, no saber person who knew what he was talking about would make such claims with such small sample sizes)


It's very popular on this board to make fun of anyone who doesn't back their argument with strict statistical analysis (no such thing as grit or clutch, right?). But I played a long time and have coached even longer, and I promise you, it's more than random when some people rise to the occasion and others wilt. Or when one guy develops and another doesn't. appeal to authority fallacy, I played too and have been watching the game for 38 years (30 closely and 12+ as a saber guy) but that doesn't make my argument have any more validity than yours. Guys either succeed or fail based on their skills. (be they physical, mental or all of the above) but any arguments about "grit" or "heart" are silly and pointless. anything that can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. One can talk about it, but when you make assertions of fact based on stuff like that, it has very little meaning and can be dismissed.

One last thing, the idiotic idea that saber people A- never played B- are young nerds who don't understand it other than numbers and C- never watch the games are all false. I played, I watch the games with great interest (and not just Braves games) and I am 43 and followed baseball closely without modern metrics until 2004 or so. The simple fact is, I like accuracy, I like better, I want to understand the game as much as possible, saber stats do this. They give me better information. are they 100% effective? nope,but they ARE better than the old baseball card numbers. If perfection is the goal, we keep getting closer towards the ideal. if perfection is the only thing acceptable, then you are not being realistic.

[bravos4evr]

Why doesn't Povse get more ink?

probably cuz he's in high A ball, when he gets promoted to AA i think he will catch some helium, he's pitching well

[auyushu]

probably cuz he's in high A ball, when he gets promoted to AA i think he will catch some helium, he's pitching well

Yup, that plus he's not really young for his level and repeating the level too. If he keeps that K rate and K/BB rate as he moves up to AA he should shoot up quickly. Hopefully he gets bumped to AA somewhat soon.

[nsacpi]

probably cuz he's in high A ball, when he gets promoted to AA i think he will catch some helium, he's pitching well

Yeah, if he holds serve once promoted to AA he will shoot up the prospect lists. AA is a big test.

[bravos4evr]

Yeah, if he holds serve once promoted to AA he will shoot up the prospect lists. AA is a big test.

yep, IMO it's the first level where statistical results start to matter more than scouting opinions, guys in AA are really starting to put their pitches together and throw games rather than work on command, control and stuff. If Povse continues his string of quality work, he might be a candidate for 2017 spring training and a shot at the rotation. He will be 23 going on 24 then, perfect time to get his shot.

[chipchildress]

at 6'8" with that long lanky frame, he could be the type of guy who puts it together a little later than some other guys. perhaps that's what's happening now. i agree that we'll need to see him in AA, but if he proves well there, the sky is the limit.

[Knucksie]

Dansby Swanson should get an extra 0.5 WAR, just for having such a swell name.

[GovClintonTyree]

no stats are "gospel" but the modern ones are simply better than the old ones. this is the nature of things. wRC+ is better than batting avg or RBI's to determine production. UZR and DRS are better than fielding % or errors, FIP is a better predictor of future success than ERA, WAR is the best way to compare different player's overall contribution to the game. These are all mathematical facts. We know we want to know how productive a hitter is, well looking at the factors that makeup wOBA or wRC+ and comparing those things to batting avg and rbi's we discover that wOBA and wRC+ tally more data and give a better result. WAR is kinda the only "overall" comparative tool ,and nobody said it was perfect. But to hand wave it away when it doesn't agree with the extremely fallible "eyeball test" yet use it when it does agree is intellectually dishonest. arguing about baseball without stats is pointless. Stats are the way we measure the game, without them we might as well be having a philosophical debate with no end....

sure there are gritty players, but there is no evidence this has any benefit towards production. and clutch exists as a scenario but not as a skill. there is no evidence that some players perform better than their career numbers in "clutch" situations. Playoffs are such a small sample size that any data from them is pretty much noise. (but again, the larger the sample the closer the data regresses towards the mean.





apples and oranges. sales metrics and attempts to lure buyers are not even remotely close to looking at actual data sets of players and comparing them to each other. the players DID the stuff we measure. attempting t shift some sales strategy based on "50 year old white males tend to like our product in the northern suburbs if they have a red door" is not the same as "player A had 40 doubles, 20 homers, 90 singles, 8 triples, struck out 170 times and walked 90 times in 418 plate appearances and this gives him a "saberstate" of XYZ.




this is where you are going wrong, baseball is nothing like your description of sales metrics and sabre guys wouldn't look at such a small sample size and make a claim of certainty from it. If Wisler had a history in the upper minors of similar play,(like say Williams Perez) then maybe you would think "well, he is what he is" but if you look at the DATA, you would see that he's starting to regress towards the mean of his pretty good AAA numbers and maybe towards his better AA numbers. he is young, it takes time to have enough data to make firm decisions on players. (Glavine was the same way, no saber person who knew what he was talking about would make such claims with such small sample sizes)

appeal to authority fallacy, I played too and have been watching the game for 38 years (30 closely and 12+ as a saber guy) but that doesn't make my argument have any more validity than yours. Guys either succeed or fail based on their skills. (be they physical, mental or all of the above) but any arguments about "grit" or "heart" are silly and pointless. anything that can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. One can talk about it, but when you make assertions of fact based on stuff like that, it has very little meaning and can be dismissed.

One last thing, the idiotic idea that saber people A- never played B- are young nerds who don't understand it other than numbers and C- never watch the games are all false. I played, I watch the games with great interest (and not just Braves games) and I am 43 and followed baseball closely without modern metrics until 2004 or so. The simple fact is, I like accuracy, I like better, I want to understand the game as much as possible, saber stats do this. They give me better information. are they 100% effective? nope,but they ARE better than the old baseball card numbers. If perfection is the goal, we keep getting closer towards the ideal. if perfection is the only thing acceptable, then you are not being realistic.

Let me address specific points. You say "the new stats are better than the old stats."

I agree. Much, much better. Love FIP. Love wOBA. Love WRC+. Love oWAR.

"WAR is the only overall comparative tool..."

Agree. That's where it's going.

"...and nobody said it was perfect."

You absolutely did. You said it was fact and ridiculed me for pointing out that it was an interpretation of facts, not a fact itself.

"Theory, like gravity or a round earth." "You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts."

Hey - back at ya, bud.

"To hand wave it away in favor of the highly fallable eyeball test..."

I didn't suggest that, not at all. I said when I see inconsistencies between my observations and statistics, I use that as a red flag. I analyze. I may look at components, or raw data rather than an interpretative stat, or trends, or yes, my personal experience. My eyes, my ears, others' opinions. I may decide that my eyes have it wrong and the data has it right. But I make my decision, I don't just follow the data.

"This is where you're going wrong, baseball is nothing like sales metrics..."

It's very similar. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. We have 13,000 agents. I'm fairly confident that we're not applying our analytics to a SSS.

"The idiotic idea that Saber people never played..."

Not my intention to infer that. My apologies. I was commenting on my background. I remember the difference between butterflies when I was nervous but ready to perform well, and butterflies when I was overmatched. And I get to see the same thing with my son (happily, he has more of the former and way fewer of the latter than I did).

If the sabermatician says that playoff stats aren't a large enough sample size to have predictive value and it's all random and everyone regresses to the mean, I just think, hey - would you have had any reaction to Carlos Beltran being inserted into the Braves playoff lineups through the 2000s? Cause I think he handled pressure pretty well. Better than other players. In a way that was repeatable and had predictive value. But the only way the sabermatician can acknowledge that is A) after the fact, as confirmation that he did perform pretty well or B) not at all, because he still only has 200 postseason at bats.

Which brings me to my last point: why do you keep talking solely about events that have already happened? Isn't the real value of sabermetrics its predictive value, and that you can predict future events better by taking a statistical approach?

[Enscheff]

"The idiotic idea that Saber people never played..."

Not my intention to infer that. My apologies. I was commenting on my background. I remember the difference between butterflies when I was nervous but ready to perform well, and butterflies when I was overmatched. And I get to see the same thing with my son (happily, he has more of the former and way fewer of the latter than I did).

If the sabermatician says that playoff stats aren't a large enough sample size to have predictive value and it's all random and everyone regresses to the mean, I just think, hey - would you have had any reaction to Carlos Beltran being inserted into the Braves playoff lineups through the 2000s? Cause I think he handled pressure pretty well. Better than other players. In a way that was repeatable and had predictive value. But the only way the sabermatician can acknowledge that is A) after the fact, as confirmation that he did perform pretty well or B) not at all, because he still only has 200 postseason at bats.

Which brings me to my last point: why do you keep talking solely about events that have already happened? Isn't the real value of sabermetrics its predictive value, and that you can predict future events better by taking a statistical approach?

I wouldn't apologize for this at all. I would argue anyone that touts "new stats" as the end all facts about players has never played any team sport at a highly competitive level. I only made it to the level of a walk on baseball player at a D1 school, and now I play slow pitch softball like the old men I used to poke fun at, but I have witnessed the same dynamics at all levels of serious competition, from 14 year old all stars, to high school ball, to traveling teams, to D1 play, and even in slow pitch softball. There is always "the guy" that anchors a team. Every time you move up a level, a few players step up and continue to be "the guy", and the rest of the players who were "the guy" at the previous level shrink into a more supportive role.

There is pressure to being "the guy" in a lineup or on a pitching staff. Some players can handle it, and some can't. Some guys that handled it in high school, or college, or in the minors can't handle it when they move up a level. Some guys can go back to being "the guy" once they get confident at the new level. I've seen it enough times to know it is fact of the game, and no amount of statistical analysis will ever convince me otherwise.

[clvclv]

Why doesn't Povse get more ink?

https://whensidslidcronies.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/prospect-hot-sheet-week-ending-5292016/

https://whensidslidcronies.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/prospect-hot-sheet-week-ending-5222016/

https://whensidslidcronies.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/prospect-hot-sheet-week-ending-5152016/

[bravos4evr]

and no amount of statistical analysis will ever convince me otherwise.


ahh a religious argument..... I played, and was very good until injuries forced me to stop my junior year in HS. But none of that matters, appeal to authority are logical fallacies for a reason. If you argue a player is good regardless of his stats you are making a religious argument, and that really can't be debated as it's based on belief rather than facts. and facts are all that matter.

[clvclv]

probably cuz he's in high A ball, when he gets promoted to AA i think he will catch some helium, he's pitching well

Which statistic reflects that???

[bravos4evr]

You absolutely did. You said it was fact and ridiculed me for pointing out that it was an interpretation of facts, not a fact itself.

WAR is a fact, it is an algorithm that displays exactly what it means to. if you have (5+13+25+X=) no matter what you plug in as X the answer will be a fact. that doesn't mean the algorithm is perfectly designed or that one part of said algorithm could perhaps use improvement, but you don't scrap the entire thing because it doesn't match the "eye test" an answer can both be a fact and imperfect.




Which brings me to my last point: why do you keep talking solely about events that have already happened? Isn't the real value of sabermetrics its predictive value, and that you can predict future events better by taking a statistical approach?

FIP does a pretty god job of predicting performance over ERA, and wOBA does a pretty good job of predicting future batting too (better than the old card stats anyway) besides, it's more a system of finding out WHY a performance has varied from the mean. if a guy in his 3rd year mproves his ERA a lot we can dig into the peripherals to try to figure out why. has his BABIP dropped? is he giving up fewer line drives? hard contact down? HR/FB down? Is he getting lucky or has he made a legitimate change? same with bats. Chris Johnson had that monster year, but a cursory search of his peripherals told us that this was unlikely to be sustainable due to his past history and luck on balls in play. it turned out to be true.

Look man, saber is better, but it can be better without being perfect and still be factual. (batting avg is imperfect and yet factual right?)

[nsacpi]

Which statistic reflects that???

I'm not sure if you really want a reply. But there are some studies out there that show results at the higher levels have a lot more predictive power than results at the lower levels. I remember one study in particular of minor league strikeout and walk rates and what they meant for major league performance. AA does seem to be the level where the wheat gets separated from the chaff.

[bravos4evr]

Which statistic reflects that???

Young Operational User Systems Ultimate Control Kinetic


:-p

[clvclv]

I'm not sure if you really want a reply. But there are some studies out there that show results at the higher levels have a lot more predictive power than results at the lower levels. I remember one study in particular of minor league strikeout and walk rates and what they meant for major league performance. AA does seem to be the level where the wheat gets separated from the chaff.

Someone actually needs a statistic to realize that???

Actually was just being a bit of a smartass since I expected the above type of reply since the quote I clipped included words like "I think".