Megathread: Braves lose Maitan, Bae and 10+ plus International Sanctions.

[striker42]

I seriously don't understand people who still remain staunchly opposed to analytics. I don't even understand people who think analytics has a small amount of value, but still favors traditional methods. I think when you look at the current state of baseball, the organizations who go heaviest into advanced analytics are the ones who are having sustained success. The Astros, Indians, Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs all have tremendous short term and long term outlooks. I just don't see a good argument against an objective, data driven approach to running an organization. Sure, things like building a good rapport with other organizations and agents has value, and you want your GM to be a people person, but if you want to build an organization that will have lasting success, you better get someone who knows and fully appreciates the data.

You need someone who knows the importance of analytics and can assign appropriate value to it. But you also need someone who understands scouting and can assign appropriate value to that. This is especially true with amateur scouting. There is no way the Braves will be successful long term unless they can develop their own talent. The usefulness of analytics in identifying amateur talent is very limited. This is doubly true for Latin American talent.

 

[Enscheff]

I'll be especially furious if we lose Maitan because of the same little jockeying and rule bending that every team does in the international market. If that happens you'll know we're being punished to be made an example of. And I'm with you, if MLB tries to hit us too hard I hope the Braves make life a nightmare for Manfred.

Where we should really be at risk of losing players is where we were bundling. The whole bonus pool system is designed to keep teams like the Dodgers and Yankees from just buying all the young talent. Bundling circumvents that whole system. If we did that, then we should lose out on players we signed that way. If we didn't bundle we'd have never been able to sign them due to our bonus limitations.

Maitan is different. Maitan is the reason we had to bundle players the next year. With him not being a part of any bundle, making him a free agent would just be MLB trying to hurt the Braves. It's a punishment unrelated to what is likely the worst crime.

If the Braves were going to lose Maitan they would have already lost him. There were dozens of stories detailing how the Braves got him up to 2 years before he actually signed. Everyone, including MLB, knew what was going on with Maitan.

 

[Enscheff]

You need someone who knows the importance of analytics and can assign appropriate value to it. But you also need someone who understands scouting and can assign appropriate value to that. This is especially true with amateur scouting. There is no way the Braves will be successful long term unless they can develop their own talent. The usefulness of analytics in identifying amateur talent is very limited. This is doubly true for Latin American talent.

I would say all the "smart" teams Beanie listed do just fine at scouting and acquiring amateur talent. In fact, those "smart" teams are as good, and mostly better than, the "dumb" teams.

Every single "smart" team is good at scouting AND analytics. There isn't a single "smart" team that has abandoned scouting and sucks at acquiring young talent. Not one.

Teams don't have to live in the stone age to be good at scouting. It's not a binary decision.

 

[clvclv]

As long as we keep the #8 pick, I'm not too concerned about losing picks for the 2018 draft.

Just make sure to remember this when free-agency starts. No one really expects them to spend "big money" on a Closer instead of a 3B - assuming they spend much at all - but the #8 pick and the 2nd round pick will be protected and roughly $35 million (Markakis, JJ, and Kemp) is coming off the books over the next two years. Signing one of the top back-end guys may also provide a way to recoup some of the expected prospect losses down the road as well.

I certainly don't EXPECT them to go after Moustakas, Holland, or Davis, but a Vizcaino/Minter/Davis or Holland back-end sure would accomplish their stated goal of improving the pen. It absolutely can be accomplished much more reasonably with the other names everyone has talked about, but the current brass certainly has an affinity for bigger "names" if/when they can get them (Kemp/Markakis/JJ).

 

[clvclv]

I seriously don't understand people who still remain staunchly opposed to analytics. I don't even understand people who think analytics has a small amount of value, but still favors traditional methods. I think when you look at the current state of baseball, the organizations who go heaviest into advanced analytics are the ones who are having sustained success. The Astros, Indians, Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs all have tremendous short term and long term outlooks. I just don't see a good argument against an objective, data driven approach to running an organization. Sure, things like building a good rapport with other organizations and agents has value, and you want your GM to be a people person, but if you want to build an organization that will have lasting success, you better get someone who knows and fully appreciates the data.

Who might those people be? Seriously?

Many of the more analytically-inclined posters here keep screaming about this, yet they fail to provide actual evidence that anyone near the top of the decision-making pyramid in Atlanta doesn't consult the Braves' numbers guys before making a decision. The constant refrain is that the dinosaurs completely shoot from the hip when drafting kids, making trades, and signing free-agents, but that's likely far from the truth. Are they typically more focused on what the scouts say? Sure. That area needs work, and the scouts should need to be able to provide more objective data to help back up what their eyes see when they're advising the higher-ups, but you don't have to completely start from scratch to accomplish that.

Our more numbers-enthusiastic brethren here create the "us against the world" battle cry - most everyone here readily admits the data is extremely helpful and needs to be strongly considered when making decisions, and guys like the old guard that you guys can't stand didn't ascend to their positions without being flexible and realizing that they need to use any tools available to them that can help them achieve their goal. They don't stand at the podium and reference the reason they traded for Gohara was the spin rate on his slider, so you simply say they don't have a clue what that means (and didn't consider it in the least). These arguments sound an awful lot like a bunch of bratty teenagers whining "I obviously know more than you do - you're an old man and can't possibly comprehend this because you're over 40 years old".

 

[Enscheff]

Who might those people be? Seriously?

Many of the more analytically-inclined posters here keep screaming about this, yet they fail to provide actual evidence that anyone near the top of the decision-making pyramid in Atlanta doesn't consult the Braves' numbers guys before making a decision. The constant refrain is that the dinosaurs completely shoot from the hip when drafting kids, making trades, and signing free-agents, but that's likely far from the truth. Are they typically more focused on what the scouts say? Sure. That area needs work, and the scouts should need to be able to provide more objective data to help back up what their eyes see when they're advising the higher-ups, but you don't have to completely start from scratch to accomplish that.

Our more numbers-enthusiastic brethren here create the "us against the world" battle cry - most everyone here readily admits the data is extremely helpful and needs to be strongly considered when making decisions, and guys like the old guard that you guys can't stand didn't ascend to their positions without being flexible and realizing that they need to use any tools available to them that can help them achieve their goal. They don't stand at the podium and reference the reason they traded for Gohara was the spin rate on his slider, so you simply say they don't have a clue what that means (and didn't consider it in the least). These arguments sound an awful lot like a bunch of bratty teenagers whining "I obviously know more than you do - you're an old man and can't possibly comprehend this because you're over 40 years old".

Do you think Hart consulted the analytics guys when he decided to call up Swanson in a spur of the moment decision he made while stopping by the office to grab his spare putter between rounds of golf?

It's a matter of degrees. Some teams have an analytics department that looks like a small tech company. The Braves had 1 guy and an intern. Now they maybe have twice that.

Is it really that hard to understand how that puts the Braves at a severe disadvantage?

 

[striker42]

I would say all the "smart" teams Beanie listed do just fine at scouting and acquiring amateur talent. In fact, those "smart" teams are as good, and mostly better than, the "dumb" teams.

Every single "smart" team is good at scouting AND analytics. There isn't a single "smart" team that has abandoned scouting and sucks at acquiring young talent. Not one.

Teams don't have to live in the stone age to be good at scouting. It's not a binary decision.

I agree with this. A good GM uses every tool in his toolbox. Considering how competitive the game is you need every advantage you can get.

 

[striker42]

Do you think Hart consulted the analytics guys when he decided to call up Swanson in a spur of the moment decision he made while stopping by the office to grab his spare putter between rounds of golf?

It's a matter of degrees. Some teams have an analytics department that looks like a small tech company. The Braves had 1 guy and an intern. Now they maybe have twice that.

Is it really that hard to understand how that puts the Braves at a severe disadvantage?

I think you could have had a group of Nobel laureate statisticians teaming up with every scout the Braves employ screaming at Hart not to call up Swanson and he'd have ignored the lot of them. Business trumps baseball and Swanson was way too marketable to not use him in the lead up to the new stadium.

 

[50PoundHead]

I think you could have had a group of Nobel laureate statisticians teaming up with every scout the Braves employ screaming at Hart not to call up Swanson and he'd have ignored the lot of them. Business trumps baseball and Swanson was way too marketable to not use him in the lead up to the new stadium.

Clearly an ill-founded move. I think it was another contribution to the "we'll be competitive sooner than you think" meme that a lot of folks wanted to spread. I was never under any illusions that this wasn't going to take quite a long time, but the Braves wanted to toss something to the casual fan instead of taking a longer--and more realistic--view of the re-building process.

 

[nsacpi]

The thing about using analytics is it is about the relentless accumulation of small advantages. There is no big ahah moment where a brilliant stroke wins it all for you. As such it requires commitment. Commitment to always do the thing that tips the odds slightly your way. Commitment to avoid giving in to that gut feeling now and then. You can't be halfway committed to it.

That commitment btw doesn't always mean doing the optimal thing in every instance. There is value in the unpredictability gained by departing from the book now and then. But analytics will help you understand how to randomize that and what percentage of the time you should do something sub-optimal to generate uncertainty on the part of the other team. I'll offer an analogy from football. Most teams have a goal line play that maximizes their chances to get the ball into the end zone. But it is foolish to always run that play. So you need to randomize what you do in that situation during the regular season. In the Super Bowl you run it.

 

[NYCBrave]

The thing about using analytics is it is about the relentless accumulation of small advantages. There is no big ahah moment where a brilliant stroke wins it all for you. As such it requires commitment. Commitment to always do the thing that tips the odds slightly your way. Commitment to avoid giving in to that gut feeling now and then. You can't be halfway committed to it.

That commitment btw doesn't always mean doing the optimal thing in every instance. There is value in the unpredictability gained by departing from the book now and then. But analytics will help you understand how to randomize that and what percentage of the time you should do something sub-optimal to generate uncertainty on the part of the other team. I'll offer an analogy from football. Most teams have a goal line play that maximizes their chances to get the ball into the end zone. But it is foolish to always run that play. So you need to randomize what you do in that situation during the regular season. In the Super Bowl you run it.

It was actually interesting listening to Gabe Kapler's introductory press conference as Phillies manager today. He talked extensively about analytics and using all of the information available to find any competitive advantage and put the team in the best position to win in every moment. It was pretty inspiring actually, and I hope this is the way the Braves go with their next move.

 

[Super]

I hope this is the way the Braves go with their next move.

lol
that won't happen.
no doubt the guys at the top still have that "old school" mentality.
i don't think it's been overall bad for the most part, but as far as managers go, they are going to go "good ole boy" over someone young, new, and different-thinking. unfortunately.

 

[Tapate50]

It was actually interesting listening to Gabe Kapler's introductory press conference as Phillies manager today. He talked extensively about analytics and using all of the information available to find any competitive advantage and put the team in the best position to win in every moment. It was pretty inspiring actually, and I hope this is the way the Braves go with their next move.

And coconut oil.

 

[Southcack77]

Clearly an ill-founded move. I think it was another contribution to the "we'll be competitive sooner than you think" meme that a lot of folks wanted to spread. I was never under any illusions that this wasn't going to take quite a long time, but the Braves wanted to toss something to the casual fan instead of taking a longer--and more realistic--view of the re-building process.

My problem with it was baseball rather than finances. He wasn't hitting at AA.

I would not have promoted him until he did start hitting well.

I think the Braves looked at him and decided he was their opening day shortstop in 2017 and that if that was the case it did not really matter if they promoted him then for service time. In fact, if that decision was already made I think they saw it as seasoning for 2017. I would have made him master AA. and then bring him up within the 2017 season.

I never really saw him as a star. I still don't really. I'm not sure that the Braves will really ever feel too bad about that year of control, but we will see.

I'll be upset if they screw up Acuna's control. There just is no reason to do that.

 

[nsacpi]

He wasn't hitting at AA.

A very important detail that some have forgotten. Many preferred to focus on his major league numbers in 2016. This meant overlooking two important facts. The sample size of plate appearances in AA was more than twice the number of plate appearances in the majors. The second was the .383 BABIP behind his major league numbers. Those are very fundamental things (sample size and BABIP) that should never be overlooked in trying to project future performance.

Same two mistakes are being made with respect to Austin Riley. He had significantly more plate appearances in High A, where he struggled. But I see the same group of people giving more weight to his AA numbers. Where a significant part of his success was due to a .393 BABIP.

plus ça change...

 

[Hudson2]

I love Riley, I have since he was drafted but if a team really values him and we can use him as a legit piece in a trade for a TOR starter then I’d do it.

 

[BeanieAntics]

I actually don't think trading for a TOR starter is a particularly good idea right now. We already have an overabundance of guys who need a shot to prove themselves in the rotation and I would prefer to see their development. Unless you could somehow package like two of them (not Gohara) plus Riley to acquire one. But unless someone seriously overvalued Riley, I don't think a package of Newcomb, Fried, and Riley would get you anything close to a TOR type guy. It would likely take those three plus someone along the lines of Soroka and another back end top 100 guy like Wentz, and at that point it would just be too much. Aces are expensive. Its possible (probably probable) that we couldn't get anything done without including Ozzie or Acuna. I just don't think trading for an ace is a good idea for us at the moment

 

[Enscheff]

I actually don't think trading for a TOR starter is a particularly good idea right now. We already have an overabundance of guys who need a shot to prove themselves in the rotation and I would prefer to see their development. Unless you could somehow package like two of them (not Gohara) plus Riley to acquire one. But unless someone seriously overvalued Riley, I don't think a package of Newcomb, Fried, and Riley would get you anything close to a TOR type guy. It would likely take those three plus someone along the lines of Soroka and another back end top 100 guy like Wentz, and at that point it would just be too much. Aces are expensive. Its possible (probably probable) that we couldn't get anything done without including Ozzie or Acuna. I just don't think trading for an ace is a good idea for us at the moment

Trading for an Ace is a move done by a team that is ready to contend and hasn't spent 75% of player acquisition resources stockpiling pitchers.

Teams who deal for TOR pitchers typically get them by trading valuable position player prospects that they acquire by stockpiling position player prospects because position player prospects are more valuable and can buy better MLB players in trades.

Smart teams allow the dumb teams to suffer through pitching prospects volatility, and then use their more valuable and stable position prospects to buy the established pitchers that survived the gauntlet from the dumb teams.

The Braves are one of the dumb teams.

 

[Super]

IMO we should not be trading any significant prospect, especially a position player, for a starting pitcher. i thought the purpose of loading up on pitchers was to avoid having to 1.sign an established one for big bucks or 2.trade a lot for an established one that is already or is about to be making a lot of $$.

 

[TheBravos]

So we loose Maitan OR loose the #8 pick in the draft. If you were able to choose...which one would it be?