Braves Should Avoid Becoming Diamondbacks

cherry picking the data is not a good practice when making projections...if feelings be hurt from this being pointed out so be it
 
i think snakes expected more out of Corbin also.

I think their big mistake was giving up so much for Shelby Miller. I think they could have been in wc if things broke better but parting with so much for uncertain piece was a big risk.

I think trading for Chris Sale makes a little more sense all in all.
 
mfree80 said:
So the big question here is whether the big 2nd half was a hot streak, or real progression on the part of the team and many of the players.

Certainly the answer is not a guaranteed one way or the other. However, those who find reasons to think it is more than a hot streak are not idiots to think so... just as those who find reasons to think it was just an unsustainable hot streak are also not stupid for their opinions. Personally, I prefer the optimistic view of real progress toward becoming a very good team. Time will tell.

I enjoy the discussion of both sides, up until we have to start painting those who see it the other way with the idiot brush.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with thinking it was real progression, though, is that you then have to take the 1st half as real regression. So you would have to believe that a lot of our players truly got worse to start the year, then suddenly progressed, not back to where they had been, but beyond where they had been. The far more likely scenario is that they had an abnormally poor first half, then it evened out with an abnormally good second half.

Now, even taking the year as a whole, Freeman did progress, and it's possible he took a step forward in his development. And it's possible Kemp really did turn back the clock a bit and find his swing again. And that Markakis got a little bit of his pop back. But when looking at Inciarte's year as a whole, he did mostly what he had done the year before. I think it's always good to take a 162-game season and look at it as a whole rather than selecting any single stretch of that year. As others have pointed out, had the first and second halfs been reversed, I don't think anyone would want to sit here and say that the 2nd half was a true indication of the team getting worse. So we probably shouldn't do the same thing now because the 2nd half was better.
 
smootness said:
I think the problem with thinking it was real progression, though, is that you then have to take the 1st half as real regression. So you would have to believe that a lot of our players truly got worse to start the year, then suddenly progressed, not back to where they had been, but beyond where they had been. The far more likely scenario is that they had an abnormally poor first half, then it evened out with an abnormally good second half.

Now, even taking the year as a whole, Freeman did progress, and it's possible he took a step forward in his development. And it's possible Kemp really did turn back the clock a bit and find his swing again. And that Markakis got a little bit of his pop back. But when looking at Inciarte's year as a whole, he did mostly what he had done the year before. I think it's always good to take a 162-game season and look at it as a whole rather than selecting any single stretch of that year. As others have pointed out, had the first and second halfs been reversed, I don't think anyone would want to sit here and say that the 2nd half was a true indication of the team getting worse. So we probably shouldn't do the same thing now because the 2nd half was better.
Click to expand...

pretty sensible...i'm ok with giving second half performance slightly more weight...but if the second half numbers are significantly out of line with what we've seen from a player over the past two or three seasons, i'd be very careful about saying this is how they are going to perform going forward...we had a lot of players who hit really well in the second half relative to career benchmarks, including what they have been doing in the minors (Inciarte, Castro, Freeman, Kemp, Markakis, Flowers, Swanson). Maybe 1 or 2 really represents a breakout (and even that is optimistic), but most will regress to career benchmarks.
 
nsacpi said:
pretty sensible...i'm ok with giving second half performance slightly more weight...but if the second half numbers are significantly out of line with what we've seen from a player over the past two or three seasons, i'd be very careful about saying this is how they are going to perform going forward...we had a lot of players who hit really well in the second half relative to career benchmarks, including what they have been doing in the minors (Inciarte, Castro, Freeman, Kemp, Markakis, Flowers, Swanson). Maybe 1 or 2 really represents a breakout (and even that is optimistic), but most will regress to career benchmarks.
Click to expand...

smootness said:
I think the problem with thinking it was real progression, though, is that you then have to take the 1st half as real regression. So you would have to believe that a lot of our players truly got worse to start the year, then suddenly progressed, not back to where they had been, but beyond where they had been. The far more likely scenario is that they had an abnormally poor first half, then it evened out with an abnormally good second half.

Now, even taking the year as a whole, Freeman did progress, and it's possible he took a step forward in his development. And it's possible Kemp really did turn back the clock a bit and find his swing again. And that Markakis got a little bit of his pop back. But when looking at Inciarte's year as a whole, he did mostly what he had done the year before. I think it's always good to take a 162-game season and look at it as a whole rather than selecting any single stretch of that year. As others have pointed out, had the first and second halfs been reversed, I don't think anyone would want to sit here and say that the 2nd half was a true indication of the team getting worse. So we probably shouldn't do the same thing now because the 2nd half was better.
Click to expand...

You guys are clearly not learning the lessons of Trump's America. We race to poles, we don't regress to the mean. Argue. Call each other names.
 
Point about Kemp and the cherry picking...the only thing Kemp did far better once he got to Atlanta was walk.

And the outlier wasn't that he started walking for the first time here....he returned to his career norms. His first four months in SD was the outlier.

I think Kemp will continue as the player he was, perhaps 15 pounds slimmer for defense.
 
nsacpi said:
pretty sensible...i'm ok with giving second half performance slightly more weight...but if the second half numbers are significantly out of line with what we've seen from a player over the past two or three seasons, i'd be very careful about saying this is how they are going to perform going forward...we had a lot of players who hit really well in the second half relative to career benchmarks, including what they have been doing in the minors (Inciarte, Castro, Freeman, Kemp, Markakis, Flowers, Swanson). Maybe 1 or 2 really represents a breakout (and even that is optimistic), but most will regress to career benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Flowers was out of his mind (200 ABs) and it's too soon to know what Dansby's normal levels are. Those are the only two I don't feel comfortable projecting at or near their second half levels.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
You guys are clearly not learning the lessons of Trump's America. We race to poles, we don't regress to the mean. Argue. Call each other names.
Click to expand...

North, South, or Poland?

I think Kemp will be fine. Not great, but alright. I like Ender, but there's probably a lot of flux in his offensive game because he's a ball-in-play guy. Flowers still strikes out a ton, but Seitzer seemed to change his approach from feast-or-famine with some success.
 
All of this "who really got better and who was just hot" discussion is precisely what these projection systems try to determine. The FG depth charts take the average of 2 of the best projection systems out there, ZiPs and Steamer, and applies their best guess to playing time.

It's fine to have an opinion like Freeman will outperform his 3.8 WAR projection, but you need to explain why to be taken seriously, and that explanation needs to include more than, "I just think he has turned the corner and is ready to be a perennial MVP candidate". These projection systems see his .370 BABIP last year being much higher than his career BABIP of .340 and factor in some regression. For some reason, they regress his BABIP next year all the way down to .327, which I disagree with, so that's my reason for adjusting his WAR up by 1.

It's also fine to say you think Julio will be better than the 2.5 WAR they project him to have, but your reasoning should be something a little more concrete than, "I just think he is a solid #2 that might become an Ace next year". Julio has consistently outperformed his peripherals by 0.5-1 WAR over the years (due to inducing a lot of infield flies and pick-offs) so I am also confident in adjusting his WAR value for next season up by about 1 WAR.

Same thing with Inciarte. They are projecting a major drop off in defensive value resulting in a 2 WAR projection, which I see as being highly unlikely. I see no reason not to expect Inciarte to hold his defensive value next year, regress slightly with the bat, and still put up 3+ WAR.

The rest of the guys seem about right. Albies should be able to provide a ~2 win upgrade 1-2 months into the season. A guy like Castro should be able to add another win. Someone like Valbuena could add one more.

Add all that up and the Braves can reasonably be projected to be a 77 win team next year, including the addition of guys like Albies, Castro and Valbuena. Some guys will do better than their projections, some worse, but it will probably even out.

Simply put, the current Braves organization is at about a 75 win talent level.
 
thewupk said:
For Ender that is true. Freeman could very well sustain his 2nd half performance. He's changed his approach and I feel he can become a premier bat in the league.
Click to expand...

If he sustains what he did on the entire season, then he is a premier bat in the league. If he sustains his 2nd half performance, he's one of the premier bats of all time.
 
thewupk said:
For Ender that is true. Freeman could very well sustain his 2nd half performance. He's changed his approach and I feel he can become a premier bat in the league.
Click to expand...

Freddie was on par with Bonds' career numbers in the second half. Forgive me for not expecting that to continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top