A guy at FG did some interesting work on identifying the best way to build a roster. Stars and Scrubs vs Depth, things like that:
https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/evalua...on-on-rosters/
The money quote: "Depth has its purposes, and it’s preferable to Stars and Scrubs. And giving a high volume of playing time to star-quality players obviously helps any team. But the quickest route a franchise can take in building a winner is simply to avoid giving playing time to scrubs, players under 1.0 WAR."
The "no scrubs" model is the one used by the Rays and A's, and is likely why they seem to overvalue MLB-ready prospects who profile as average-ish MLB players. With their limited funds they prefer to add 3-4 non-scrubs rather than 1 star. It is the most efficient way to build a roster, and it's likely why they utilize it. The Dodgers follow the same model, but on steroids, and likely define a scrub as below 2 WAR.
This work applies to the Braves presently because they have many scrub positions on the roster (3B, LF, RF, BP, SP, SS). They could either focus resources into patching 1-2 holes with a star, or spread the resources out to put a non-scrub at every position.
It appears they would be better off upgrading all those positions moderately rather than only 1-2 of them substantially.
Reply With Quote