Yup. I hope we don't try to accelerate the rebuild by trading from the very promising group we have in low A and the rookie leagues.Originally Posted by smootness
Yup. I hope we don't try to accelerate the rebuild by trading from the very promising group we have in low A and the rookie leagues.
JohnAdcox (08-05-2015)
If they add Cespedes or Gordon in LF, a pitcher at Kazmir's level or better, sign a catcher that isn't hot garbage, and make a couple additions to the BP, there's no reason this can't be an 85-90 win team next season.
I see no need to use any more of the talent in the farm to add to this team. The pieces are available on the FA market, and the Braves will have the money to buy them provided they don't do something stupid like bid against themselves for Ces/Gordon.
cajunrevenge (08-05-2015), nsacpi (08-05-2015), yeezus (08-05-2015)
90 wins would be if that group all had great years, which isn't likely. I think if Kazmir and Cespedes are added, you're looking at a realistic projection of something like 83-86 wins.
Eh, it really depends on who you get good years from. I'm not going to say Simmons is going to be a low-.600 OPS guy forever. He could have a better season at any time. I think guys could always improve (or, obviously, get worse). But, I think our pitching could easily improve a good amount next year, and that would go a long way as well.
I'm personally not in favor of Cespedes. He's inconsistent and too boom-or-bust with his approach.
Not nearly enough power to contend for anything realistically.
Freeman: 30hr (generous)
Simmons: 10hr (generous)
Peterson: 5 hr
Markakis: 10 hr (generous)
Bethancourt: 10 hr (generous)
Olivera: ? 20hr (unknown)
Maybin: 15hr (generous)
Mallex: 5hr
That's 105 hr. With league average likely being in the 150 range, then the bench would have to account for 45hr AND/OR you would have to sign or trade for a replacement bat for above where the net adds significantly to the total.
Good teams - playoff teams, WS teams, etc. average at least league average in HR. The statistics over the last 25 years show this.
Signing guys and counting up their WAR is one way to look at it. But a team full of the WAR you think you need but no power is statistically VERY unlikely to win anything.
Pirates have 83 right now, Royals have 84, Cardinals have 86. All on pace for about 120-130. Pirates will have 2 with 20 HR, Cardinals may end up with 2, Royals will probably only have 1.
You just need a lineup full of quality hitters who can get on base. That usually comes with at least league average HR; it doesn't always. Wins are wins.
There are always exceptions. But, if you go look over the last 25 years, the RULE is league average HR or better.
If you want to play for the exception then your betting on a long shot. It MIGHT pay off but history says it won't.
Well, those are 3 examples, but they just so happen to have the 3 best records in all of baseball in the current climate. This year shows that may not be a rule right now.
Yes, you also have the Yankees, Astros, and Dodgers hitting a bunch, but in baseball right now, you can win in several different ways.
Again, usually when you put together a quality lineup, HR will come with it. But there are plenty of examples right now of that not necessarily being the case. Those teams are all average or better in OBP.
I'm just saying, using the argument of 'Adding up our HR only comes to around 115, and you have to have at least 150 to compete for the playoffs,' is kind of crazy.
You know what the Cardinals do lead in? WAR.
WAR is a metric based on statistical input. And that's OK it's useful.
But, I'm also giving you a metric based on 25 years of statistical input.
Building your team without serious regard to power is crazy as is shown by history.
I don't think it wise to disregard history simply because it doesn't fit current needs. IF, I say IF, teams winning WS and pennants with power deprived offenses become a trend, then you have to accept that whether you like it or not and I will. But, so far, teams winning with a lack of power is the exception, not the rule.
There are multiple ways to win. But yeah, this team could use more power. I think realistically we can add 20-25 HR's by upgrading left and catcher relative to what we currently have under contractual control for next year. But we're unlikely to be an above-average power hitting team anytime soon. That won't happen until the current group in the rookie leagues mature. As Mr. Hart has noted bats are hard to find these days.
Last edited by nsacpi; 08-05-2015 at 09:19 PM.
That's fine, I understand that.
But we also have to be realistic about what we have. Our current roster severely lacks power. There's a chance Markakis adds a little more next year, and Olivera should add some, so that helps, but we're still looking at being a below-average team with regard to power.
So our options are either to make an attempt to add a bunch of power over the next couple years or to go with what we do have and try to mold it into the best team we can. It will be unbelievably expensive to add the kind of power you want to add, so our best bet is to plug some holes with quality players to give ourselves a chance to compete while allowing our young talent to progress.
And yes, you can compete without being league-average in HR. I'm not saying we're going to become a team people will predict to win the WS. But we can become a team that pitches very well, defends well, and gets on base at an above-average rate. That team can absolutely compete for a playoff spot.
It's certainly a better argument, IMO, than, 'No, we don't have the proper number of HR, therefore we won't compete.'
There is a pretty big difference in trying to compete and make the playoffs versus winning a WS though. History backs up what you are saying as far as WS winners goes, league average at least in homers and having a couple 20 HR guys is pretty much the norm throughout most of baseball history. But you can make the playoffs pretty easily with strong pitching, good defense, and an average offense.
Building up that type of team and grooming a 2-3 high level bats in the minors is what we should be shooting for really. We aren't going to develop a WS team in 2-3 years of trying, nor should we be making that the aim.
These are my thoughts pretty much exactly.
dak, you moron, you know better than to ask questions like this. Here on Chop Country, we assess players on the basis of metrics. There's no value in watching games. Who are you gonna believe? Zito or your lying eyes?
The ultimate goal is to win a WS (or should be) and then repeat as often as possible. The intermediate goal is to win a pennant. The short term is to be competitive.
However, I don't think it wise to make moves that improve the short term at the expense of the long term. I think you build with the long term goal in mind, get better along the way and the opportunity for short and intermediate goals will happen if you are pursuing the long term goal correctly.
The last time the Braves did a serious rebuild was late 80's early 90's. Yes, the whole pitching and defense mantra gets a lot of play as what made the Braves a dynasty. But, that's overlooking guys like Gant, Justice, Klesko, Lopez, CJ, Blauser, McGriff, Pendelton etc. where most came out of the Braves minors but some came as FA signings and even trade.
To get back to the topic, I think Smith will/could be fine IF he can play CF and IF he can slot as a lead off guy. If he can't do that, then he has very little value as a starter for the Braves.
But I'm not arguing with any of this. In fact, you also said pretty much exactly what I agree with.
But what I'm saying is that 2016 and 2017 are not the end goal, at least they shouldn't be. We should be looking to make some moves to compete in those years, but the cost to truly build a WS contender in 2 years would be far too prohibitive.
I'm not saying we should be looking primarily at pitching and defense in our long-term strategy. Those should be two primary building blocks, but offense and power have to be two others. I'm one of those saying we should draft a hitter, as long as it makes sense in terms of value, over a pitcher at the top of next year's draft. I also love that we're going after Maitan next year as well.
I want offense. I want tons of offense and tons of power. But we have very little power right now, so trying to get enough to be league-average there by 2017 will be extremely difficult and extremely expensive. Therefore, I'd rather just build the best team we can without giving away the farm...so unfortunately, that would mean a team that is below-average in power.
I agree with this. If his defense is above-average and he can get on base at a clip of .320 or better, he should have value for us. That would probably put him at about 2 WAR or more given his speed. If his defense is only average and his OBP falls more around .300, then he doesn't give us much value at all.
I want power, but I don't want a team that strikes out every 3 times they bat. Last year, we had a team that had the 3rd most strike outs in the NL but around the 5th or 6th fewest home runs. As a result, that offense wasn't much better than this year's despite the difference in power. Nothing good comes out of a strike out for a hitter, particularly if you strike out looking, IMO.
I agree that I'd rather have fewer Ks, but I'd take a ton more HR if they also came with a ton more Ks. Our problem last year was a lot of Ks without much power, as you said. If you have a lot of Ks but a lot of power, it's better than few Ks but few power, as the Astros are proving this year. And the Cubs will soon enough as well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote