The Trade Scenario no one has mentioned

[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).