cajunrevenge
Well-known member
We had a lot of power hitters last year. That must be why they scored so many runs.
Trade one Keep One
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I'd refer back to the "bad players" thread. Last years Braves had four massive sucking negative-WAR chest wounds in the lineup. FWIW, none of them were power hitters.
Escobar has a WAR of 1.2.
Peraza has hit 7 homers in 5 years. I think 8-10 would be a pipedream.
With Freeman its not too hot either.
I check almost daily, I don't remember them ever getting anywhere close to 3.
THey are playing Rendon at 2nd because Escobar feels more comfortable at third than at 2B. I have no idea where you are even coming from on this. They have too many 2B:
Rendon .290/.375/.362
Escobar .324/.376/.416
Espinosa: .251/.331/.425
EDIT: How could I forget UGGLA? .235/.333/.370
The last 25 years is tainted?
The production of players absolutely has been. Not sure how that can be denied.
DirkPiggler
Well-known member
The Braves' offenses of 2014-2015 have proven that you can't go all in on power at the expense of OBP or on OBP at the expense of power. Any good offense in today's astroturf-free game will have to have both elements to succeed.
Wonderful. Why don't you compare the averages for the full period to now. Once you get towards 94-05 the numbers jump.
We are never going back to an era like we were in the mid 90's to late 2000's.
So your point is the last 25 years aren't tainted, but the time period between 1994 and 2005 are?
In 1991, the Braves made the world series vs. the Twins. They had:
Gant 32 homes
Pendleton 22 homers
Justice 21 homers
Blauser 11 homers
Bream 11 homers/Hunter 12 homers
141 homers total. (Played Twins, who had 140 homers)
This years team is on pace for 94. National League average is 145
When you use a time frame that has a substantial portion of it aided by HGH and other forms of steroids then yes it is tainted.
Well, you can go back prior to 1994 and have looked at the most recent time period and his point still remains valid. You are simply trying to defend and indefensible position by disregarding baseball history over an approximate decade worth of abuse. You will say anything to make Braves baseball rosier.
No, I'm trying to argue a point that using an arbitrary number of homeruns is required to win a world series based on the last 25 years worth of data is misleading when I believe, and basically everyone else does, that the majority of that time frame was inflated from PED's.
Nobody is saying the Braves should not acquire power. That is silly but this notion that you need X amount of power hitters to win is something I just don't agree with. I think there are many ways to skin a cat and one of them is to have power hitters.
JohnAdcox
Brian Jordan's New BFF
This, and a jarring lack of balance. While I still think the small ball approach will score more runs in the long-term, Freeman can’t be the lone power threat.
10 years of data does not invalidate baseball history overall. If you don't like 25 years, how about 50: In the last 50 years of baseball history there have been a whopping 4 teams that won a world series with less than 2 20 HR hitters on their roster (not including strike shortened seasons). The 1982 Cards, the 1980 Phillies (and they had a 19 HR guy to go along with Schmidt hitting 48 HRs, so they don't really count as a non slugging team), the 69 miracle Mets, and the 65 Dodgers. Last time I checked we don't have a Tom Seaver or Jerry Koosman like the 1969 Mets, and we aren't likely to have Don Drysdale or Sandy Koufax walk through the door like the Dodgers had in the early 60s. The offensive situation in the 80s is also equally as out of whack with baseball history as the mid 90s to late 2000s were, just in the opposite direction. For pretty much all of baseball history, teams have needed decent pop to win a world series. It's not some fluke.
Of course you can't have nothing but high strikeout, low contact power guys like we had last season, but you can't have almost all singles hitters like we have this season. You need a good balance to have a solid offense. Thinking otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and trying to reinvent the wheel.
Well, true, the 'no other good options at 2B' thing was probably inaccurate. But the Nats are dumb for playing him at 2B. At 3B he's one of their best defensive players, if not their best; at 2B, he's average at best. Espinosa is probably their best option at 2B right now. Escobar has had a fairly fluky year.
He's definitely far better at 3B, but he was a positive fielder at 2B with +4 DRS and positive UZR and UZR/150 last year. He hasn't done as well this year, but it's pretty much SSS on both years. I think us not giving him the money he wanted in the late rounds in 2008 is one of the most regrettable draft decisions we've made. He would look mighty nice at 3rd.