Master Index of Archived Threads


Braves Clinch

Frayed Knot Sep 22 2018 08:20 PM

Man, Philly didn't even make this remotely interesting, going now 6-14 in September (after a 13-14 August) including losing three straight to the Braves in their last opportunity. They'll be lucky to finish over .500 I've been thinking about how quickly this all turned around for the Braves -- 95, 93, 90 losses in 2015, 2016, 2017 -- and it occurred to me that sometimes the best ability is availability and I think that one applies in this case: 1B - Freddie Freeman -- Braves have played 154 games this season, FFF has played 154 games this season (and it looks like he started all but one) 2B - Ozzie Albies -- played in 150 games. the most consecutive games he sat out was 3 so never on the DL SS - Dansby Swanson -- 134 GP. Missed 14 consecutive games (iow, just over the minimum DL time) back in early May 3B - Johan Camargo -- 127 GP. After sitting out the first 16 games of the season (during the quickly abandoned Jose Bautista experiment) Camargo was called up and never sat longer than 4 games LF - Ronald Acuna -- 103 GP. Was called up after the season was 23 games old, then missed most of June (28 games). Played in every other one CF - Ender Inciarte -- 150 GP, never missed more than one in a row RF - Nick Markakis -- 154 games played, 154 games started ... at age 34 and his 13th ML season! ... and made his first ASG and turned in his best offense since 2012 and even the catchers -- Tyler Flowers & Kury Suzuki -- started 145 of the 154 games, and ALL OF THEM since April 25th. Two replacement catchers combined for 9 starts and 35 ABs, fewer, iow, than Jose Lobaton Can someone tell me what color the sky is in the world where these things are permitted to happen to the ENTIRE starting lineup? I have no experience with such a phenomenon.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 22 2018 09:25 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Two first place finishes in six seasons.

bmfc1 Sep 22 2018 09:52 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Congratulations to all of the long suffering Braves fans.

Edgy MD Sep 23 2018 12:15 AM Re: Braves Clinch

Markakis was the star of hope for David Wright, now four years past his spinal fusion surgery and going strong with his best season since 2011.

Centerfield Sep 24 2018 03:52 PM Re: Braves Clinch

I think only Markakis and Suzuki are free agents at the end of this year. Young core, money to spend, these guys could be a threat for a long time.

Centerfield Sep 24 2018 04:10 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Just in case our new GM is of the "we only need a few tweaks to compete" mindset... The Braves project to finish with 94 wins. Basically your average division winner. The Braves are 7th in runs scored, 7th in OPS. The Mets, even with their recent surge, are 20th in runs scored, 24th in OPS. The Braves bullpen has been their weakspot. Their bullpen ERA is ranked 16th in baseball. The Mets come in at 28th. Which brings us to starting pitching, the strength of this Mets team. Mets starters are by far their best performers. Starter ERA is 7th in baseball. Unfortunately, the Braves are 5th. The Braves beat us in every category.

Frayed Knot Sep 24 2018 08:46 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Centerfield wrote: I think only Markakis and Suzuki are free agents at the end of this year. Young core, money to spend, these guys could be a threat for a long time. Maybe. But part of the premise here is that so many things went right for them this season and can their starting eight manage to miss less than 60 games combined (iow, start more than 95% of the man/games for the entire season) next year too? Or will they have more of a NYM 2018 year, which, even without counting not necessarily regulars like Rivera and Lagares (or Wright for that matter), sums up to more like 400 games missed (more than 30%) [Cespedes - hasn't played since May 13; Td'A - not since Apr 13; Lagares - not since May 16; Frazier - missed gaps of 24 + 19 games; Bruce - out for a 59 game stretch; TJ Rivera - whole season] The other amazing thing about this Braves team is the amount of holdovers from their last division title in 2013 (lost to LAD in NLDS 3-1): Freddie Freeman, Julio Teheran, and that's it! Andrelton Simmons, Craig Kimbrel, Jason Heyward, Justin Upton, Brian McCann were among their big players that year.

41Forever Sep 25 2018 12:10 PM Re: Braves Clinch

What's interesting is that what worked for the Braves wasn't necessarily spending big -- their payroll was about $30 million less than the Mets -- but that their guys were healthy. Imagine if we had Cespedes, Thor, Travis, Frazier, Swarzak, Bruce and Lagares for the whole season. Heck, maybe if Vargas had not been injured in the spring his season might have been better. The other side is that Nimmo probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to break out, and certainly not McNeil.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 25 2018 01:40 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Hire their strength and conditioning guy, fire Barwis

MFS62 Sep 25 2018 01:53 PM Re: Braves Clinch

41Forever wrote: Imagine if we had Cespedes, Thor, Travis, Frazier, Swarzak, Bruce and Lagares for the whole season. ..The other side is that Nimmo probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to break out, and certainly not McNeil. I don't see any other second basemen on that list. Later

smg58 Sep 25 2018 02:11 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Edgy MD wrote: Markakis was the star of hope for David Wright, now four years past his spinal fusion surgery and going strong with his best season since 2011. There was a recent article that suggested that the Mets should learn from the Bruce signing that signing players in their 30s comes with an increased injury risk. Ignoring the obvious fact that most free agents are in their 30s, the Braves got rewarded for giving four years to a very comparable player to Bruce -- except he was known by the Braves to require neck surgery when they signed him.

Centerfield Sep 25 2018 02:34 PM Re: Braves Clinch

41Forever wrote: What's interesting is that what worked for the Braves wasn't necessarily spending big -- their payroll was about $30 million less than the Mets -- but that their guys were healthy. Wow! That really is interesting. Boy that will really stick in the craw of those guys who say a high payroll is a prerequisite to winning! In your face! It's almost like they'll be forced to admit that there is another method of building a winner, one where a team actively loses, trades away veterans for prospects, drafts high, collects young talent, then hopes that they arrive and succeed around the same time. We could call that something like "revamp" or "restock" or something like that. You know, and then those idiot payroll guys will be forced to admit that payroll and winning is not a one-to-one relationship, and that payroll does not actually guarantee winning, only increasing a team's chances at winning if spent correctly. They may also be forced to admit that good teams don't simply spend every year, but rather gauge where they are in their maturation process, at first keeping payroll lower when their young talent arrives, then supplementing that core with free agent stars to create a sustained winner over several seasons. I remember there was a team in the '90's that did exactly this, then used a top tier payroll to roll off 14 straight division titles. I forget which team that was... 41Forever wrote: Imagine if we had Cespedes, Thor, Travis, Frazier, Swarzak, Bruce and Lagares for the whole season. Heck, maybe if Vargas had not been injured in the spring his season might have been better. The other side is that Nimmo probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to break out, and certainly not McNeil. I know! Oh what could have been! We might have won 85 games!

Centerfield Sep 25 2018 02:51 PM Re: Braves Clinch

I think only Markakis and Suzuki are free agents at the end of this year. Young core, money to spend, these guys could be a threat for a long time. Maybe. But part of the premise here is that so many things went right for them this season and can their starting eight manage to miss less than 60 games combined (iow, start more than 95% of the man/games for the entire season) next year too? Or will they have more of a NYM 2018 year, which, even without counting not necessarily regulars like Rivera and Lagares (or Wright for that matter), sums up to more like 400 games missed (more than 30%) [Cespedes - hasn't played since May 13; Td'A - not since Apr 13; Lagares - not since May 16; Frazier - missed gaps of 24 + 19 games; Bruce - out for a 59 game stretch; TJ Rivera - whole season] The other amazing thing about this Braves team is the amount of holdovers from their last division title in 2013 (lost to LAD in NLDS 3-1): Freddie Freeman, Julio Teheran, and that's it! Andrelton Simmons, Craig Kimbrel, Jason Heyward, Justin Upton, Brian McCann were among their big players that year. That's not even the tip of the iceberg with their luck. Mike Foltynewicz was a scrub before this year. 1.48 WHIP, 4.79 ERA. This year, his ERA is under 3, and he has a 1.11 WHIP. And that's even less surprising than Anibal Sanchez. Veteran with a bad arm, suddenly striking gold in his age 34 season. Crazy. The danger with citing luck (and I know this is not the point you are trying to make, but that others have improperly inferred from your post) is that somehow this means the gap to the division title is closer. While it may be likely that the Braves might not get lucky again, it's folly to think that someone in the division won't win as many as 94 games.

Ceetar Sep 25 2018 03:01 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Centerfield wrote: The danger with citing luck (and I know this is not the point you are trying to make, but that others have improperly inferred from your post) is that somehow this means the gap to the division title is closer. While it may be likely that the Braves might not get lucky again, it's folly to think that someone in the division won't win as many as 94 games. Well, yes, the Mets should be looking to build a team that is capable/likely/projected/pickaword to win 90-95 games, minimum, but it does speak to their ability to do so that some of the Braves ascension is a house of cards that won't hold up.

41Forever Sep 25 2018 03:47 PM Re: Braves Clinch

MFS62 wrote: 41Forever wrote: Imagine if we had Cespedes, Thor, Travis, Frazier, Swarzak, Bruce and Lagares for the whole season. ..The other side is that Nimmo probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to break out, and certainly not McNeil. I don't see any other second basemen on that list. Later My thought there was that if the other guys are all healthy and playing well, we're not sellers at the deadline and Cabrera is still here. Now, that doesn't mean McNeil doesn't come up as a reserve and draw to his skills. But I figured that if Cabrera is still here then McNeil doesn't get the opportunity to start. Just a parlor game.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 25 2018 04:10 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Centerfield wrote: 41Forever wrote: What's interesting is that what worked for the Braves wasn't necessarily spending big -- their payroll was about $30 million less than the Mets -- but that their guys were healthy. Wow! That really is interesting. Boy that will really stick in the craw of those guys who say a high payroll is a prerequisite to winning! In your face! This is so much bullshit. The less a team spends, the less margin for error there is. Like FK wrote, the Braves won because almost everything broke in their favor. That almost never happens. Money lets a team cover up mistakes and bad outcomes. The what if we had Cespedes argument is even more bullshit. Because you can say that about practically any team --- if everything went right, they would've won. If nobody got hurt and everybody had a career year, they would've made the playoffs. It's the most tiresome and nebulous and infantile argument out there. If the Nats players had great seasons and Murphy was available all season and in MVP form, they woulda won 100 games. If Jose Fernandez didn't die in a boat crash, the Marlins wouldn't have torn down their roster and they'd have the best team in baseball today at the right ages and they'd win 100 games. Yada, yada yada. It's so fucking obvious that the Wilpons are doing everything right because, you know ..... two first place finishes in 30 seasons.

Frayed Knot Sep 25 2018 07:36 PM Re: Braves Clinch

The biggest thing keeping the Braves' spending down wasn't a conscious decision necessarily but having multiple rookies and/or near-rookies -- guys who are, by definition, cheap in baseball terms -- all blossom at more or less the same time. Acuna (true rookie - debut 4/25/18); Camargo & Albies (each 200 or so ABs in 2017), plus the second full season for Swanson. That's half your starting eight making probably just over $2 mil combined. If Rosario, Nimmo, Conforto, Smith/Alonso, McNeil were to do the same in Queens it frees up spending to plug holes elsewhere. Much better than having to buy on the open market and losing flexibility when things have to be changed in mid-course. The Braves have had success over the years in pushing particularly their young, Latin players and getting them in the big leagues very young -- Furcal (although he later turned out to be older than he claimed), Andruw J., and now Albies & Acuna. Neat trick if you can pull it off or if they've found some kind of formula for making it work more often than it backfires. Also, give them a ton of credit for totally reversing course from a couple years ago. They had signed many of their then-young players to multi-year FA and pre-FA deals [A. Simmons, Kimbrel, J. Upton, F.F. Freeman, Uggla, etc.] but then weren't afraid to clean house and bail on that strategy when it wasn't working. I'd have to go looking things up in order to determine how much of the loot they got from those deals are part of the current roster (Swanson is I know, some of the arms as well) or if the main thing they got was out from under the commitments, but it was a reasonably quick turn-around even if they had to eat three straight 90+ loss teams to get there.

Edgy MD Sep 25 2018 07:40 PM Re: Braves Clinch

That lock-up-the-young-guys-early strategy was canned after they first canned the GM who instituted it, right?

Frayed Knot Sep 25 2018 07:47 PM Re: Braves Clinch

Edgy MD wrote: That lock-up-the-young-guys-early strategy was canned after they first canned the GM who instituted it, right? Yup. It was a house cleaning both above and below decks. Wasn't there also some illegal stuff going on at the same time involving international players? I forget the details now.