2016-2017 Off-Season Thread
- Thread starter CrimsonCowboy
- Start date
You don't even disagree with me at all. The Braves mission statement for this offseason should be: "Signal to the fan base that the rebuild has turned the corner by assembling a 75+ win team with the best chances possible of finishing with a .500 record without sacrificing future wins".
Under no realistic scenario does trading for Sale or Archer follow that statement. The Braves are not getting either pitcher without giving up a significant number of wins in 2018 and later. The ChiSox wouldn't make such a trade because thats not how trades for current star players work.
One interesting note is that FG's projections have just 7 teams in all of baseball with more than 85 projected wins. Last year 13 teams finished with more than 85 wins. So based on past history, their projections tend to be a little conservative. So if you get to a projection of around 84-85 wins, that probably puts you in a place more like 88-89 wins.
Doesn't really mean a whole lot, we're not at 84-85, either, but it's something to note.
Doesn't really mean a whole lot, we're not at 84-85, either, but it's something to note.
They tend to group teams towards .500. For every team that beat the projections there must be a team that was worse than projections by the same amount. That's the definition of a zero sum system, which is what wins/losses is.
The Angels will certainly be one of those teams
So even more reason to believe that the braves can exceed their win projection. That's why on the whole stats are accurate but individually there is variation.
Latest from the Braves' mouthpiece Bowman:
"This plan could change courtesy of an injury or the unlikely possibility that Atlanta pays the steep price it would require to trade for Chris Sale, Chris Archer or Sonny Gray. While the Braves have not extinguished the thought of acquiring any of these three starters, I'd say the likelihood of them doing so rivals that of Tyler Flowers ending Game 7 of next year's World Series with an inside-the-park home run."
Haha. Fat boy has jokes! Let's keep hoping though.
"This plan could change courtesy of an injury or the unlikely possibility that Atlanta pays the steep price it would require to trade for Chris Sale, Chris Archer or Sonny Gray. While the Braves have not extinguished the thought of acquiring any of these three starters, I'd say the likelihood of them doing so rivals that of Tyler Flowers ending Game 7 of next year's World Series with an inside-the-park home run."
Haha. Fat boy has jokes! Let's keep hoping though.
Wait, is there any reason the Braves have a higher probability of exceeding their win projection than winning less?
To be fair, Bowman's certainly not the only "insider" that's been saying they're still sniffing around - Rosenthal, Heyman, Crasnick, and plenty of the others continue to report that their sources are still saying that the brass is "considering" a deal. That certainly doesn't mean anything is imminent - or even "likely" - but Coppy and Hart have had plenty of face time in front of cameras over the last couple weeks to dismiss the rumors if they're that far off.
If Sale was a FA at the end of the year, I would agree. The fact they are only interested in good players on short term deals, or great players with several years of control suggests an unwillingness to mortgage the future. They are not going for a World Series team in 2017, just a better team. Sale or Archer would still be here during the proverbial window of contention.
That's what I mean by a process. A trade for Sale or Archer is about the next several years, not just 2017.
Most fans only consider potential upside. It's kind of the point of being a fan.
No...but we've been told that 75 is the number and that's it. I'm aware it can go both ways.
For the Braves to be better in 2018 and beyond with Archer or Sale, that means the ChiSox or Rays would have to accept less wins for those guys than they would have provided had they held onto them. The ChiSox or Rays would have to be OK with being worse in the present AND the future in order for the Braves to be better in both the present AND the future.
Do you really think the Sox or Rays are going to do that? Any package those teams get for Sale or Archer must provide them with more future wins than those pitchers would have provided, or they will just hang onto them. A team gives up 12 current wins for 20 future wins (for example), so the team giving up the future wins absolutely, positively, without question, has weakened their future position in exchange for current wins. How exactly can that math work out any other way?
Again, another person that needs to learn what folks mean when they say "75 win team".
Go take 30 minutes to educate yourself so you can stop saying stupid things like "75 is the number and that's it".
Right. That doesn't change anything I said.
You've said why bother doing X move because we are a 75 win team and proceeded to come up with complete BS standard deviation description of likely and less likely.
Would you like me to fax you my math degree which included 8 credit hours of statistics to prove my worth to you?
Southcack77
Well-known member
i think the braves are taking exactly the approach you suggest except they are leaving open the possibility of finding a trade that works for them to acquire an top of the rotation starters with control.
They aren't looking at going all in on Texeira, which can make sense in the right circumstance. That isn't what they are doing at all.
I think arguments can made that rebuild hasn't been 100% genius, but it's never been fundamentally flawed in approach.
They know what they are doing and where they are. It shows in the transactions they've made.
I think it's been clever for the most part even if much of it doesn't play out.
I think you should fax the university that gave you that degree and demand a refund. They obviously let you down with those math courses based on your comments displaying a complete lack of understanding about what win projections mean.
I would expect someone with 2 courses in stats to understand that someone saying the Braves are a 75 win team does not mean they are going to win exactly 75 games. So you either didn't learn anything in those classes, or you are arguing just to argue even though you know better.
PS - I thought I did a good job explaining the Braves expected win curve without using any technical language.
Everything the Braves have done this point is sound. The Jackson trade was odd, but it wasn't a bad trade. SRod will platoon at 2B and 3B with Jace and Adonis, so it was a roundabout to address both positions if you think SRod is truly a breakout candidate (I don't but it's not like it cost much to take that chance).
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
What is the standard deviation of this model. How many numbers are we plotting? Since we are getting statistical I assume he thinks Wins and Losses are Linear which is not possible because his base is 75 wins which means the data set is more likely to lose than win based on the median. So his Bell curve could not be standard. adding + value to his data set would completely change the model and need to be re-calculated. You can't just add numbers to a statistical plot. But I am sure he knows that. He 'sounds' so intelligent with his google degree.