Lack of a Dominant Player

striker42

striker42

Well-known member
The thing I'm most concerned about with this team now and moving forward is the lack of that truly dominant player. Either the pitcher other teams want to miss when they come to town or the hitter who you pitch around and try to minimize his damage. The Braves have no one that fits that bill. They have some good players, but no dominant ones.

This hasn't always been the case. At one time we boasted three future hall of fame starters and a had our lineup anchored by a future hall of fame third-baseman who was a lock for .300/30 and often would put up more. And while I know it's too much to expect that your team always have multiple hall of famer's on it, it's not too much to hope to have a guy who produces at a truly elite level for you to build on.

Some people may point to Freddie Freeman as meeting this need but I disagree. Freeman is a very, very good player but he falls just short. I keep hoping every year that he'll take that next step but he never seems to. For all his accomplishments, Freddie has never broken the .900 OPS line for a season, his season high in HRs is 23, he's hit .300 only once in his career, and SLGed over .500 only once. Again, I'm not saying FF is terrible or anything. He's a terrific player. He's has just never reached that status of being feared.

Miller is another some might point to as he's one of the league leaders in ERA and has pitched extremely well. However, he's probably benefited from some luck. He's pitched really well no matter how you cut it, but he's not the overpowering starting pitcher you would matchup against anyone. He's not in the class of guys like Scherzer, Kershaw, Grienke, deGrom, Sale, Price, Etc.

What's even more concerning to me, while we have a ton of very good prospects, none have really jumped out as one that will be THE guy on the team. Ablies is probably our hottest name and if he reaches his potential he'll be a very, very good player who is extremely valuable. But his lack of power will prevent him from being a dominant force. He can get on base and run wild all he wants but he'll still need a thumper to drive him home.

Peraza and Mallex are both rabbits but again, you still need the big bat to get them home.

Whisler is a good arm but doesn't profile as ever being overpowering. I was hoping Jenkins might break out but, while still a fine prospect, isn't really showing signs of being a top notch pitcher.

Maybe Fried or Allard can establish themselves as future rotation anchors but it's hard to count on that.

This is why I would much rather take the money we'll have free this offseason and sink it into one elite player than spread it around for several good ones. I think we can find the complementary pieces. We need a truly rare and elite player on this team.
 
striker42 said:
Some people may point to Freddie Freeman as meeting this need but I disagree. Freeman is a very, very good player but he falls just short. I keep hoping every year that he'll take that next step but he never seems to. For all his accomplishments, Freddie has never broken the .900 OPS line for a season, his season high in HRs is 23, he's hit .300 only once in his career, and SLGed over .500 only once. Again, I'm not saying FF is terrible or anything. He's a terrific player. He's has just never reached that status of being feared.
Click to expand...
Freeman may "only" be a very good player instead of elite, but thats because of his lack of defensive and base running value, not his bat. Since 2013, he has the 11th best wRC+ in baseball and has produced more runs than all but 6 other players. If other teams don't fear him as a hitter that's even better since he'll get more pitches to hit.
 
I would say Freeman is a dominant player. A couple of things though. Raw stats today aren't the same as they were 15-20 years ago. A 900 OPS for example in 2000 would be more like an 850 OPS today. Now that's not an accurate number as I don't have time to do the math but raw numbers have to be adjusted. The same thing with his homers. Would I like him to have 30+ homers a year? Sure. But we are in a league where low 40's is generally tops now although this year may be an exception with Trout and Haper going off. But 30 homers today is like high 40's 15-20 years ago.

Freeman is a career wrc+ 132 hitter which is really good. And the last 2 and a half years he has been at 149, 140, and 145. Now that may not put him in Cabrera or Trout territory but he's in the next class of hitters imo. Those guys have inner circle HOF talent.

And lastly. It's somewhat unfair to compare him to our last cornerstone hitter who was the 2nd best switch hitter ever and at worst 5th best 3B.

If in our next run Freeman is our best hitter then we will be doing ok. We just need to surround him with non crap.
 
striker42 said:
The thing I'm most concerned about with this team now and moving forward is the lack of that truly dominant player. Either the pitcher other teams want to miss when they come to town or the hitter who you pitch around and try to minimize his damage. The Braves have no one that fits that bill. They have some good players, but no dominant ones.

This hasn't always been the case. At one time we boasted three future hall of fame starters and a had our lineup anchored by a future hall of fame third-baseman who was a lock for .300/30 and often would put up more. And while I know it's too much to expect that your team always have multiple hall of famer's on it, it's not too much to hope to have a guy who produces at a truly elite level for you to build on.

Some people may point to Freddie Freeman as meeting this need but I disagree. Freeman is a very, very good player but he falls just short. I keep hoping every year that he'll take that next step but he never seems to. For all his accomplishments, Freddie has never broken the .900 OPS line for a season, his season high in HRs is 23, he's hit .300 only once in his career, and SLGed over .500 only once. Again, I'm not saying FF is terrible or anything. He's a terrific player. He's has just never reached that status of being feared.

Miller is another some might point to as he's one of the league leaders in ERA and has pitched extremely well. However, he's probably benefited from some luck. He's pitched really well no matter how you cut it, but he's not the overpowering starting pitcher you would matchup against anyone. He's not in the class of guys like Scherzer, Kershaw, Grienke, deGrom, Sale, Price, Etc.

What's even more concerning to me, while we have a ton of very good prospects, none have really jumped out as one that will be THE guy on the team. Ablies is probably our hottest name and if he reaches his potential he'll be a very, very good player who is extremely valuable. But his lack of power will prevent him from being a dominant force. He can get on base and run wild all he wants but he'll still need a thumper to drive him home.

Peraza and Mallex are both rabbits but again, you still need the big bat to get them home.

Whisler is a good arm but doesn't profile as ever being overpowering. I was hoping Jenkins might break out but, while still a fine prospect, isn't really showing signs of being a top notch pitcher.

Maybe Fried or Allard can establish themselves as future rotation anchors but it's hard to count on that.

This is why I would much rather take the money we'll have free this offseason and sink it into one elite player than spread it around for several good ones. I think we can find the complementary pieces. We need a truly rare and elite player on this team.
Click to expand...

If a financial advisor suggested this, you'd tell him he was crazy. I think the same practice should be involved here. Spread the wealth and hedge your bets.
 
thewupk said:
I would say Freeman is a dominant player. A couple of things though. Raw stats today aren't the same as they were 15-20 years ago. A 900 OPS for example in 2000 would be more like an 850 OPS today. Now that's not an accurate number as I don't have time to do the math but raw numbers have to be adjusted. The same thing with his homers. Would I like him to have 30+ homers a year? Sure. But we are in a league where low 40's is generally tops now although this year may be an exception with Trout and Haper going off. But 30 homers today is like high 40's 15-20 years ago.

Freeman is a career wrc+ 132 hitter which is really good. And the last 2 and a half years he has been at 149, 140, and 145. Now that may not put him in Cabrera or Trout territory but he's in the next class of hitters imo. Those guys have inner circle HOF talent.

And lastly. It's somewhat unfair to compare him to our last cornerstone hitter who was the 2nd best switch hitter ever and at worst 5th best 3B.

If in our next run Freeman is our best hitter then we will be doing ok. We just need to surround him with non crap.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Chico said:
If a financial advisor suggested this, you'd tell him he was crazy. I think the same practice should be involved here. Spread the wealth and hedge your bets.
Click to expand...

To use your analogy, we already have a diversified portfolio. This team is bursting with complementary player types. Between Simmons, Peterson, and Peraza, you have a solid middle infield. Markakis is steady, if unspectacular. Freeman is the perfect second best bat in a lineup. And between Mallex and Maybin we likely have a nice complementary piece in center. The rotation is the same way. Miller would be one of the best number 2 pitchers in the game behind a true ace. Between Wood, Teheran, Wisler, Banuelos, Folty, etc, you can fill out a rotation admirably.

We have plenty of good investments. When you're in that position and have a good bit of capital, you can afford to act aggressively.
 
Overpaying for a superstar is not the way to build unless you're the Yankees or Dodgers right now. I think that baseball is a sport where you can win with a group of complementary pieces, so long as you don't have any gigantic weaknesses. A generational talent certainly helps, but I wouldn't change our course just to get one.
 
thewupk said:
I would say Freeman is a dominant player. A couple of things though. Raw stats today aren't the same as they were 15-20 years ago. A 900 OPS for example in 2000 would be more like an 850 OPS today. Now that's not an accurate number as I don't have time to do the math but raw numbers have to be adjusted. The same thing with his homers. Would I like him to have 30+ homers a year? Sure. But we are in a league where low 40's is generally tops now although this year may be an exception with Trout and Haper going off. But 30 homers today is like high 40's 15-20 years ago.

Freeman is a career wrc+ 132 hitter which is really good. And the last 2 and a half years he has been at 149, 140, and 145. Now that may not put him in Cabrera or Trout territory but he's in the next class of hitters imo. Those guys have inner circle HOF talent.

And lastly. It's somewhat unfair to compare him to our last cornerstone hitter who was the 2nd best switch hitter ever and at worst 5th best 3B.

If in our next run Freeman is our best hitter then we will be doing ok. We just need to surround him with non crap.
Click to expand...

The comparison to Chipper, like a comparison to any Hall of Famer is unfair. It's unfair to ask a player to put up numbers like Chipper year in and year out. However, I don't think it's unfair to want a player that will be dominant for a few years even if he's going to lack to longevity to be a hall of famer.

I don't think Freeman is surrounded by crap. Like I've said, I think we have a good many complementary pieces and that number will only grow over the next couple years. I just see a lack of cornerstone pieces we can build everything on. Freeman is so close to being that guy but he ends up being second tier.

I think positional scarcity has an effect on how I view Freeman. It's easier to find a first baseman that puts up his kind of numbers than it is to find a third baseman or outfielder.

I want a difficult to find cornerstone player.
 
Freeman is surrounded by crap. Granted Uribe has been good, much better than expected, but that's just one.

After Uribe you have Maybin's resurgence at a 117 wRC+, Kelly Johnson playing like it's 2010 with a 115, Markakis being solid at 108, and the Douche at 108. Peterson at 90, Gomes at 85, and Tron at 81.

We're relying on career years from Maybin, and unlikely resurgence from Uribe and KJ as our value on offense outside of Freeman.

I mean we could have worse talent around him, that's for sure, but not too much worse.
 
mqt said:
Overpaying for a superstar is not the way to build unless you're the Yankees or Dodgers right now. I think that baseball is a sport where you can win with a group of complementary pieces, so long as you don't have any gigantic weaknesses. A generational talent certainly helps, but I wouldn't change our course just to get one.
Click to expand...

I just get feel like we have so many complementary pieces that spending all our money on more wont make us that much better. If you get one alpha dog, everyone else gets to slide down a spot and makes that spot better.

If you get an ace, Miller is your number 2. He's a better number 2 than an ace. Wood is your number 3. He's a better number 3 than number 2. Teheran is your number 4 and he fits there. You can pick your number 5. Every spot in the rotation improves by getting one piece!

Something similar would be true if you get a thumper to hit cleanup. Freeman improves since he can't be pitched around. The top of the order gets driven in more. You can drop Markakis down to 5th. This shifts everyone else down a spot and improves all of those spots.
 
I agree striker we already have good complimentary pieces. We just need 2 elite players to put us over the edge. Our attendance has been the 2nd biggest drop bc of the team. The FO will fix this after the season or before 2017.
 
You don't necessarily need a front ranked superstar to be a championship-caliber team. Chemistry, filling other needs (as opposed to dedicating 15% or more of payroll to one salary), executing fundamentals and being well-managed goes a long way. It certainly helps but is not a requirement.
 
Knucksie said:
You don't necessarily need a front ranked superstar to be a championship-caliber team. Chemistry, filling other needs (as opposed to dedicating 15% or more of payroll to one salary), executing fundamentals and being well-managed goes a long way. It certainly helps but is not a requirement.
Click to expand...

You can win by being the scrappy team full of guys who play the game the right way. However I don't see any way to improve our team more quickly than to get at least one (two would be better) studs. Being able to shift everyone else down a slot means every position improves.

I was really hoping at least one prospect would step up this year to be our next stud on the horizon. While we have a lot of good prospects, none really show that kind of promise.
 
striker42 said:
I just get feel like we have so many complementary pieces that spending all our money on more wont make us that much better. If you get one alpha dog, everyone else gets to slide down a spot and makes that spot better.

If you get an ace, Miller is your number 2. He's a better number 2 than an ace. Wood is your number 3. He's a better number 3 than number 2. Teheran is your number 4 and he fits there. You can pick your number 5. Every spot in the rotation improves by getting one piece!

Something similar would be true if you get a thumper to hit cleanup. Freeman improves since he can't be pitched around. The top of the order gets driven in more. You can drop Markakis down to 5th. This shifts everyone else down a spot and improves all of those spots.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's all the case. However, the economic reality of going after these kind of players is that they will eat up a LOT of payroll for a LOT of years, and more often than not, you end up paying not only for past performance alone, but an instant decline.
 
Payroll is gonna go up quite a bit in the next 2-3 years so it won't be as bad as some may think about giving out alot of money. I trust Hart alot more than Wren when it comes to that .
 
Hudson2 said:
Payroll is gonna go up quite a bit in the next 2-3 years so it won't be as bad as some may think about giving out alot of money. I trust Hart alot more than Wren when it comes to that .
Click to expand...

True. You could front load the contract too. Give a bigger signing bonus.
 
I agree that an elite RHed position player is needed. Maybe not on the Miggy/Trout/Cutch/Harper/Goldy level, but someone else on Freeman's level (who is elite, even if he isn't on the HOF level those others guys mentioned are). Braves are not going to sign or trade for the next Chipper, they will have to develop him. Heyward was supposed to be that guy, but he didn't quite figure it out offensively in time for the team to make that type of commitment to him.

Problem is the only player who fits that bill in FA this year is JUp, but he is much streakier than I would be comfortable with on a huge $200M deal. Guys like Tulo, Braun, and Lucroy could possibly be acquired in a trade, so it will be interesting to see how this offseason unfolds.
 
zitothebrave said:
.188 iso vs career .164 (usually 36 year olds don't beat their normal power numbers)

.340 BABIP vs career .289

23.3 HR/FB vs career 9.3

Would you prefer I say Juan Uribe's lucky streak?
Click to expand...

He was a 4 bWAR player in 2013 AND 2014. Not sure his season thus far is "lucky."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top