Braves "Kick Tires" on Dozier

nsacpi said:
in the extreme you are right...a team of 8 billy hamiltons would probably not be that good...but a team with ender, mallex and oz has a chance to be very good
Click to expand...

I posted some simulations about this in the past. Turned out a lineup scores more runs when you balance the "power" and "contact" guys, even if those guys all produced at the same level overall.

It's accurate to say getting on base is valuable, but it is only valuable because guys hitting behind the contact hitter have power and drive them in. All the numbers that have been calculated to assign a value to OBP and power were done so in the context of the overall trend in baseball...fast guys getting on base, and guys with power driving them in.

Take away guys getting on base, and power is less valuable. Take away power hitters driving in fast guys and OBP becomes less valuable.
 
smootness said:
I'm not so sure. I think it'd be about as good as the WAR would suggest. If you could find that kind of defense at every single defensive position, your run prevention would be incredible. And if you had guys who were that much of a threat on the basepaths and could take that many extra bases, that would help make up for the lack of OBP. It would certainly be a team that would allow few runs and score few runs, but I think they would win as many games as the WAR would suggest they would.
Click to expand...

It would be close enough to where it honestly doesn't matter. A 162 game season is still a small enough sample size to where you can over or under perform your win level based on timing of actual events.

If Mallex were to be a 2-3 WAR player this season then he would help the team win more games than either Kemp or Markakis even if the majority of his WAR is skewed towards defense and base running.

When it comes to similar WAR players then you will want more of a balance to better optimize your performance. When one player is easily better than the other then that balance goes out the window imo.
 
Enscheff said:
I posted some simulations about this in the past. Turned out a lineup scores more runs when you balance the "power" and "contact" guys, even if those guys all produced at the same level overall.

It's accurate to say getting on base is valuable, but it is only valuable because guys hitting behind the contact hitter have power and drive them in. All the numbers that have been calculated to assign a value to OBP and power were done so in the context of the overall trend in baseball...fast guys getting on base, and guys with power driving them in.

Take away guys getting on base, and power is less valuable. Take away power hitters driving in fast guys and OBP becomes less valuable.
Click to expand...
thats common sense...the tecniical issue is the elastcity of substitution beween power and on base skills when it comes to run production...none of us argue that they are perfect substitutes and none of us believe there is zero substitutability...there is an optimal mix...the debate is about how the tradeoff changes as you move away from the optimal mix

making runs is not like make water where you need hydrogen and oxygen in a precise fixed ratio...it is moe like making a salad where the mix of lettuce and tomatoes doesnt have to be so precise
 
thewupk said:
When it comes to similar WAR players then you will want more of a balance to better optimize your performance. When one player is easily better than the other then that balance goes out the window imo.
Click to expand...
that sums it up for me
 
smootness said:
I'm not so sure. I think it'd be about as good as the WAR would suggest. If you could find that kind of defense at every single defensive position, your run prevention would be incredible. And if you had guys who were that much of a threat on the basepaths and could take that many extra bases, that would help make up for the lack of OBP. It would certainly be a team that would allow few runs and score few runs, but I think they would win as many games as the WAR would suggest they would.
Click to expand...

See Tampa 2014-2016 to see how this theory works out.
 
Enscheff said:
I posted some simulations about this in the past. Turned out a lineup scores more runs when you balance the "power" and "contact" guys, even if those guys all produced at the same level overall.

It's accurate to say getting on base is valuable, but it is only valuable because guys hitting behind the contact hitter have power and drive them in. All the numbers that have been calculated to assign a value to OBP and power were done so in the context of the overall trend in baseball...fast guys getting on base, and guys with power driving them in.

Take away guys getting on base, and power is less valuable. Take away power hitters driving in fast guys and OBP becomes less valuable.
Click to expand...

I remember that...but wasn't it very close? Statistically insignificant?
 
Horsehide Harry said:
To me, the conversation is:

Do you play Mallex in the OF and trade for a production 2B like Dozier where Albies goes in trade either as part of the Dozier trade or for some other player?

OR

Do you play Albies at 2B and find your production bats to man LF and RF around Inciarte?

OR

Do you play Mallex in CF and trade inciarte and play Albies at 2B?

The idea of Inciarte, Mallex and Albies all together on the same offense just doesn't work for me unless you have huge production from the other OF position, 3B and C.

Now, if the Braves signed Lucroy, Machado and a guy like Cargo, they would be able to pull together a decent offense: CF Inciarte, SS Swanson, 3B Machado, 1B Freeman, C Lucroy, RF Cargo, LF Mallex, 2B Albies (assuming the Braves can and would spend the big money it would take to add three premium FA over the next 2-3 years). Machado gives you the big RH compliment to pair with Freeman in the middle of the lineup, Lucroy gives you better than average production at catcher and Cargo as well in RF (assuming he plays well away from Coors). If Swanson progresses with the bat to be dangerous enough to be a #3 hitter then so much the better: CF Inciarte, 2B Albies, SS Swanson, 1B Freeman, 3B Machado, RF Cargo, C Lucroy, LF Mallex

But this probably not so much: CF Inciarte, SS Swanson, 3B Moustakas, 1B Freeman, C Lucroy, LF Peterson, RF Mallex, 2B Albies
Click to expand...

I agree. You'd need a lot of offense everywhere else and the braves don't have that at all.
 
thewupk said:
It would be close enough to where it honestly doesn't matter. A 162 game season is still a small enough sample size to where you can over or under perform your win level based on timing of actual events.

If Mallex were to be a 2-3 WAR player this season then he would help the team win more games than either Kemp or Markakis even if the majority of his WAR is skewed towards defense and base running.

When it comes to similar WAR players then you will want more of a balance to better optimize your performance. When one player is easily better than the other then that balance goes out the window imo.
Click to expand...

I think defensive war is questionably calculated and questionably weighted but a hypothetically perfect measurement might make your statement true. Or not.
 
Talking Dozier on XM right now, and got me to trying to follow the reasoning we would've been tied to him at all. As with seemingly all moves we make, it has to be intertwined with other moves, so follow the "logic" (even though it doesn't necessarily fit what we've typically thought of long-term). Slow Friday, and I'm still trying to understand why we've been mentioned, sorry. Gotta dig deep, but if you really stretch...

Braves have decided to try to compete NOW, so...

1.) Trade Newcomb and Jace for Dozier.
2.) Trade Albies, Mallex, Weigel, and Touki for Archer.

2017 rotation becomes Archer/Julio/Garcia/Colon/Dickey (have to admit I'd love that) and you work Folty/Wisler/Blair/Fried in closer to the deadline and early 2018.

The brass has seen enough in their minds (even though most here aren't sold on him yet) to feel comfortable with Demeritte at 2B long-term, so plugging Dozier in to win now makes sense since Travis won't be ready before his deal is up. They've also seen enough to feel comfortable platooning Ruiz and Adonis or Rodriguez at 3B until Maitan arrives.

Yeah it's thin and shaky, but you could arguably add the pieces to make the Braves legitimate contenders without completely decimating the farm system if you were willing to roll the dice. Not sure how I'd feel if Coppy did it, but I do have to admit the thought is at least interesting.

You'd still have tons of pitching depth - Folty, Wisler, Blair, Sims, Fried, Allard, Soroka, Anderson, Wentz, and Muller PLUS you intend to grab one of Alex Faedo, Kyle Wright, or J. B. Bukauskas with the #5 pick to replace one of the arms you traded away. You'd still have Acuna, Peterson, and Riley as potential long-term corner OF options. You'd still have Maitan as your long-term 3B. You'd still have Rodriguez and d'Arnaud as super-subs and could give Camargo reps at other positions at Gwinnett this season to increase his versatility.
 
I wonder if Dozier could play 3B? Not in 2017 necessarily but after. Dozier at 2B for 2017 with Albies at 2B and Dozier at 3B in 2018. Dozier did play a bit at 3B in the minors and played some ss at the ML level early in his career.

OR, the Braves may just be in it thinking that if the price drops enough it might be worth the gamble to bring him in then flip him at the deadline or next offseason.

OR, maybe the Braves are trying to get Dozier cheap by taking on another Twins contract like Phil Hughes (Cot's had their 40 man year end number at $122M). This would be my hope since I see Hughes as a big bounce back guy.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I wonder if Dozier could play 3B? Not in 2017 necessarily but after. Dozier at 2B for 2017 with Albies at 2B and Dozier at 3B in 2018. Dozier did play a bit at 3B in the minors and played some ss at the ML level early in his career.

OR, the Braves may just be in it thinking that if the price drops enough it might be worth the gamble to bring him in then flip him at the deadline or next offseason.

OR, maybe the Braves are trying to get Dozier cheap by taking on another Twins contract like Phil Hughes (Cot's had their 40 man year end number at $122M). This would be my hope since I see Hughes as a big bounce back guy.
Click to expand...

Here is a prospect retrospective on Dozier:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.mino...ofile-brian-dozier-2b-minnesota?client=safari

The money quote we care about:

"Although his range and arm strength are marginal at shortstop, he is very reliable in terms of avoiding mistakes and making the routine play. I like him. At worst he’ll be a fine utility player"

Sounds a lot defensively like SRod. I think he could probably handle 3b, definitely better than Garcia.

The question becomes acquisition cost. The Dodgers are trying to get him straight up for De Leon, the #33 prospect in the game. The Twins want more, so the Braves are probably looking at Newcomb plus one of the other top young arms in the system.

Is that price worth adding 2-3 wins to a 75-80 win team? I lean towards no, but I wouldn't be too upset if they did it.
 
Enscheff said:
Here is a prospect retrospective on Dozier:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.mino...ofile-brian-dozier-2b-minnesota?client=safari

The money quote we care about:

"Although his range and arm strength are marginal at shortstop, he is very reliable in terms of avoiding mistakes and making the routine play. I like him. At worst he’ll be a fine utility player"

Sounds a lot defensively like SRod. I think he could probably handle 3b, definitely better than Garcia.

The question becomes acquisition cost. The Dodgers are trying to get him straight up for De Leon, the #33 prospect in the game. The Twins want more, so the Braves are probably looking at Newcomb plus one of the other top young arms in the system.

Is that price worth adding 2-3 wins to a 75-80 win team? I lean towards no, but I wouldn't be too upset if they did it.
Click to expand...

You know how I feel. Under ideal circumstances 2017 isn't even on the radar of thought during the rebuild. However, I do understand that the FO probably has a ton of pressure applied by the new stadium and the forces around that to at least create the pretense of competitiveness in 2017.

For me, I would prefer taking a chance on Hughes as part of the deal because, in theory, that should diminish the cost of Dozier and Hughes is likely at least a #4 or #5 moving forward with a real possibility of him being much better than that. Maybe Wisler & Blair for Dozier and Hughes? Twins shed payroll and risk (Hughes) and gain two ML ready starters who are young cost controlled guys with #3 potential (Wisler especially has shown that).

Braves get their current 2B and maybe future 3B in Dozier and take on a reclaimation in Hughes while giving up parts that likely will be passed soon by others in the org.

Question would be how much value would the Twins apply to moving Hughes and his money? If they don't care, then LA probably makes the deal with De Leon.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
You know how I feel. Under ideal circumstances 2017 isn't even on the radar of thought during the rebuild. However, I do understand that the FO probably has a ton of pressure applied by the new stadium and the forces around that to at least create the pretense of competitiveness in 2017.

For me, I would prefer taking a chance on Hughes as part of the deal because, in theory, that should diminish the cost of Dozier and Hughes is likely at least a #4 or #5 moving forward with a real possibility of him being much better than that. Maybe Wisler & Blair for Dozier and Hughes? Twins shed payroll and risk (Hughes) and gain two ML ready starters who are young cost controlled guys with #3 potential (Wisler especially has shown that).

Braves get their current 2B and maybe future 3B in Dozier and take on a reclaimation in Hughes while giving up parts that likely will be passed soon by others in the org.

Question would be how much value would the Twins apply to moving Hughes and his money? If they don't care, then LA probably makes the deal with De Leon.
Click to expand...

While I agree this would be ideal, I just don't see the Twins going this route in a lost season. They need premium prospects more than they need to shed payroll IMO. I love the principle though!!
 
blueagleace1 said:
While I agree this would be ideal, I just don't see the Twins going this route in a lost season. They need premium prospects more than they need to shed payroll IMO. I love the principle though!!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is exactly what the Braves did when they watered down the return for Kimbrel by attaching BJ to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top