2015 Lineup Construction

[ramadon101]

I think Sav needs to create two separate baseball forums for the next few years -- one for those who have been negative on the moves made this offseason and one for those who remain positive.

It would not only keep the bickering to a minimum, but also would be an interesting social experiment to see who, if anyone, eventually crosses over.

 

[mfree80]

Okay.... While we may be looking for different things, I am actually excited for a year where the focus is on young guys breaking out and becoming good players. Some will break out, some won't. Some are predictable, but some are going to be surprises. I hope many of us will be mature enough to enjoy watching the growth of this young team insted of whining be cause they don't win right now.

I see reason for optimism... strong young pitching... guys who can put the ball in play and get on base. I also see some need for patience. We tend to be an imptient bunch, but if we show a little patience, we will be rewarded.

 

[ramadon101]

Only 2 years ago, we were the second best power team in the NL, now we're one of the worst. We were 3rd worst last year, and traded our 2 best power bats. Womp womp.

Power, while valuable, is not the only means to achieving a high cumulative WAR - that was the point of that Fangraphs article that was originally cited for this thread. Sabean has constructed a club that has approximately the same projected WAR as the Orioles- who lead the majors in projected HRs next season. Of course we are near the bottom of projected WAR, but I think that has more to do with the fact that several of our players are unproven or of the high risk, high reward type - so I would argue that we could surprise a bit going forward (can't go down much further). In any event, my original point still stands- you can build a good club without tons of power.

 

[Tapate50]

Power, while valuable, is not the only means to achieving a high cumulative WAR - that was the point of that Fangraphs article that was originally cited for this thread. Sabean has constructed a club that has approximately the same projected WAR as the Orioles- who lead the majors in projected HRs next season. Of course we are near the bottom of projected WAR, but I think that has more to do with the fact that several of our players are unproven or of the high risk, high reward type - so I would argue that we could surprise a bit going forward (can't go down much further). In any event, my original point still stands- you can build a good club without tons of power.

And furthermore, build a bad club with lots of power....

 

[Dalyn]

So we only care about the team when they are good?

Most of us care no matter what. Most of us also at least got a taste of losing in the 80s, though I think most of us--even the people who keep talking about it--have forgotten what that really feels like. The threads are consistently longer when it is a good game. There likely won't be many of those, so what Wupk said makes sense in that regard.

 

[50PoundHead]

I always wondered how people would have handled the 1980 teams. I think we are going to find out. This is going to be a very bad team. People have been spoiled and I don't expect this board to handle a rebuilding year or two very well. It'll probably be best to stay away from game threads this year. If you thought last year was bad, it'll be a lot worse this year. The whining will be at an all time high.

I watched the 1980s teams and it was frustrating and with Tanner and Nixon in the dugout, it became extremely so. Tanner was Mr. Sunshine and brought in a lot of has-beens to surround Dale Murphy and the oft-injured Bob Horner. Nixon was just a grouch. I think the big difference here is that the pitching was either really young or really bad during that stretch. On paper at least, the pitching will be better for the current team. The other thing about the late-1980s teams is that they made a ton of mental errors.

 

[thewupk]

So we only care about the team when they are good?

I think a lot of people are that way. I care about them but if they are going to be losing a lot I'm not going to watch every game like I usually do. Winners get supported more then losers. That's just the way it is.

 

[Heyward]

Jace

Simmons

Freeman

BJ

Markakis

CJ

LF'er

CBet

P

 

[clvclv]

Even then, that's only if you're a pitching boner type of guy. If you're like most baseball fans and care about offense, all you really have to be excited for is Freeman and maybe Peraza.

"Most baseball fans"???

Afraid you're showing your age, not to mention your lack of appreciation for the game beyond spreadsheets.

There's never been anything more interesting to watch than a scoreless Pitchers duel - everything's riding on EVERY pitch.

 

[Heyward]

I think a lot of people are that way. I care about them but if they are going to be losing a lot I'm not going to watch every game like I usually do. Winners get supported more then losers. That's just the way it is.

Shouldnt you watch, talk about them if they are good or bad.

Not just good?

 

[thewupk]

"Most baseball fans"???

Afraid you're showing your age, not to mention your lack of appreciation for the game beyond spreadsheets.

There's never been anything more interesting to watch than a scoreless Pitchers duel - everything's riding on EVERY pitch.

I definitely enjoy watching that. Watching Maddux when all those 1-0 2-0 games was amazing. However you can't deny how popular offense made this game. It brought back fans after the strike and has helped created record attendance levels. I also don't think it's surprising that league wide attendnance started to drop after the 2007 and 2008 seasons when offense started declining. Chicks do dig the long ball.

 

[thewupk]

Shouldnt you watch, talk about them if they are good or bad.

Not just good?

Why should I pay money to watch a bad product? You saw what happened to game day threads here when the team started to tank late in the year. I can still follow the team and keep up with them without spending 3 hours every night and watching them.

 

[bravesnumberone]

Of course I care about the team. Otherwise I wouldn't care if we tore down a team with a great young core because there was somehow no other option for success in the new suburban playground. I'll still watch the games and look for things to look forward to but if the ones of you blindly defending the front office complain about anything this year you should be banned.

 

[Diesel]

"Most baseball fans"???

Afraid you're showing your age, not to mention your lack of appreciation for the game beyond spreadsheets.

There's never been anything more interesting to watch than a scoreless Pitchers duel - everything's riding on EVERY pitch.

I'm 42, and not a close follower of advanced metrics, and I agree that casual fans are much more turned on to offense as opposed to defense/pitching. I don't even think there's an argument that a majority of the fans would rather see a 10-8 game than a 2-1 contest. Exciting offenses get people stirred up and more action, homeruns, circling the bases, those are things that makes for entertainment value.

I enjoy a good pitcher's duel, especially in the post season. But I want an offense that is exciting and players who you don't want to miss when they come to the plate.

 

[clvclv]

Why should I pay money to watch a bad product? You saw what happened to game day threads here when the team started to tank late in the year. I can still follow the team and keep up with them without spending 3 hours every night and watching them.

Ummm...because you're a fan?

This is the problem with today's fairweather fans - they feel that they're entitled to a "winner". Paying $130 for a MLB.com subscription doesn't entitle you to anything. Neither does buying a couple jerseys or hats for you or your kids.

The people that "deserve" something are those people who buy season tickets and go to games, sitting out there in sun and the 95 degree heat instead of stretching out on their couch with a beer, waiting out rain delays because they knew something special might happen (whether their team was good or not) because they wanted to be able to say they saw it.

I always chuckle when I hear people complain about the fact that Liberty won't raise payroll to help put the Braves over the top. Why on earth should they? Attendance is terrible, and merchandise sales and other revenues that are directly influenced by the "fans" are always less than what other winning organizations generate. If fan "support" had anything to do with it, the Braves would've been consistent cellar-dwellers long ago. Those of you that disappear when times aren't so great are the exact reason the organization has to rely on profit sharing to ever increase payroll - THIS is the entire reason Hart & Company are having to rebuild. There aren't enough people coming out to support the team when you HAVE players like Heyward and Upton to afford to add a piece or two to help them get over the hump...there's no way in hell the organization can give them even bigger portions of the payroll and expect to compete - there's nowhere near enough revenue to do that.

 

[chop2chip]

I definitely enjoy watching that. Watching Maddux when all those 1-0 2-0 games was amazing. However you can't deny how popular offense made this game. It brought back fans after the strike and has helped created record attendance levels. I also don't think it's surprising that league wide attendnance started to drop after the 2007 and 2008 seasons when offense started declining. Chicks do dig the long ball.

There's actually been a lot of good research on MLB attendance by some pretty well regarded sports economists.

Essentially the premise is that the only factors that has a significant impact on attemdance is winning and the other is what is called the "honeymoon effect" which is the years following the opening of a new stadium.

Based off that, my guess for why league wide attendance dropping is that the teams whose fans respond better to winning have been relatively worse than they were in the early 2000's while teams such as the Athletics, Rays, etc have not seen significant increases in attendance to correlate with their winning. Also, the increase in new stadiums has also declined so what we are seeing is the after effects of the "honeymoon" era. Hence, the overall decline in MLB attendance.

But the decline in popularity argument is pretty weak IMO. Overall, TV ratings are higher than they've ever been and this has been through the decline of offense.

 

[chop2chip]

The authors in question are Martin Schmidt and David Berri. Google their names together. They cowrote the journal article together.

 

[thewupk]

Ummm...because you're a fan?

This is the problem with today's fairweather fans - they feel that they're entitled to a "winner". Paying $130 for a MLB.com subscription doesn't entitle you to anything. Neither does buying a couple jerseys or hats for you or your kids.

The people that "deserve" something are those people who buy season tickets and go to games, sitting out there in sun and the 95 degree heat instead of stretching out on their couch with a beer, waiting out rain delays because they knew something special might happen (whether their team was good or not) because they wanted to be able to say they saw it.

I always chuckle when I hear people complain about the fact that Liberty won't raise payroll to help put the Braves over the top. Why on earth should they? Attendance is terrible, and merchandise sales and other revenues that are directly influenced by the "fans" are always less than what other winning organizations generate. If fan "support" had anything to do with it, the Braves would've been consistent cellar-dwellers long ago. Those of you that disappear when times aren't so great are the exact reason the organization has to rely on profit sharing to ever increase payroll - THIS is the entire reason Hart & Company are having to rebuild. There aren't enough people coming out to support the team when you HAVE players like Heyward and Upton to afford to add a piece or two to help them get over the hump...there's no way in hell the organization can give them even bigger portions of the payroll and expect to compete - there's nowhere near enough revenue to do that.

I don't feel entitled to anything. However why should I spent my 130 dollars for mlb.tv when I don't agree with the way the organization is doing things? Fans flock to winners. It's always been that way and will always be that way. I'm not any less of a fan because I choose not to watch every game to see my team lose compared to when things are going well.

 

[thewupk]

There's actually been a lot of good research on MLB attendance by some pretty well regarded sports economists.

Essentially the premise is that the only factors that has a significant impact on attemdance is winning and the other is what is called the "honeymoon effect" which is the years following the opening of a new stadium.

Based off that, my guess for why league wide attendance dropping is that the teams whose fans respond better to winning have been relatively worse than they were in the early 2000's while teams such as the Athletics, Rays, etc have not seen significant increases in attendance to correlate with their winning. Also, the increase in new stadiums has also declined so what we are seeing is the after effects of the "honeymoon" era. Hence, the overall decline in MLB attendance.

But the decline in popularity argument is pretty weak IMO. Overall, TV ratings are higher than they've ever been and this has been through the decline of offense.

I didn't say that the popularity of the sport is declining. It's been bringing in more and more revenue each year. And there is a difference in watching games on TV and going to the stadium. When you go to a live sporting even you want to be entertained. Offenses entertain and pitching duels do not. Again I think league wide attendance declining as offense gets weaker is a pretty strong correlation. Especially since it was the steroid fueled homerun chase that brought fans back to the game. That's exciting. 1-0 duels are not even if it's good baseball.

 

[chop2chip]

I didn't say that the popularity of the sport is declining. It's been bringing in more and more revenue each year. And there is a difference in watching games on TV and going to the stadium. When you go to a live sporting even you want to be entertained. Offenses entertain and pitching duels do not. Again I think league wide attendance declining as offense gets weaker is a pretty strong correlation. Especially since it was the steroid fueled homerun chase that brought fans back to the game. That's exciting. 1-0 duels are not even if it's good baseball.

That correlation, when controlled for other factors, is weak though.

But you could make the argument that it's easier to turn a TV off when a game is boring where as most people won't leave the ball park because it's "just" a 2-1 pitcher duel. In fact, the Red Sox saw significant increases in attendance on games that Pedro Martinez started. This suggests teams are more inclined to watch games started by better pitchers. Ask yourself, would you rather watch Kershaw vs Felix where scoring is very likely to be low scoring or games started by worse pitchers where scoring will be higher?

Again your narrative makes sense but there just isn't any evidence that it's actually true.