Optimal Roster Construction

E

Enscheff

Well-known member
A guy at FG did some interesting work on identifying the best way to build a roster. Stars and Scrubs vs Depth, things like that:

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/evaluating-talent-distribution-on-rosters/

The money quote: "Depth has its purposes, and it’s preferable to Stars and Scrubs. And giving a high volume of playing time to star-quality players obviously helps any team. But the quickest route a franchise can take in building a winner is simply to avoid giving playing time to scrubs, players under 1.0 WAR."

The "no scrubs" model is the one used by the Rays and A's, and is likely why they seem to overvalue MLB-ready prospects who profile as average-ish MLB players. With their limited funds they prefer to add 3-4 non-scrubs rather than 1 star. It is the most efficient way to build a roster, and it's likely why they utilize it. The Dodgers follow the same model, but on steroids, and likely define a scrub as below 2 WAR.

This work applies to the Braves presently because they have many scrub positions on the roster (3B, LF, RF, BP, SP, SS). They could either focus resources into patching 1-2 holes with a star, or spread the resources out to put a non-scrub at every position.

It appears they would be better off upgrading all those positions moderately rather than only 1-2 of them substantially.
 
Very important corollary for small and mid market teams: grow your own stars, use trades and the free agent market to build depth.

Implication for this off-season: better not to make a big splash, spread your available funds to fill the various areas of need.

Areas of need (roughly in order of importance):

1) fifth starter...in house candidates project as replacement level

2) left side of infield...incumbents currently project as 1 win players

3) pen...need to add a third guy to Viz and Minty to pitch high leverage innings

4) left field...Muk/Kemp platoon would probably get us 1 win

If we can't move one of Muk/Kemp I would focus on the first three.

A trade for Prado and Barraclough would take care of 2 and 3.
 
nsacpi said:
Very important corollary for small and mid market teams: grow your own stars, use trades and the free agent market to build depth.

Implication for this off-season: better not to make a big splash, spread your available funds to fill the various areas of need.
Click to expand...

So with 6 scrub positions, and about $22M to spend, I would look to fill the holes like this:

3B: Frazier - $13M
LF: Piscotty - $1.33M
RF: Acuna - $0.55M
BP: Hector Rondon - $3M
SS: Pray for a Swanson rebound, but maybe add an insurance policy for SS/2B at $3M-$4M per year.
SP: Everyone projects better than scrub, and everyone is young...make no additions

Both Piscotty and Frazier serve as backup options at 1B, so no need to acquire some one-dimensional "slugger for the bench".

Those acquisitions should put a non-scrub at every position, and the only trade being made should cost the Braves very little in terms of prospect capital.
 
Enscheff said:
So with 6 scrub positions, and about $22M to spend, I would look to fill the holes like this:

3B: Frazier - $13M
LF: Piscotty - $1.33M
RF: Acuna - $0.55M
BP: Hector Rondon - $3M
SS: Pray for a Swanson rebound, but maybe add an insurance policy for SS/2B at $3M-$4M per year.
SP: Everyone projects better than scrub, and everyone is young...CHANGE PITCHING COACH IMMEDIATELY!!
Both Piscotty and Frazier serve as backup options at 1B, so no need to acquire some one-dimensional "slugger for the bench".

Those acquisitions should put a non-scrub at every position, and the only trade being made should cost the Braves very little in terms of prospect capital.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
Enscheff said:
So with 6 scrub positions, and about $22M to spend, I would look to fill the holes like this:

3B: Frazier - $13M
LF: Piscotty - $1.33M
RF: Acuna - $0.55M
BP: Hector Rondon - $3M
SS: Pray for a Swanson rebound, but maybe add an insurance policy for SS/2B at $3M-$4M per year.
SP: Everyone projects better than scrub, and everyone is young...make no additions

Both Piscotty and Frazier serve as backup options at 1B, so no need to acquire some one-dimensional "slugger for the bench".

Those acquisitions should put a non-scrub at every position, and the only trade being made should cost the Braves very little in terms of prospect capital.
Click to expand...

Nice to see you have changed your unbelieving ways with the holidays coming up. God has heard you, and Swanson is gonna kill it this year.
 
nsacpi said:
Very important corollary for small and mid market teams: grow your own stars, use trades and the free agent market to build depth.

Implication for this off-season: better not to make a big splash, spread your available funds to fill the various areas of need.

Areas of need (roughly in order of importance):

1) fifth starter...in house candidates project as replacement level

2) left side of infield...incumbents currently project as 1 win players

3) pen...need to add a third guy to Viz and Minty to pitch high leverage innings

4) left field...Muk/Kemp platoon would probably get us 1 win

If we can't move one of Muk/Kemp I would focus on the first three.

A trade for Prado and Barraclough would take care of 2 and 3.
Click to expand...

Agree with all but #1. The Braves need to see once and for all if Newk, Fried and Sims can be SPs. They are all in their mid-20s, so it's now or never with those guys. Soroka, Allard and/or Wright will be ready for a look in 2018 as well, so I would suffer through some replacement level pitching to gather that information.

My #1 FA target is Frazier on a 2 year deal with an option if that's the direction they choose to go. He is projected for 3/33, so I would see if he would take 2/25 plus a $10M option with a $2M buy out. That guarantees him 3/35 or 2/27 with the chance to hit the FA market again in search of another modest 1 year deal.
 
I don't expect much from Fried and Sims. But with normal attrition both are likely to get 10 or so major league starts even if we acquire a fifth starter. Acquiring a fifth starter is mainly about improving depth.
 
Enscheff said:
A guy at FG did some interesting work on identifying the best way to build a roster. Stars and Scrubs vs Depth, things like that:

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/evaluating-talent-distribution-on-rosters/

The money quote: "Depth has its purposes, and it’s preferable to Stars and Scrubs. And giving a high volume of playing time to star-quality players obviously helps any team. But the quickest route a franchise can take in building a winner is simply to avoid giving playing time to scrubs, players under 1.0 WAR."

The "no scrubs" model is the one used by the Rays and A's, and is likely why they seem to overvalue MLB-ready prospects who profile as average-ish MLB players. With their limited funds they prefer to add 3-4 non-scrubs rather than 1 star. It is the most efficient way to build a roster, and it's likely why they utilize it. The Dodgers follow the same model, but on steroids, and likely define a scrub as below 2 WAR.

This work applies to the Braves presently because they have many scrub positions on the roster (3B, LF, RF, BP, SP, SS). They could either focus resources into patching 1-2 holes with a star, or spread the resources out to put a non-scrub at every position.

It appears they would be better off upgrading all those positions moderately rather than only 1-2 of them substantially.
Click to expand...

You could make a strong argument that the Wren era Braves teams followed this model as well. Those teams didn’t have the superstar, but there were 3-4 WAR players across the roster.

I wish I appreciated it more than I did at the time.
 
Twins have also done this. I think it works if you have the pitching. You keep games close and the opposition usually isn't looking at a bottom of the order that swings toothpicks. The problem comes when you need an extra gear. I've always thought it is highly beneficial to have one or two anchor players and then put solid, but not necessarily spectacular, guys around them.
 
I think it's a method to get good, maybe stay good, but not good enough to win anything. Look at who we are talking about - Minnesota, Tampa, Oakland.

SO, to me, it's about what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to build a team with a reasonably good shot at winning a WS? Or, are you trying to build a team good enough to appear that you have a chance every year, regardless of realities?

The study is good. But what does it really say? Playing scrubs is bad. Don't do it.

But I think it also says that if you have to choose then going depth is better.

This is also the quickest way to build a winner. It's not necessarily the best way long term. To me, it reads like the quickest and best way to reach (mediocrity+) is to go this route.

Obviously the best route is to be Deep with Stars or Deep Plus. Then it becomes a matter of finance as well which the study excludes as a consideration.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is instructive but not really anywhere near a complete view of team building
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think it's a method to get good, maybe stay good, but not good enough to win anything. Look at who we are talking about - Minnesota, Tampa, Oakland.

SO, to me, it's about what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to build a team with a reasonably good shot at winning a WS? Or, are you trying to build a team good enough to appear that you have a chance every year, regardless of realities?

The study is good. But what does it really say? Playing scrubs is bad. Don't do it.

But I think it also says that if you have to choose then going depth is better.

This is also the quickest way to build a winner. It's not necessarily the best way long term. To me, it reads like the quickest and best way to reach (mediocrity+) is to go this route.

Obviously the best route is to be Deep with Stars or Deep Plus. Then it becomes a matter of finance as well which the study excludes as a consideration.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is instructive but not really anywhere near a complete view of team building
Click to expand...

I suggested using the A's or Rays model, but augmenting with higher caliber FAs. That's exactly what "Deep Plus" and "Deep with Stars" is...

The Braves are currently at "Mostly Scrubs", and the best way to improve is to shoot for "No Scrubs" rather than "Stars and Scrubs". Therefore, they should be looking to replace the 4-5 players projected at < 1 WAR moderately rather than upgrading 1-2 of them significantly.
 
Enscheff said:
I suggested using the A's or Rays model, but augmenting with higher caliber FAs. That's exactly what "Deep Plus" and "Deep with Stars" is...

The Braves are currently at "Mostly Scrubs", and the best way to improve is to shoot for "No Scrubs" rather than "Stars and Scrubs". Therefore, they should be looking to replace the 4-5 players projected at < 1 WAR moderately rather than upgrading 1-2 of them significantly.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying. However, I still maintain that it is better to punt 2018 and focus on 2019. I think that is a surer way to Deep Plus or Deep with Stars (eventually) than the "No Scrubs" model. The "No Scrubs" model to me is the "mediocrity plus" model. If you can transition from year to year going from "Mostly Scrubs" to "No Scrubs" to "Deep" then to "Deep Plus" or "Deep with Stars" then I think you take that path.

But I think that is likely hard to do because of the economics associated with player acquisition.

For instance:

in 2018 your plan of:

3B: Frazier - $13M
LF: Piscotty - $1.33M
RF: Acuna - $0.55M
BP: Hector Rondon - $3M
SS: Pray for a Swanson rebound, but maybe add an insurance policy for SS/2B at $3M-$4M per year.
SP: Everyone projects better than scrub, and everyone is young...make no additions

works well. However, Frazier likely ages into a scrub fairly quickly and unless you get him on a very short contract he becomes a problem. Same goes for Rondon. Piscotty and Acuna likely stay above scrub level and maybe even become stars but become more expensive each year (especially Piscotty through arby).

Also, Teheran and maybe Folty could fall into scrub territory (probably not) but become more expensive as you go. I think this is why you don't see Tampa, Oakland and Minnesota take the next step into Deep Plus or Deep with Stars because they never have enough developing talent at one time where the economics align to allow them to. Just when a player begins to emerge into Star territory they start looking to trade them because of expense. Generally the pipeline of talent left in place (or acquired via part of the trade) keeps them in "No Scrubs" territory, which is not quite good ebough to really win anything.

Kansas City escaped that conundrum for a couple of years (partly because the stars aligned for them in their division) where they had some "Deep" guys play like Stars but rode the wave too long and now appear headed to crater back into a full blown rebuild.
 
We could do some upgrading at our positions of need and not break the bank. Trade Nick. Eat $2.5M and save $8M. Trade Kemp. Eat $14M per year and and save $5M.Now the $88M comes down to $75M.

Trade for Jurickson Profar, Joc Pederson, and Randall Grichuk. That'll be roughly $6M added in projected arbitration. Use Viz and Freeman as part of those trades along with other prospects/players changing hands and that'll save you $5M in projected arbitration, so you add on roughly $1M

Sign Frazier, Morrow, and Mcghee. That'll cost around $30-$32M and bring you to $106 or $108, so round that up to $110M in case you have to eat more money, pay more in arbitraiton or decide to keep Viz or Freeman and just trade away prospects.

Joc/Grichuk would play the corners until Acuna comes up and then platoon in LF. Both can backup play CF as well.
Between Camargo and Profar you have the infield backed up and can roll with an 8 man pen.
Morrow and Mcghee would solidify the back end of the pen and bring Minter and others down one run to provide the depth you want.

I thgink we'll be higher than $110M, but regardless there are some moves we cna mke to make it work.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I agree with what you are saying. However, I still maintain that it is better to punt 2018 and focus on 2019. I think that is a surer way to Deep Plus or Deep with Stars (eventually) than the "No Scrubs" model. The "No Scrubs" model to me is the "mediocrity plus" model. If you can transition from year to year going from "Mostly Scrubs" to "No Scrubs" to "Deep" then to "Deep Plus" or "Deep with Stars" then I think you take that path.

But I think that is likely hard to do because of the economics associated with player acquisition.

For instance:

in 2018 your plan of:

3B: Frazier - $13M
LF: Piscotty - $1.33M
RF: Acuna - $0.55M
BP: Hector Rondon - $3M
SS: Pray for a Swanson rebound, but maybe add an insurance policy for SS/2B at $3M-$4M per year.
SP: Everyone projects better than scrub, and everyone is young...make no additions

works well. However, Frazier likely ages into a scrub fairly quickly and unless you get him on a very short contract he becomes a problem. Same goes for Rondon. Piscotty and Acuna likely stay above scrub level and maybe even become stars but become more expensive each year (especially Piscotty through arby).

Also, Teheran and maybe Folty could fall into scrub territory (probably not) but become more expensive as you go. I think this is why you don't see Tampa, Oakland and Minnesota take the next step into Deep Plus or Deep with Stars because they never have enough developing talent at one time where the economics align to allow them to. Just when a player begins to emerge into Star territory they start looking to trade them because of expense. Generally the pipeline of talent left in place (or acquired via part of the trade) keeps them in "No Scrubs" territory, which is not quite good ebough to really win anything.

Kansas City escaped that conundrum for a couple of years (partly because the stars aligned for them in their division) where they had some "Deep" guys play like Stars but rode the wave too long and now appear headed to crater back into a full blown rebuild.
Click to expand...

While I agree my plan leans more towards the "win now" side, I don't see how punting helps the Braves at all.

My whole theory is based around the assumption that the Braves will decrease payroll to the ~$110M range due to projected attendance of around 2.5 million in 2018. The only way that payroll figure goes up in 2019 is if the projected attendance gets closer to 3 million for 2019.

Attendance certainly isn't going to go up by punting another year, so if the Braves want to boost attendance and payroll, they better start winning some games.

Piscotty is NOT going to become a star. He will always be a "Deep" 1-2+ win player, but his contract is set, so no arbitration.

Rondon just got non-tendered, so it would be a mild surprise if he gets anything more than a 1 year deal. He is also an excellent bounce back candidate, in my opinion.

Frazier is the new Markakis, except he is being signed when it actually makes sense to sign an average aging player to a market rate contract...when the team is on the upswing.

The plan should be to get rid of all the scrubs, win a few games and become relevant, increase attendance, boost payroll, then go for bigger fish.
 
Enscheff said:
While I agree my plan leans more towards the "win now" side, I don't see how punting helps the Braves at all.

My whole theory is based around the assumption that the Braves will decrease payroll to the ~$110M range due to projected attendance of around 2.5 million in 2018. The only way that payroll figure goes up in 2019 is if the projected attendance gets closer to 3 million for 2019.

Attendance certainly isn't going to go up by punting another year, so if the Braves want to boost attendance and payroll, they better start winning some games.

Piscotty is NOT going to become a star. He will always be a "Deep" 1-2+ win player, but his contract is set, so no arbitration.

Rondon just got non-tendered, so it would be a mild surprise if he gets anything more than a 1 year deal. He is also an excellent bounce back candidate, in my opinion.

Frazier is the new Markakis, except he is being signed when it actually makes sense to sign an average aging player to a market rate contract...when the team is on the upswing.

The plan should be to get rid of all the scrubs, win a few games and become relevant, increase attendance, boost payroll, then go for bigger fish.
Click to expand...

What is your proposed deal for Frazier?

I tend to agree they should be doing things that might help them win. I would still be reluctant to contracts of any length unless I felt really good about the years and dollars vs performance. I wouldn't try to make incremental improvement in a player this year at a sacrifice to flexibility in 2020 and beyond.

But I would have an eye towards giving the team a chance to have an interesting first half. I think they kinda sorta did that last year and it kinda sorta worked for awhile despite getting nothing out of Colon and Rodriguez. I'm fine with taking or making bad deals that are gone after 2019.
 
Southcack77 said:
What is your proposed deal for Frazier?

I tend to agree they should be doing things that might help them win. I would still be reluctant to contracts of any length unless I felt really good about the years and dollars vs performance. I wouldn't try to make incremental improvement in a player this year at a sacrifice to flexibility in 2020 and beyond.

But I would have an eye towards giving the team a chance to have an interesting first half. I think they kinda sorta did that last year and it kinda sorta worked for awhile despite getting nothing out of Colon and Rodriguez. I'm fine with taking or making bad deals that are gone after 2019.
Click to expand...

MLBTR pegs him at 3/33, FG at 3/42, which is $11M-$14M per year. That is essentially the deal Markakis signed minus 1 season, and I think it will end up very similarly (almost exactly perfect value).

I would try to get him for 2 years at a higher AAV plus a 3rd year option, and I wouldn't go a penny over FG's 3/42 prediction.
 
Enscheff said:
MLBTR pegs him at 3/33, FG at 3/42, which is $11M-$14M per year. That is essentially the deal Markakis signed minus 1 season, and I think it will end up very similarly (almost exactly perfect value).

I would try to get him for 2 years at a higher AAV plus a 3rd year option, and I wouldn't go a penny over FG's 3/42 prediction.
Click to expand...

I love the idea of short-duration overpays with team option offset by a small buyout.
 
Grow your own stars and surround them with competent role players.

If we are to contend soon, that will be the formula.

I do think we have an Elite Six in the making: Freeman, Inciarte, Gohara, Acuna, Albies and Soroka.

That's going to be the foundation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top