It’s that time again. Coulda been us, but it ain’t us. But, short of that, I don’t think it could have worked out much better. Two teams, each of whom led their league in wins, neither of whom has won a World Series, neither of which is is a top-ten market (Milwaukee is #38, Tampa is #11) battling for a world championship. Anyone who thinks they know which one is going to win is wrong.
Those who didn’t read the excellent Jayson Stark article tfloyd linked to should do so. Some of the evidence Stark cites is a little shaky, but the general point is correct. Baseball rocks as a competitive enterprise. And the NFL? Don’t make me laugh. (OK.. make me laugh in the comments. I could use a laugh.)
I know nothing about the beer above, but a Brew named Ray should be reissued for the World Series.
All things WS below, and I’ll have more Braves content sometime after somebody douses someone else in fake Champagne.
Some sloppy baserunning, an objectionable fair/foul call, a couple defensive oopsies and neither lineup managed to score four runs.
Criticism isn’t just for the Braves.
Fun game to watch though.
The NFL isn’t competitive because a single position is 50% of being competitive and you need one of 15 or so people in the world who can fill that position or you lose. And if you really want to contend, you probably need one of the top 6-8.
The NFL has done just about everything else to achieve competitive balance. MLB has done little but it is still more competitive because there are so many ways to win without one of the top 10 players at a particular position and the randomness of the batted ball helps.
The talk of competitive balance really amplified when the Dodgers won 3 of 6 World Series mostly by outspending everyone but the Mets by a lot. Thats discouraging for fans. In the NFL, you can’t be mad at the league rules for the fact you don’t have Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes.
If you look at the last 25 Super Bowl-winning QBs, there are only 13 distinct gene pools:
Brady – 7
Manning – 4
Mahomes – 3
Roethlisberger – 2
Dilfer, Jackson, Flacco, Rogers, Brees, Wilson, Foles, Hurts, Stafford – 1
So I take your point, while noting that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are on no one’s lists of elite players.
Of course, there are 5 Will Smith championships in the last 5 MLB seasons. (h/t to Big D)
If you want to argue that baseball naturally has more competitive balance because of the structure of the game, I won’t argue with you.
See also https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7716072/2026/10/23/mlb-salary-cap-competitive-balance-analysis/ though I can’t vouch for the analysis
Actually it was 6 straight Will Smiths 😉
For those who did not watch, William Contreras put on a show.
The Brewers. What a team.
The AFL is experimenting with limits on outfielder positioning in an effort to increase the # of doubles and triples.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/50287898/mlb-tests-restricted-shifts-effort-offense
Not sure I like that, though I would be a little less opposed if teams could change OF positioning depending on the pitcher rather than having one set of areas for all Ps. I assume some pitchers have more balls hit to certain locations than others (maybe pitchers with dominant fastballs aren’t pulled often?), and it wouldn’t seem fair to disadvantage them.
A rule change I could get behind, but one that the union would likely oppose, would be something to reduce the number of players a team uses in a season. This season the Braves used 27 position players and 34 pitchers (after removing position players who also pitched), and that was just too many for me to remember or care about. Would your appreciation of the season increase or decrease if Blake Burkhalter, Hunter Stratton, Bailey Falter, Ian Hamilton, Connor Thomas, Joel Payamps, James Karinchak, and Osvaldo Bido had not pitched and some of the other pitchers had taken their 43.2 combined innings? (For that matter, do many of you even remember what most of them looked like?) None of them were younger than 25, so no hot prospects. Anthony Molina only pitched 5 innings, but he was 24 and I think we got Mahle for him, so I’m not including him. I’m not sure how I would go about doing this, but maybe saying that a player has to stay on the major league roster for at least a certain number of days (say, 21?) once called up or go on the injured list would prevent teams from using so many players.
Anybody have suggestions for other rule changes?
I’m still not particular jazzed about the infielder placement rules. Constraining outfielders is even worse. Though the article seems to thunk everyone’s going to have position themselves like Andruw Jones. While that will undoubtedly yield more doubles and triples, it’s going to eliminate bloop singles.
Instead of positioning limitations, how about making outfielders wear boots with 5 pound lead soles?
Minimum callup periods are interesting, particularly for starting pitchers, where they would (appropriately) represent dead weight after the start. But I think to implement such a thing (and to make it possibly acceptable to the union) it should be combined with an expansion to, say, 28 players. That way, the first option is to use the supernumeraries you already have, followed by a AAA guy with minimum uptimes.
My biggest change would be the banning of gambling, pharma, insurance and Google Statcast ads. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7721458/2026/10/25/mlb-postseason-commercials-ranked/ Except for Dr. Rick and, in a personal act of forbearance, Novig.
Jonathan- On the five-pound weights, I’ve never understood why racehorses carry different weights assigned by handicappers, and it’s easy for me to imagine an alternate history in which nobody ever thinks about adding extra weights. I guess if it’s so clear that horse A is faster than horse B without the weight difference, that would reduce betting (though then the odds on horse B would get high, which might prompt more betting), but it seems strange to make betters try to guess whether horse A + 12 pounds is faster than horse B + 4 pounds. Maybe if they’re worried about jockeys starving themselves and use weights to make up any difference in jockey weights, but I can’t imagine that was cared about in the past.
On the Novig ad, I don’t even think Ms. Sweeney is particularly attractive compared to other actresses of her generation (Zendaya ftw), but I think the ad is humorous and memorable.
You are correct that odds can adjust to make bettors happy, but what about owners? What incentive do they have to enter a horse in a race it has no chance of placing in the money? Handicapping the favorites with extra weight induces larger fields.
The other point is that as I understand it, weights preceded odds betting. Gentlemen simply bet even money on the outcome of some match race, and the weighting was there to create an even money bet.
That said, my plan didn’t involve variable weights… that would be really amusing though, when Garry Maddox had to wear 40 lb weights while Greg Luzinski was put on a moped in the same outfield. I just wanted to make everyone so slow that we got a lot of doubles and triples, if that’s what baseball wants for some reason.
As to Sydney Sweeney: I concur, but I take what I can get.
I’m not crazy about the outfielder placement rules and I would not support a rule to limit the number of players used. I would much rather see guys get a cup of coffee in the majors than never get a chance and spend their entire career in the minors. The rule change I would support is something to limit the dfa cycle where a player plays, gets dfad, then gets re -signed
Lead soles is a ridiculous idea. How about this? You can have three outfielders but only two of them can play in the field at a time. You have to decide whether you want your arm guy or your speed guy. Doubles, triples and singles will all go up. Offense!!!
Also do away with shortstop and just have a fielder at each base. It’s gonna be lit.
That reminds me of the Bill James line when someone pointed that someone wasn’t a very good shortstop and he said “compared to what? Nothing? There’d be quite a few hits if you just didn’t put somebody there.”
You could have three outfielders but require all three of them to begin every play in foul territory. That would put a premium on speed! Or maybe require the three outfielders to start the play holding hands with the first, second and third baseman. Imagine when the infield plays in with seven guys on the infield.
If you don’t like the lead soles idea (and ridiculous isn’t doing enough work) how about leg manacles? Or maybe take away their gloves?
FYI
J.C. Bradbury has a new book, which will be discussed at Manuel’s Tavern tonight.
https://www.acappellabooks.com/pages/events/1517/j-c-bradbury-in-conversation-with-rafi-kohan?mc_cid=c03611f38a&mc_eid=5eece8b023
Interesting article about the Brewers offensive approach. (It seems to written on X, strangely, so hopefully the link works).
https://x.com/DownToBlack/status/2115122887401021921?a=xNzdwhCDLl5Jjwctv-Y&s=19
Basically (per Grok summary), “They sit back in the box and think opposite field to maximize decision time on approaching pitches.
They swing less than any team, avoid pulling, keep low launch angles, and contact deep with closed stances yet top-5 bat speed.”
Worth a read. It makes sense to me, with the velo that hitters are having to face now. And they’re about to win the World Series, so you can’t argue with the results.
Trading Contreras in the deal to get Murphy should be stamped to the top of AA’s resume. Dumb deal on the day it happened; dumber with every passing year.
Above getting Chris Sale for Vaughn Grissom?
No matter how catastrophic the Contreras trade has been or will be when the final tally comes, there will always be a fan to pipe up and say but AA got some deals right.
The problem with the Contreras trade is there was no good reason to do it given our financial constraints and roster holes. People said so at the time. Hindsight not required.
Acquiring an ace for a single prospect was always defensible, especially with the state of our rotation, even though many worried about Sale’s health. If Grissom had become ARod and Sale had totally fallen apart, hindsight would’ve brought the trade much more criticism, but that is any trade. The ones that seem daft at the time are the ones we hate the most.
I think his record is mixed, and/but he also won us a World Series.
Specifically with regard to the Contreras trade, at the time I found the idea of trading Contreras for Murphy so bewildering that I thought it was nonsensical rosterbation, as the trade occurred days after I’d written him up as a potential “franchise cornerstone.” So those are my bona fides in retrospect.
I think it’s not fair to say that “Acquiring an ace for a single prospect was always defensible” — it’s more than defensible, it’s nearly impossible! Acquiring an ace at any price is hard to do, and it typically requires a super-duper-mega prospect. The Blue Jays got Jose Soriano, who cosplayed as an ace for about 15 minutes, and it cost them their best prospect, Arjun Nimmala; the Dodgers got a few months of Tarik Skubal for River Ryan and Zyhir Hope, who’d both be in our top 5 and possibly our top 3. Grissom was nowhere near the prospect that any of those three were; we only got Sale because he was perceived as damaged goods, just like Donaldson and Mahle, and just as with those two, he turned out to be a spectacular success.
The trouble with how Anthopoulos has been operating under Liberty Media’s budgets is that he hasn’t really pursued anyone via free agency or trade who wasn’t damaged goods. I can completely understand being gunshy – the Phillies are at risk of being hamstrung for years by the albatross of the Trea Turner contract. But we’re at risk of the same thing with the Riley contract.
So I’d love for him to take more big swings, because I don’t think his cutesy moves are as hedged against risk as he thinks. But I have to admit that many of his moves have worked out quite well, and flags fly forever, and he’s been so much better than Wren, Hart, Coppy, and the last half-decade of Schuerholz’s career.
The Braves have won a lot of divisions and one World Series under Anthopoulos. His track record isn’t perfect, but show me a GM who is. Who are the Top 5 GMs in the game? Let’s pick apart their worst moves too!
The Sale trade doesn’t negate the Contreras mistake. But it definitely had a higher impact (especially because of that Baldwin guy)
if people wanna focus on the negative, and totally ignore the positive, that’s their own choice. But it’s only part of the picture.
Southisene apparently looking good to the FG prospect guys in Arizona: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/arizona-fall-league-midseason-check-in/
I wonder if John Smoltz talked this much when he was sitting on the bench 4 days out of five.
You bet your bippy he did.
William Contreras, World Series MVP
Good for him.
Alex should be fired.
When Sean Murphy is the World Series MVP next year we’ll have evened it up.
For more than just that.
But that’s the big one. To respond to an above comment, Chris Sale doesn’t make up for all the post-2021 whiffs.
He’s management’s guy because he’s willing to get out there and lie about payroll increases and having the resources and such. But he’s a terrible GM who was dropped into a team with young talent cultivated over the previous administration, and then drew an inside straight at the 2021 trade deadline.
Since 2018 Braves have the 5th best record in baseball (774-581) behind only the Brewers, Astros, Yankees and Dodgers. Do we honestly believe the Braves would do better with Brian Cashman as GM? Or James Click?
Lotta good players have come through including Michael Harris II, Drake Baldwin, Charlie Morton, Raisel Iglesias, Dylan Lee, Didier Fuentes and Reynaldo Lopez (earned his entire contract with 5 WAR in 2024)
Getting Dubon and Mahle this year for basically nothing worked out pretty good.
I know you guys hate Strider now but he was really really good for two seasons and is still only 28.
Miraculously Freddie/Olson was a wash and might work out to be a Braves win (give it a couple more years)
As for big whiffs… I see Murphy, Kelenic, Kim (who we all wanted him to re-sign) and Profar. Fried and Swanson contracts are going to be BAAAAD on the back end and I don’t think letting them go was a mistake. Saying “he shoulda got better guys” at the deadline without knowing what the other teams were asking for is like wishing for a pony.
I know I’m basically shouting into the void at this point. But the fact is, Contreras only became the defensive catcher that he is because the Brewers have tremendous coaching in that department. Kudos to him for his accomplishments. But it’s not the stain on the Braves that you think it is.
I’m with Jon S. on this one. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s really easy to say that the Braves shouldn’t have swapped Contreras for Murphy. But at the time, it made sense:
*Contreras wasn’t a great defensive catcher at the time. With the introduction of the pitch clock, larger bases, and limits on pitcher disengagements, there was an expectation that defense, and specifically controlling the running game, would become increasingly important. Murphy was already an elite defender with a good arm.
*Murphy was the better all-around player at the time. In 2022, he produced 5.2 fWAR in 612 PA, while Contreras played at a 3.19 fWAR/600 PA pace.
*Reportedly, some Braves pitchers did not like throwing to Contreras. He seems to have gotten really good at working with pitching staffs in recent years, but it wasn’t the case back then.
*According to insiders, former catching coach Sal Fasano advised AA that Contreras was basically a lost cause and couldn’t develop much more defensively. That obviously ended up being untrue and led to Fasano being let go at the end of the ‘24 season.
Yeah, it stinks that the Murphy trade didn’t work out, but to say that it was a dumb move at the time seems a little disingenuous.
Right after posting this comment, I saw that Lindsay Crosby over at Braves Today provided a really good, balanced assessment of this trade and its legacy this morning:
https://www.bravestoday.com/p/how-the-sean-murphy-trade-became
I’m more sympathetic to AA than some of you, but I’ll add that his approach of saving money by going after high-upside risky/damaged players like Sale didn’t work out in the case of Cole Hamels ($18M for 3.1 innings in 2020).
And I’m less sympathetic to ONIO than some of you (but maybe not) but the real question here is risk of what? By specializing in risky players you lower your financial risk while increasing your risk in games won. By spending money on putatively great players you increase your financial risk while decreasing your risk in games won, assuming that you are good enough at spotting players that you just don’t buy into age-related or regression-to-mean declines.
If I understand ONIO’s focus (and I’m not sure I do) this strategy makes the winning results too variable relative to financial results, about which he and ‘pure’ fans give no weight. I think it’s a little more nuanced than that, because I think both need a lot of weight as a practical matter, and the job of the GM, to optimize that tradeoff in the circumstances, is one that I have no reason to think AA hasn’t done a good job of.
I may take my prerogative here to write a much longer explanation of what I’m thinking here.
https://x.com/Jake_Mintz/status/2115706526103146635?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2115706526103146635%7Ctwgr%5E8073c5545fed5782d2c581bfa094e2b2592603e5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Farticles%2Falaskas-governor-orders-probe-peltolas-120704433.html
In case this doesn’t display, it’s a tweet showing the resting heart rate over the last 6 months of Jake Bauers’s dad. For 5 months it was between about 45 and 51 beats per minute (which is low), but in October it shot up from about 45 to 58 in the last measurement. If there’s not an obvious explanation like October baseball, a 13 bpm RHR increase is see-a-doctor-quickly territory.
People can screw off. Smoltz is great.
https://x.com/pitchprofiler/status/2115619244876460178?a=kLlj2_mYkmRY6V2vFt8&s=20
I want to be clear. Most of Smoltz’s actual content is excellent. And I’m not really concerned at all about the “back in my day” focus. My only point is that no matter how much you like Smoltz, a Smoltz broadcast has an immense amount of Smoltz. No matter how interesting, I think the listener could use a little less of it. And I say this from experience: I am insanely amusing in person, but if you aren’t sick of me after an hour or so, it’s your problem.
Jonathan, that wasn’t directed at you at all and I’m sorry if I came off that way. I do agree that Smoltz loves Smoltz.
Everyone is being totally reasonable here, but to a person who complained about the trade at a time, this all sounds like “yeah I know you said that at the time, and I said you were wrong because ABC, and I know events appear to have proven you right, but you’re still wrong bc ABC, and no real world events will ever prove me wrong”.
If you can remove yourself emotionally and think about how this sounds I think you’ll get it.
The point I’m trying to make isn’t that the Murphy trade is insignificant. My point is that it does not define Alex Anthopoulos’s legacy. I’m pushing back on the notion that it outweighs all the good he’s done.
7 division titles and 1 World Series trophy in 9 years. Only the Dodgers and Astros have done better. I called Andrew Friedman and offered him the Braves job. He said no.
I think the record shows that AA is a good to great General Manager, and I think we will miss him when he’s gone.
I didn’t like the Murphy trade. I also didn’t like the Vaughn Grissom trade.
I thought there was no reason to believe that any of the people he brought in 2021 would help at all, and I thought it was incredibly lucky so many of them paid off. I also believe part of the GM’s job is to put yourself in position to get lucky. However, I also think it’s a strategy he’s fallen in love with at subsequent trade deadlines, and I wish he would incorporate a parallel strategy.
The thing I hated most at the time about the Conteras trade is that Milwaukee got him for absolutely nothing of value. And the one thing they did give up went to Oakland, not us. Would Oakland really have blown up that trade over Esteury Ruiz? If we’d just included Contreras in what we sent to Oakland, it wouldn’t have bothered me nearly so badly as Milwaukee getting him for free.
You hvae put your finger on exactly what bothered me as well about that trade. The issue, apparently, was that Oakland wasn’t going to fork over Murphy without an outfielder. And the Braves didn’t have an outfielder to spare. We had already given them Langeliers for Olson, so they had no use for Contreras. Another way to put the trade is that we did trade Contreras to Oakland, who promptly repackaged him with Payamps for Ruiz.
Payamps was pretty good when he was in Milwaukee too, so they basically got them both for free. Double checking, I do concede Ruiz was a better Minor Leaguer than I remember, though.
When I read Rusty’s third para, my first thought included the words Tyler and Mahle. I’m sure there are recent examples that I’m missing, but Mahle’s performance with the Braves looks like a slightly lesser version of post-trade 1984 Rick Sutcliffe or 1987 Doyle Alexander. But the Indians got AA-ball Joe Carter for Sutcliffe, and the Braves got AA-ball Smoltz for Alexander. Mahle cost the Braves…Anthony Molina?? That doesn’t make up for the Contreras trade, but it certainly deserves to be highlighted in any evaluation of AA’s record.