"The 2018 Braves were forecasted to be largely irrelevant. They surprised everyone and pulled off a once-in-a-generation-for-a-franchise turnaround. Did that carry over into 2019? Well, not really - the team was projected to be better than average, but more of a fringy contender. Inertia is a thing. Only by 2021 was the team in "solid contender" territory, with any foundering seasons firmly in the rear-view mirror."
"All in all, that leaves the 2026 Braves in a weird place. By design, a lot of this roster is locked in, and again, inertia is a thing. So, by default due to the stuff in the prior sentence, the projections of the 2026 team can't deviate too much from the projections of the 2025 team, which can't deviate too much from the projections of the 2024 team. Dan Szymborski summarizes it like this, and it's honestly hard to argue with:"
"Just looking at our depth chart, you'd feel pretty good about the Braves, except for a couple things: They look a bit worse at (almost) every position than they did at this time last year, and we're getting those WAR numbers with quite a lot of the starters projected for at least 600 plate appearances. The first is a problem because a team with slightly better projections just won 76 games, and the second is worrisome b"
The Braves underwent a dramatic 2018 turnaround, then moderated expectations in 2019 before becoming a solid contender by 2021. Peak performance occurred in 2022–2023, followed by regression across 2024–2025 and a disappointing 2025 season. Payroll and roster commitments create inertia that keeps 2026 projections close to prior-year forecasts. Depth-chart evaluations show acceptable pieces but slightly weaker projections across many positions versus last year. Many starters are projected for 600+ plate appearances, producing aggregated WAR that may overstate sustainable performance and raise durability and regression concerns.
Read at Battery Power
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]