Dansby Swanson Already Proving He Belongs

Braves1976 said:
I find the arguing based on Swanson SSS that he's ready interesting after many in past noted that Simmons wasn't ready with the bat his rookie year despite hitting .289 with a .751 OPS. Like Simmons, I'd argue that Swanson is more ready defensively than with the bat but I am glad he had a good start here rather than a bad one. Simmons of course was amazing defender even in the minors, so he was more than ready on that side of the game.
Click to expand...

I see Swanson as a clearly higher upside offensive player.
But I also thought Simmons was ready to come up.
 
yeezus said:
I see Swanson as a clearly higher upside offensive player.
But I also thought Simmons was ready to come up.
Click to expand...

I think it's a fine line. I think you can get to a point in a player's minor league career where you have to say: He's a finished product OR this is the best he's got, flawed but playable. No amount of coaching or training is going to make him better. Experience MAY provide incremental improvement over time but leaps of improvement is probably done.

Once you reach that point, then it becomes sink or swim time. But, I think you usually only reach that point when the player get's close to being out of options.

I think it would have helped Simmons (and Francouer) tremendously if they spent a year or two more in the minor leagues getting the take sign and learning some plate discipline. It's possible the Braves looked at both and said that they were NEVER going to learn plate discipline so you might as well get them up and get what you can out of them. But, I don't think that is what happened. I think the Braves had an immediate need and rushed both to fill that need. And I think it has hurt both long term in their careers.

If Simmons was a routine .800 OPS guy, with his defense, over a career, if long enough, he had the potential to be HoF worthy. Without the bat, he generates highlight tape but will be mostly forgotten in 20 years.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think it's a fine line. I think you can get to a point in a player's minor league career where you have to say: He's a finished product OR this is the best he's got, flawed but playable. No amount of coaching or training is going to make him better. Experience MAY provide incremental improvement over time but leaps of improvement is probably done.

Once you reach that point, then it becomes sink or swim time. But, I think you usually only reach that point when the player get's close to being out of options.

I think it would have helped Simmons (and Francouer) tremendously if they spent a year or two more in the minor leagues getting the take sign and learning some plate discipline. It's possible the Braves looked at both and said that they were NEVER going to learn plate discipline so you might as well get them up and get what you can out of them. But, I don't think that is what happened. I think the Braves had an immediate need and rushed both to fill that need. And I think it has hurt both long term in their careers.

If Simmons was a routine .800 OPS guy, with his defense, over a career, if long enough, he had the potential to be HoF worthy. Without the bat, he generates highlight tape but will be mostly forgotten in 20 years.
Click to expand...

From watching him in the batters' box, I think Swanson exudes a measure of hitting smarts that I just don't see with Simmons. Simmons should have just sat next to Martin Prado and modeled himself after him. Swanson is just a more finished product than Simmons was (and still is for that matter). How well that more finished product does as his career continues is certainly up for debate, but his hitting fundamentals look solid.

PS--I agree with you in that the Braves likely saw that neither Francoeur nor Simmons was ever going to be anything other than a free swinger. Both were very athletic coming up through the minors and that "look" can hide a lot of flaws.
 
50PoundHead said:
From watching him in the batters' box, I think Swanson exudes a measure of hitting smarts that I just don't see with Simmons. Simmons should have just sat next to Martin Prado and modeled himself after him. Swanson is just a more finished product than Simmons was (and still is for that matter). How well that more finished product does as his career continues is certainly up for debate, but his hitting fundamentals look solid.

PS--I agree with you in that the Braves likely saw that neither Francoeur nor Simmons was ever going to be anything other than a free swinger. Both were very athletic coming up through the minors and that "look" can hide a lot of flaws.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is basically what I'm saying. Swanson's approach is just so much better than Simmons', plus I think his tools for hitting/baserunning are so much stronger, all-around.
 
yeezus said:
Yeah, this is basically what I'm saying. Swanson's approach is just so much better than Simmons', plus I think his tools for hitting/baserunning are so much stronger, all-around.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Swanson's arm yet. I am curious how good that is. For instance beckham's relay last night 30 feet behind second, bounced behind the mound. It was a horrible weak throw after a strong bead from Ender. Simmons would have nailed Gordon on that play. I wonder what dans throw would have looked like.
 
50PoundHead said:
From watching him in the batters' box, I think Swanson exudes a measure of hitting smarts that I just don't see with Simmons. Simmons should have just sat next to Martin Prado and modeled himself after him. Swanson is just a more finished product than Simmons was (and still is for that matter). How well that more finished product does as his career continues is certainly up for debate, but his hitting fundamentals look solid.

PS--I agree with you in that the Braves likely saw that neither Francoeur nor Simmons was ever going to be anything other than a free swinger. Both were very athletic coming up through the minors and that "look" can hide a lot of flaws.
Click to expand...

I think Swanson's "readiness" is due to being from a high caliber college team. Playing at the highest D1 level is like playing in A or A+ ball with metal bats.

His BABIP will almost certainly regress quite a bit next year, but I fully expect his K rate to drop as well which should keep his OBP in the .350 range. It's dumb to scale 100 ABs worth of WAR up to a full season, but he is currently playing at a 3-4 WAR pace which is right in line with what we all expect from him.

Next year I would peg him with a lower BA, slightly lower OBP, and slightly more power (ISO), so .275/.350/.425 for his rookie season. Then as he grows into more power he could realistically be an 800+ OPS guy with average or better SS defense. That's why I always compare him to Alan Trammell.
 
Enscheff said:
I think Swanson's "readiness" is due to being from a high caliber college team. Playing at the highest D1 level is like playing in A or A+ ball with metal bats.

His BABIP will almost certainly regress quite a bit next year, but I fully expect his K rate to drop as well which should keep his OBP in the .350 range. It's dumb to scale 100 ABs worth of WAR up to a full season, but he is currently playing at a 3-4 WAR pace which is right in line with what we all expect from him.

Next year I would peg him with a lower BA, slightly lower OBP, and slightly more power (ISO), so .275/.350/.425 for his rookie season. Then as he grows into more power he could realistically be an 800+ OPS guy with average or better SS defense. That's why I always compare him to Alan Trammell.
Click to expand...

I think Trammell and Barry Larkin are what he could be at his best. He may not have the power surges those two had at points in their career, but I can see him being a consistent high-.700s OPS guy with solid defense at the very least.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I haven't seen Swanson's arm yet. I am curious how good that is. For instance beckham's relay last night 30 feet behind second, bounced behind the mound. It was a horrible weak throw after a strong bead from Ender. Simmons would have nailed Gordon on that play. I wonder what dans throw would have looked like.
Click to expand...

From what I've read and seen in highlight clips, I'd say it falls above average but obviously not in the Simmons range. Won't make the spectacular Simmons relays, but definitely shouldn't hurt us there.
 
50PoundHead said:
I think Trammell and Barry Larkin are what he could be at his best. He may not have the power surges those two had at points in their career, but I can see him being a consistent high-.700s OPS guy with solid defense at the very least.
Click to expand...

Interesting that people would be bothered by a comparison to two very good players, but I am hopeful that he will actually in the long run, be at least as good as those two. Potential is often unrealized, but I hope and believe his ceiling could be higher than that.
 
mfree80 said:
Interesting that people would be bothered by a comparison to two very good players, but I am hopeful that he will actually in the long run, be at least as good as those two. Potential is often unrealized, but I hope and believe his ceiling could be higher than that.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with unrealistic expectations.

Barry Larkin posted 70 career WAR and was elected to the HoF. That is pretty much exactly what you hope a #1 pick does. I don't think Swanson will see that level of power, and I think he will be better defensively. I see Larkin as Swanson's ceiling offensively, and I think Swanson is a lock to be better defensively than Larkin.

Trammell also posted 70 career WAR, but since his value was derived more from defense than Larkin (.767 OPS vs .815), he is in that tier of players just below the HOF. He still made 6 AS teams, won a few GGs, and was #2 in the MVP voting in '87 and finished in the top 10 a few other times. The man's career line is .285/.352/.415, which seem freakishly similar to what folks expect from Swanson. I see that as Swanson's most likely production level offensively. If Swanson really is the next Alan Trammell all braves fans should be extremely excited.

If Swanson somehow produces at Larkin's level offensively and Trammell's level defensively, and does it for the better part of 2 decades we are looking at a 75-80 career WAR HoF player.
 
Enscheff said:
This is the problem with unrealistic expectations.

Barry Larkin posted 70 career WAR and was elected to the HoF. That is pretty much exactly what you hope a #1 pick does. I don't think Swanson will see that level of power, and I think he will be better defensively. I see Larkin as Swanson's ceiling offensively, and I think Swanson is a lock to be better defensively than Larkin.

Trammell also posted 70 career WAR, but since his value was derived more from defense than Larkin (.767 OPS vs .815), he is in that tier of players just below the HOF. He still made 6 AS teams, won a few GGs, and was #2 in the MVP voting in '87 and finished in the top 10 a few other times. The man's career line is .285/.352/.415, which seem freakishly similar to what folks expect from Swanson. I see that as Swanson's most likely production level offensively.

If Swanson somehow produces at Larkin's level offensively and Trammell's level defensively, and does it for the better part of 2 decades we are looking at a 75-80 career WAR HoF player.
Click to expand...

Who put unrealistic expectations on him?
 
Enscheff said:
The person I quoted...

My post was 4 paragraphs, and you took issue with the tiniest one?
Click to expand...

Huh? It was the premise of your entire post.

I don't see anywhere where he put unrealistic expectations on him. He said he was hopeful Swanson could be at least as good as those two and that he believes his ceiling might be higher. You yourself said you believe Swanson's ceiling is Larking offensively while being better defensively. So you also believe Swanson's ceiling is even higher than Larkin.

I'm just not sure where the problematic expectations are.
 
yeezus said:
I'd put a good bit of money on Swanson not having a career that close to Larkin's.
Click to expand...

I put "at his best" to describe what Swanson would have to be to approach Larkin. Edgar Renteria was a slightly greater than 32 WAR player and I think Swanson can do what Edgar did offensively and will be better on defense. I don't know what that stacks up to in terms of WAR. 50?
 
50PoundHead said:
I put "at his best" to describe what Swanson would have to be to approach Larkin. Edgar Renteria was a slightly greater than 32 WAR player and I think Swanson can do what Edgar did offensively and will be better on defense. I don't know what that stacks up to in terms of WAR. 50?
Click to expand...

Renteria's career was .286/.342/.398. That is very close to Trammell minus some power that I think Swanson will grow into.

Renteria was also a notch below Larkin defensively, and a couple notches below Trammell. He wasn't Jeter-level bad, but he certainly wasn't above average, which is the expectation for Swanson.
 
mfree80 said:
Interesting that people would be bothered by a comparison to two very good players, but I am hopeful that he will actually in the long run, be at least as good as those two. Potential is often unrealized, but I hope and believe his ceiling could be higher than that.
Click to expand...

Barry Larkin was maybe best SS in the game for a good while, or the NL anyway. That would be fine, though the standards for offense from the position are probably different now.
 
Swanson at 116 ABs. can only have 13 more ABs before losing his rookie status. I would think he would need at least 2 more days off to avoid that. I don't think that will happen.. so no ROY..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top