Still a lot left to do
- Thread starter Horsehide Harry
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm surprised there is any debate about this.
rico43
<B>Director of Minor League Reports</B>
Factor in the firm declaration by the Braves that Kemp show up 10-15 pounds lighter. He was athletic enough to be a center fielder once upon a time. Add this to his hustle and I think all the grim concerns about his defense will diminish.
Are you really?
Kemp isn't going to be a good defender at any point in the future. The question is if he's going to be bad or DH worthy. We can deal with bad.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I don't disagree with what you are saying. A team that lacks HR power winning is not impossible. It is however very, very difficult and rare. So, if you build your team and say we are going to speed, defense and OBP our way to a pennant, then you are in effect saying we are going to beat the odds and do it the hard way.
IMO, the reason you play a long shot is for an enhanced payoff. But, in this case, the payoff is no better than if you constructed your team the traditional way. It's a bad play.
I expect, and there is no way to verify this, that over the years there have been many teams who decided to play the long odds. Some probably had no choice. But I also would expect the GM's and other management of those teams can now be found on the scrap heap.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I'm not debating individual vs individual. I am debating the whole. If you want to play Mallex instead of Kemp then history says you need to find the difference between Kemps power and Mallex's power somewhere else.
If you said A Mallex with a 400 OBP with 50 steals, elite defense and 5-10 homers would make the team better than a .350 OBP, with 15 steals and 5-10 HR Inciarte you would be right as well. The difference is that you don't have to find the difference in power somewhere else.
I think that concept is where some advanced stats like WAR break down when it comes to team construction. It's got to do with the mix of the team. Individual stats like WAR are good to compare one player against another but I believe that a players place within the team concept falls outside the capability of the stat.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
But only IF Mac hits beyond the expectation for Catcher. So, if you expect your catcher to hit 15-20 HR for you but LF has a 15 HR shortfall then you need 30-45 out of catcher.
Again, the premise is that you don't need a set, single number of HR but that you DO need to be league average or better. Now, the issue also is that you don't know what league average will be in advance of the games being played so as a GM you have to gauge a range and hope you are right.
Braves1976
It's OVER 5,000!
Given his hip issues, etc., he is only going to get worse and he is already DH worthy with his -18 DRS (including -11 DRS in only 326 innings in LF for Atlanta). This also seems to be driving some Kemp/Braves fans to call for the DH in the NL, lol.
Can you imagine how bad our outfield will be defensively if Inciarte is traded? If that happens we'll need a lot of ground ball pitchers. And no I don't believe Smith can save as many runs in CF as Inciarte going forward. Inciarte is the total package pretty much on defense.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Perhaps he would be, but you've just described the starting lead off hitter in the all star game. That's probably not a very likely result.
Given his hip issues, etc., he is only going to get worse and he is already DH worthy with his -18 DRS (including -11 DRS in only 326 innings in LF for Atlanta). This also seems to be driving some Kemp/Braves fans to call for the DH in the NL, lol.
Can you imagine how bad our outfield will be defensively if Inciarte is traded? If that happens we'll need a lot of ground ball pitchers. And no I don't believe Smith can save as many runs in CF as Inciarte going forward. Inciarte is the total package pretty much on defense.
I'm definitely one of those calling for the DH in the NL, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Kemp - for me, anyway.
I'm just so incredibly tired of two sets of rules. I've always been (and will likely always be) an "NL guy". Double-switches, pinch-hitters, and the multiple bullpen strategies involved with both should always be an important part of the game as far as I've always been concerned. I'm just resigned to the fact that it's forever going to be a part of the AL game, and I'd just-as-soon they take that potential complaint away in the future as well. The decision has been made that there will be interleague play every day, so don't have the schedule-makers have any part of determining who might or might not make the playoffs (even though we understand they really don't). There's no reason the Tigers should have been playing by different rules than every other AL contender the last weekend of the season. Until there's an even number of teams in each league , that's always going to be the case - until both leagues play by the same rules anyway.
You literally just said, 'You don't need a set, single number of HR, but you DO need at least a set, single number of HR.'
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
You don't need a set, single number of HR for a particular position....as implied by the rest of the thread
You are right. But the point is you don't need a guy who hits homeruns in left if that player is good/great at other parts of the game.
You don't need to be average or better at homeruns to have a good offense. That is the point many are trying to make. And hitting a lot of homeruns doesn't equal a good offense.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
It's got little to do with having a "good" offense. It's about having an offense that can get you to the post season. If a no power (or limited power) offense, even if nominally good, could routinely get a team to the post-season then it would be happening.
It isn't.
That's because power is the easiest and most common way to have a good offense. It's not a requirement however.
blueagleace1
Playing the Waiting Game
You are trying to convince water it isn't wet. There are posters on this board who only see things the way they want to see them, and unfortunately he/she is one of them. Just not very open-minded.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
This board is full of people who use stats to make their positions and live and breathe by them. I give them one that is easily verifiable and people just write it off as not relevant, I guess because they don't want it to be. My guess is that it infringes on their worldview of how things should be and not how they are.
Again, I'm not saying it can't be done. I am saying that data over the last 25 years, essentially the new modern era of baseball with massive new park construction, the virtual disappearance of artificial turf, chicks dig the longball era, that teams who are built without league average capability in HR power don't do very well. There ARE a few exceptions, specifically the Giants and Royals both teams that play in extreme pitchers parks and generally in pitching divisions. But the data says that if you build your team with less than league average HR power, either intentionally or unintentionally, then you are an extreme long shot at making the playoffs and ultimately the WS.
That is not the same as saying that IF you have better than league average HR power you automatically get into the postseason. Not at all. The rest of a players game DOES matter.
I just think you can't ignore a set of data simply because you don't like what it says.
But you were specifically talking about the team and suggested that you absolutely do need to have at least a set, single number of HR, which is whatever league average ends up being.