Should the Braves throw it?
Granted at this point there isn't a real possibility of this happening, but nezt year San Diego State pitcher Stephen Strasburg will most likely be the top pick in the draft and is easily the most talented player coming out. The guy struck out 24 batters earlier this year in a 9 inning game and was (i think) the only college player on the US Olympic team. He has truly elite stuff and a breaking ball that is nearly 20 MPH slower than his fastball that sits in the upper 90s.
So that being said, should the Braves tried to throw the season after they decided that they weren't contenders at the All star break? I mean right now they would have the 5th pick in the draft next season, but I can't see Seattle, Washington, Pittsburgh and San Diego taking a pass on this guy. I don't care who might represent him. Thoughts?
0 recs |
18 comments
Comments
I got to watch Strasburg pitch with Team USA in Durham right before they left and he’s the real deal. He was making AA and AAA hitters, some with big league experience, look silly. That being said, I wouldn’t be that sad if the Braves did a tailspin for two weeks and ended up with that first pick, but I don’t think they should tank on purpose. Nor do I think they would. With so many young guys on the team, it’s be nice for them to be successful, and part of that usually means winning. The Braves are going to end up in the top five/six of the draft and get a very high quality player, but tanking, even with so little to go is a bad idea. There have been plenty of can’t misses who’s missed terribly.
by cbwilk on Sep 19, 2008 8:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
you make a good point about high picks blowing it, next years draft is supposed to be pretty dodgy after Strasburg though.
by yondaime4 on Sep 19, 2008 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve read that too. But, there’s plenty of talent throughout the draft. Baseball America did a thing last offseason about the percentages of major leaguers from each round, and it seemed like 2nd to 10th rounders had as much of a shot as 1st rounders. And that wasn’t just for making it to the majors but succeeding too.
Aside from all that, even in a down year, when you’re talking about one of the top five amateur players available, you’re talking about a good player. Past 5th overall picks:
2008 Buster Posey, very polished catcher, could have been number one
2007 Matt Weiters, this year’s minor league player of the year
2006 Brandon Morrow, moved almost immediately to the majors as a reliver, now a starter
2005 Ryan Braun, rookie of the year and huge produer for the Brewers
2004 Mark Rogers, got hurt almost immediately, hasn’t gotten out of A ball
2003 Chris Lubanski, stalled out in AAA, never lived up to expectations
2002 Clint Everts, got hurt almost immediately, hasn’t gotten out of A ball (great guy though)
2001 Mark Texiera, like I have to tell you
2000 Justin Wayne, got hurt almost immediately, never made it out of A ball
So the last three at 5 overall have been great, before that it’s been almost universally terrible aside from Texiera. Several of those drafts are just bad, look at the first round and see how many names you recognize, and some were just a case of drafting poorly.
by cbwilk on Sep 19, 2008 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it’s down like this year, but I like our chances at Grant Green or Alex White. I just hope the Alvarez controversy ends without the Pirates getting a compensation pick at 2A.
I’ve never understood the argument against tanking. In the MLB system, wins below the mid-80s are pretty worthless and the draft has been shown to be very top heavy – the #1 pick produces something like 50% more value than the #2 pick and 100% more value than picks 6-10. It makes perfect sense to punt on a few meaningless wins in exchange for a #1 overall pick.
by 17843 on Sep 22, 2008 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Practically speaking, how is a team supposed to tank games? Players aren’t going to take it upon themselves to lose games, they don’t neccessarily care about who the team drafts and they’re worried about their stats for their contracts for the next season. And if we’re talking about a manager intentionally making bad decisions or poor lineups that’s not something he’s going to do without the organization knowing, he’d be putting himself in a position to get fired, and he’s also not hugely concerned with who the team drafts because it’ll be years until they play for him. So what we’re talking about is a concerted effort on the part of the organization with the knowledge of probably the manager and at least a few key players, a pitcher or two, maybe a catcher and a first baseman. Basically a conspiracy.
Can you imagine the kind of backlash a team would recieve if knowledge of a conspiracy to lose games became public, and it almost assuredly would with that many people involved. What kind of message does that send to fans? We want to win, just not today? But come spend a bunch of money on our intentionally subpar product anyway? I just can’t concievably see how a team would tank on purpose.
by cbwilk on Sep 23, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, it’s pretty easy to officially shut down Chipper (who is always nursing something), Jurrjens (a young pitcher blowing the lid off his innings total from last year), Campillo (similarly has pitched a ton), Gonzalez (coming off TJ), and McCann (a catcher who’s caught 135 games this year). Now, they’ve largely been doing that thankfully, but there’s no reason the pitchers should still be throwing for this team.
Tanking doesn’t have to mean less effort by the players, more putting an inferior product on the field.
“What kind of message does that send to fans? We want to win, just not today? But come spend a bunch of money on our intentionally subpar product anyway?”
The marginal benefits of finishing 73-89 rather than 70-92 are nearly zero; certainly the marginal costs of A. losing out on better talent in the draft and B. overworking pitchers are much higher?
by 17843 on Sep 23, 2008 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t disagree that a few losses at the end of a year like this are better in the long term of the organization. What I’m asking is, how do you sell that to the average fan? The guy that doesn’t understand anything about draft position and isn’t worried about a player four years from now?
Your point about shutting down players is a good one, thought I don’t see why you’d do that with Brian McCann, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to losses. The Braves have had little more than a 4A team all year and they still haven’t played their way to the bottom.
by cbwilk on Sep 23, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not really true. Replacing McCann with Sammons and Jurrjens with any scrub minor leaguer will lop off about 6/10ths of a win over the next five games. Shutting down other starters would do even more. Right now we’re expected to win 2.37 games and lose 2.63, ie go either 3-2 or 2-3. Shutting down McCann and Jurrjens reduces our expected record to 1.75-3.25, ie go either 1-4 or 2-3. We could be talking about dropping 2 wins.
We should have been tanking weeks ago BTW.
And tanking at this point wouldn’t effect revenue much at all. There aren’t home games, advertising has been sold, and the reduction of memorabilia sold based on two less wins will be near nothing.
by 17843 on Sep 24, 2008 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And two less wins will maybe cement the Braves at 5 in the draft instead of six. And it’s theoretical anyway. Who’s to say that Clint Sammons wouldn’t perform well given a couple of weeks of every day playing time? I have no illusions that he’d play up to McCann’s level, but there’s no guarantee that he’s going to contribute 0% to any sort of wins. In fact it’s more plausible that he’d contribute in some way. And we’re really talking about one, maybe two starts for Jurrjens. Even if you go back a couple of starts and shut him down then (and again I see no substantial reason why you’d do this, how is he ever going to learn to push through this late season fatigue later in his career if he’s never been allowed to do it) there’s no guarantee that the guy who replaces him will lose or pitch poorly in every game. In fact, you often see a young pitcher come in an pitch well for his first few starts, based solely on the fact that batter’s haven’t seen him before.
I’m still not seeing how shutting down a few players for tenuous reasons is a guaranteed tank job. You’d need a concerted effort on the part of the organization, manager, and players, and that’s just not going to happen.
by cbwilk on Sep 24, 2008 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we’re going to have an intelligent conversation lets not assume unlikely events. Clint Sammons has hit miserably at AAA and miserably in the major leagues. The odds on result of him getting more plate appearances is him making more outs than Brian McCann would’ve made, thus decreasing the chances of us winning. If we’re going to suddenly assume unlikely occurences all around, we might as well not have a discussion because sure, if we shut down our best players and all the scrubs hit their 95th percentile for a week, we’ll win despite putting inferior players on the field, the chances of them doing so are tiny.
And the reason shutting down your best players is likely (notice I never said guaranteed) to produce fewer wins is because of the impact of star talent on win expectancy. The difference between McCann and his replacement is approximately 3/4th of a run per game, a massive amount when the ML average is 4.5 runs per game. Replacing Jurrjens with a scrub with a 5.50 ERA will increase runs allowed by over 1 per start. Those two moves in concert will change a neutral 81-81 team into one that should be 63-99. Resting other above average preformers every other game and replacing them with less-good options could lop off several more tenths of runs scored and add several more tenths of runs allowed.
And again, I’m not talking about anyone playing below their talent level; ie, first baseman dropping the ball, pitchers purposefully throwing balls, hitters purposefully missing balls, etc. I’m talking about taking the 6, 7 ,8 , 9, 10 win players out of the lineup – call it fatigue, injury, or “giving the kids a shot” – and replacing them with scrubs.
Implementing such a strategy in mid-September could easily lose you 2-3 games in the standings, no enough to fall into 30th place, but enough to typically gain you a few draft slots plus other benefits – not throwing your best young starter out to a 40+ inning increase, not wasting your stud catchers knees on pursuit of 75 wins, getting to see a few young guys in regular roles when it doesn’t effect their service clock, etc.
The costs would be minimal – season tickets holders have paid up, walk-up sales are already lesser considering your team sucks and out-of-town teams are pushing gate receipts (look at the phillies/mets series compared to the others), merchandising isn’t effected much at all, advertising on Peachtree and FSN-South is already bought, etc.
by 17843 on Sep 24, 2008 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Congrats, your voodoo statistics have proven is feasible. Now show me a team that would do it.
by cbwilk on Sep 24, 2008 2:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heaven forbid..
…someone used numbers in a baseball discussion. Saying there “Voodoo” stats just lowered your credibility really – since baseball is built on numbers.
by RainDelay on Sep 24, 2008 4:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, I love the anti-intellectual streak. Any team that actually cares to think about it would see the benefits if they were in the position the Braves are in.
by 17843 on Sep 24, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thought I don’t see why you’d do that with Brian McCann,
You must have missed the part about catching 135 game this year. He could use the rest and it’s not like we’re short on catchers at the moment.
by RainDelay on Sep 23, 2008 7:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I did see it guy, he’s 24 and having a great season, he can handle it.
by cbwilk on Sep 23, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, screw it - lets not make sure he gets rest for his knees..
…playing one of the hardest positions on the body in baseball….
by RainDelay on Sep 23, 2008 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? The kid’s 24. I’d be shocked if four games at the end of the year (he’s not going to play in all six) are going to wreck his knees. I get that catcher is the toughest position in baseball, but that’s still no reason to go along with officially shutting him down for the rest of the year. He has been playing less all September with Sammons and Miller both on the team. Just like last year at the end he played less. If he says, ‘Hey, I’m tired, I’d like to rest for the end of the season’, that’s one thing, but shutting him down to intentionally tank the end of the season to gain a spot in the draft just doesn’t sound like a plausible idea.
by cbwilk on Sep 24, 2008 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now wait a minute...
…I never said anything about shutting him down just so we can tank the season. I’m thinking longevity here. And when I mean shut him down, there’s 4 games left – he can still be used as a bat off the bench.
by RainDelay on Sep 24, 2008 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 













