Joey Wentz finally had a hiccup – he struck out eight men in four otherwise strong innings, but a three-run homer to Kyle Tucker proved to be decisive.
On the other side of the ball, Ozzie Albies hit his fourth homer in the last week and a half, and our new shortstop Ha-Seong Kim — I wrote him up a day ago — got two singles in his final two at-bats. The job is his.
Carpe diem, Kim!
In his last 34 games, 146 PA, ,Ozzie is slashing .297/.336/.471 with 9 doubles and 5 homers. That works out to an all star second baseman with some MVP votes over a full season. His BABIP over that interval is just .316, so not particularly lucky.
So once again, this is an easy pickup on the option. Since we won’t have to sign Bo Bichette, we are free to put in a bid on Kyle Tucker who will end up signing for 3X what we offer.
I get that it’s an easy pickup, but is it an easy decision that he’s your starting 2B next year? I hear people saying that Ozzie and MHIII are having strong second halves, therefore, duh, they’re your starting CF and 2B. Umm, first half stats count the same as second half stats. We ruined this season because a huge chunk of the offense took a long walk off a short pier. Are we going to do that again?
Sort of, yes. You either have to commit to Ozzie or cut him loose and go big for a replacement. The only viable internal replacement is nacho and if he can play 2nd and hit, by all means let him compete for the job. If there is a vet who is cheap and good, like Iglesias last season, then sure, sign him for $3 million to compete at both middle infield positions.
If it were up to me we would sign Tucker and Bichette but our management is what it is
Package Ozzie and a couple starting pitcher prospects and get an actual All-Star second baseman.
I had no idea that Hayden Harris threw 91. Yeah, that’s probably a big reason he didn’t get the call up until now. I looked at his delivery and vibe and thought he was a mini Josh Hader. Oh, at 91 MPH, he’s mini, alright. Even if he racked up a good 10-12 IP in September, would we really be penciling him into a bullpen spot next year throwing slop?
I can’t imagine Alex would just run it back with the same position players, but then again, I didn’t expect so few moves last off-season.
Sean Murphy needs to be traded for help somewhere else and that would affect my stance on Ozzie. If you get a middle infielder out of a Murphy deal, then you can probably pick up his option and then trade Ozzie given how cheap the agreement is. If Murphy gets you help in the outfield, then you probably just keep Ozzie at that point. That’s my ideal outcome: trade Murphy for an outfielder that’s good enough to start, but will rotate with other players at DH. Matt Olson should not be playing every day at this point and I wonder if it’s starting to affect his power numbers; he has the lowest ISO since he started playing full time.
I know the front office really values what Murphy brings to the team — catcher is one of the few positions where there are real intangibles that benefit the on-field product — but Drake needs to play most of the time at catcher to reach his full potential. DH production is relatively cheap to find, and Murphy isn’t a good enough hitter to justify getting that many at bats there.
I take a little different position. If you want to be a playoff caliber, World Series possible, team and your catcher goes down, you usually would have a BIG problem. So, Murphy is not ideal as a DH, but how much would you have to pay (and who?) to get more production? Murphy is better at stopping the running game and is one of the best in the game at that. So, if you hit a 80’s Cardinals style team in Round one, Murphy probably gets you to Round two. Also, Baldwin can’t reasonably catch more than 120 games a year. Baldwin is good enough of a hitter to meet almost any DH you can come up with. And catcher injuries are SO much more likely than any other position and there are SO few decent catchers available.
If somebody REALLY WANTS Murphy and is paying on that basis, I would move him. Otherwise, no.
Sean Murphy should NOT be traded. who would be your back up? Chadwick Tromp? And Baldwin could experience a sophomore slump. We have all seen that before.
Also, if Sean Murphy sucks so bad, what could you reasonably get for him? Who would pay off the rest of that contract?
If catcher, SS, and LF are really solved then the main focus is pitching. If Schwelly comes back and Ritchie and Fuentes mature, then I think SP is pretty much ok. If we put Lopez in as closer (a la Smoltz) and Jimenez comes back then we need just a few decent (non-Montero) relievers (non-Brebbia). I think Johnson and Kinleyseem solid so maybe it’s just LH relievers we need (Bummer? non-Cox). Maybe Dodd will help, maybe Harris.
The main risk is what Rob was saying. What if MHII and Ozzie have horrible first halves again? Having Acuna for a full season and Profar and Kim should make us better and may improve others too. I think both Ozuna and Iglesias are replaceable (non-critical). I wish we had taken a flyer on Buehler.
BTW, I saw some story that said the Braves basically had the best (or top 5) OF in the majors in the 2nd half.
I would love to trade Murphy for some stud, but I think we would be disappointed with the possible return. Like Robin said, we are best off keeping him and being very secure at catcher and pretty good at DH.
If we want to really shake things up with a trade, Riley is probably the best bet. He’s underwhelming but still has a lot of value and is on a reasonable AAV contract. You can probably get some choice prospects for him.
“If we want to really shake things up with a trade…”
I guess this is my question. Do we? I’m perfectly willing to grant that I’m probably much too passive to be a GM, but I see a team that could be a champion next year. If someone comes to me with a blockbuster deal of some sort, I’d evaluate it, and sure, three great prospects for Riley would be hard to pass up, even though it leaves a hole at 3rd. (I’m not sold on Nacho’s offense, and even if it’s better than I thought, he will have much less power than Riley.) But since I’m ready to roll the dice with the team as it appears it will be next year, almost every blockbuster trade will make us worse in the short run and possibly better in the long run.
Not I, no. I’m not willing to take a step back when we’re going into the season with everyone healthy. I would have to listen on Riley but I think he is better than he was this year. My outlook is a lot better now with the emergence of Waldrep and Ritchie looking show ready.
I am hoping for serious bullpen upgrades.
Oh, you mean like the Mets upgraded their bullpen by shelling out for Minter? Or, even worse, the way Cleveland is set with Clase? I’m not completely certain there are any reliable closers from year to year any more, but I’m completely certain that there are no reliable set up men or fodder. A lot of that is small sample size, but some of it is just learning — relievers have narrow repertoires, that’s why they aren’t starters, and once a pitch is understood by hitters, they have little to fall back on. That’s probably a quarter of it.
In short: go ahead and shore up the bullpen, but expect to do a bunch of reshoring before the season is over.
My only critique of how Atlanta has handled their bullpen is that they haven’t been willing to convert SPs to RPs.
There’s always TISTAAPP. A prospect is just prospect until he’s proven. At least Riley is proven. I do think you can come up with a good reliever (Minter is a good example). We may have some good relief prospects (Lara, Burkhalter), but I do think using a failed SP as a reliever does not work often and I think it’s worth having some young relievers (like Kerkoring) be developed. We would have been wise to invest in Robertson when no one else wanted him. Now he’s doing yeoman’s work for the Phillies. Some (maybe only a few) relievers are reliable.
Why is it better to trade Riley for prospects when we won’t sign a Tucker, Swanson, Fried, or Bichette? We only did that for a full rebuild (Upton, Simmons, Kimbrel)
Ok Jonathan, I guess we’re damned if we do so we might as well should don’t.
I don’t know about that, Roger – I’d say that most of the best relievers are failed starters. Look at Jonny Venters, Mike Remlinger, Tyler Matzek, even Raisel Iglesias. (Raisel didn’t fail, exactly, but the Reds put him in the pen ASAP and refused to take him back out.)
I’m with Rob – I’d love for us to be more williing to break guys in via the bullpen, particularly the Dylan Dodds of the world who clearly cannot get through a major league lineup more than once.
That said, Rob, I can’t go along with your proposed trade of Ozzie and a couple of pitching prospects. I want us to rebuild our farm!
P.S. I’m tired of losing one run games. That’s 4 of the last 5.
I’m willing to chalk up this year to being really unlucky in terms of injuries and close games and slumps.
Only the Dodgers have the chutzpah (and cheddar) to go into a season with two rotations worth of pitching.
Murphy/Baldwin tandem makes sense. Way better than having a banjo-hitting scrub out there 25% of the time.
A starter or two, a couple veteran relievers and a Kenley Jansen-type (maybe even Iglesias) and this team is reloaded and ready to go.
And the shortstop homer drought is gone.
Getting to the important business — how about Kipling for the nickname?
BACK UP THE MONEY TRUCK AND PAY THE MAN
HSK HSK, Cubs. Shame about your lead.
Is it possible that Elder has figured something out? In his last 3 games (since the 8 run debacle in mid-August) he has pitched 20 innings and allowed 4 runs. Love him or hate him, the guy is pretty good when he is on.
Yes, I’ve abandoned my never-watch-Bryce policy. Good job tonight…if it hadn’t been for Eli’s bonehead throw he would have been pitching a shutout.
I am more and more believing that one-run games are not lost by luck but won by grit and determination. That is what we’re missing without a Dansby Swanson or a Trea Turner. Will Kim bring that?
I had no doubt that Turner would win it for the Phillies in extra innings last week (I said it to myself when he came up to bat). How did the Cubs come back from 6-1 down to win 7-6?
That is what the Braves have been missing the last couple of years. Grit. A spark. Determination not to lose. Our whole season would be different with a decent percentage in one-run games.
Alex, I agree that putting good prospects in the major league bullpen to get their feet wet has been a good strategy (it worked with Max Fried). I think the Braves have done that less with all the injuries and just thrown guys in to start.
I seem to recall we had a whole conversation about this a couple months ago and determined that good teams really do win the close ones, just not quite at the same clip as they win the blowouts. It probably helps to have hitters that don’t strike out with a runner on third 80% of the time and relievers that are 50/50 to give up run(s) each appearance.
Not sure if Dansby’s intangibles are the key or just the fact that he is a really doggone good player, even offensively at SS.
recapped
It’s certainly possible to imagine how, without intangibles making any difference, good teams should be expected to win more than half of their one-run games. Look at each team’s expected results after 9 innings by number of losses by 10+ runs, 9, 8, etc., number of ties after 9 (aka extra-inning games), and number of wins by 1, 2, etc., up to wins by 10+ runs. It seems pretty plausible that there should be roughly a bell curve with the peak (most common result) near the average expected result, say a win by 1 run if it’s a really good team. For that team, and for any team with an overall expected result over .500, a win by 1 would be closer to the peak than a loss by 1, so it would expect to have more 1-run wins than 1-run losses.
This would be more intuitive if we had results to the hundredth of a run and a near-infinite number of games, because for most teams the real peak would be something closer to 0 than to +1 or -1, and limiting differences to increments of 1 run would force a lot of “peaks” to be 0, but for teams with over-.500 expected results, the “real” peak would still be closer to +1 than -1. Another issue, but a minor one, is that the shape might not be exactly a bell curve because a 1-run loss is no less costly than a 10-run loss, so teams are presumably making tactical decisions to maximize their chances of winning each game rather than maximizing their expected run differential (e.g., don’t have a runner on 2nd try to steal with 2 out in the 9th if you’re down by 3+ even if he can expect a 95% success rate).