Braves

By Georgetown Kid

October 16, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Mr. O’Brien,

Are you still of the opinion that the Braves must sign another quality starting pitcher?

I agree with you that the Braves must highly prioritize the acquisition of a solid lefty reliever. But I don’t know if it is realistic to expect the Braves to acquire a top-notch starter this offseason.

I can’t imagine that the Braves would be able to afford a front-line starter in the free-agent market. And if the Braves simply sign a middle-of-the-road starter (in the mold of John Thompson, for example), I don’t see how that would be an improvement over Ramirez or James, or even Cormier for the matter.

However, the Braves cannot go into next season with McBride and Foster as the only two lefties in the bullpen.

Ray King is a free agent, isn’t he?

By KC

October 16, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

“Make no mistake, the Mets are going to be the team to beat again next year.”

Gosh David… I just couldn’t disagree more with that statement. Yes the Mets have a great offense, but the Braves offense is every bit as good or better. Yes the Mets have a great bullpen, but provided Atlanta acquires a proven setup man this winter, the Braves also look good heading into next season.

I think Atlanta’s bullpen is going to be comparable to that of the Mets next season… I really do. I think the bullpen is what JS is talking about when he says “our first priority is to strengthen our pitching”. And as I mentioned, Atlanta’s offense already plays second fiddle to no one in the NL.

So what we’re left with now are the starting rotations of these two teams.

Assuming the Mets resign Glavine, they have one number-2 starter and a slew of 5th starters (with Pedro M. out until at least half way through next season). We all know that they’ll be putting offers on the table to Zito and Schmidt, but the thing is… there will be several team offering both of those guys a contract comparable to the gross national product of many small nations. The Mets aren’t going to be the only deep-pocketed team courting those two guys. And if they miss out… who’s available by way of trade? I’m not sure there will be any aces on the trade market this winter.

But even if they do sign Schmidt or Zito… their starting pitching is still thin if/until Pedro gets healthy and back to his old self. That won’t be until at least halfway through next season, and frankly… he might never be quite the same. Shoulder surgeries tend to affect the “stuff” of pitchers much more frequently/severely than do most other injuries & surgeries.

Zito, Glavine, Trachsel, Maine, Perez (and Pedro at some point, but at what level… no one knows)

VS.

Smoltz, Hudson, Hampton, Ramirez, James

If it weren’t for the injury to Pedro, I’d say that the Mets would sign another big starter and would be right on par with Atlanta. But given injury/surgery situation with Pedro… I’ll take the Atlanta rotation any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Atlanta will return to “team to beat” status next season.

By Matt

October 16, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

DOB, By chance did you see The Strokes in March? It was a great show, and the newest cd is great in my opinion. I had the chance to meet the band after the show behind the Tabernacle, and they signed autographs and gave pictures to everyone who was out there. I don’t get the impression they are more worried about their image.

The Andruw questions is no doubt the biggest of the year, any idea on when we, the public will know something?

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

I don’t think they’d be able to afford one via free agency, but rather would have to trade for one. And if they’re willing to trade, say, Giles and Horacio and Yunel Escobar, and maybe another prospect, I think they could work out something and fill a couple of needs. But I do think they must get another lefty reliever, perhaps first and foremost.

But it’s still so early. So many big things could or might not happen, so it’s pure speculation now. I mean, if someone were to bowl them over with a trade offer for Andruw _ not saying it’ll happen or they’d even accept it _ but if it didn’t interest them, they might get a good young starter right there, along with another good young player or prospect.

Who knows? It’s just still too early. I’m not hearing anything yet regarding teams interested in Giles, etc.

By Lew

October 16, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

G’TownKid-I disagree. It has been established that after getting rid of dead wood and paying Wicky, the Braves should have approximately$5million left. If Giles were traded to SD, for example, for say Scott Linebrink, we free up another $5million and fill our 8th inning set up role. That leaves $10 million to spend on a starter and a RH bench bat (Wes Helms, perhaps). Solves all of our problems and we have the $$ to do it. Let us not forget that JS is capable of pulling off a trade involving Brayan Pena, Scott Thorman, Yunel Escobar or Salty. I wouldn’t worry too much. We will have the bullpen set AND another starter and still stay within our budget.

By Head Coach

October 16, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Ditto David. Three lefty’s would look great , not to mention that nobody else in the N.L. would be able to match up with a lefthanded dominant rotation. I would be talking to the Pirates(Zach Duke) , Devil Rays(Scott Kazmir), Giants(Noah Lowry) or the Rockies(Jeff Francis) concerning a possible trade. I favor the Pirates , they had the second worst offensive unit behind the Devil Rays and are looking for a couple of big cheap bats. A Lefty 1st Baseman(Thorman) and an outfielder(Diaz) to bolster their run production. Kazmir is the better lefthander but I favor Duke due to the fact that if the Braves picked him up in a trade he wouldn’t be an unrestricted free agent for another five seasons. Ramirez could go into the bulpen with McBride then we would have Davies , Paronto , Yates , Villarreal , Cormier and Devine behind Wickman. Somebody would obviously get traded. Say Thorman 1B, Diaz OF , Cormier RP and Villarreal RP for Zach Duke LHP, Rajai Davis OF and Landon Jacobsen RP. I know I’m repeating myself but hey , it takes care of all the Braves pitching needs. It creates depth , saves money and maybe even makes Andruw resignable after 2007. And I would offer John Thomson a minor league contract , sign Wes Helms as a backup 3B and move Aybar to second thereby making Giles tradeable. Am I crazy or just to damn smart for my own good ?

By JMar

October 16, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Well here’s a nice coincidence - Tom Glavine is a lefty. Wouldn’t mind adding him to the rotation while stealing him from the Mets, at least to see him win 300.

And what is your point, KC? You’re saying that because the Mets will have the exact same shortcomings next season as they did this, in which they destroyed the division, and we might get Mike Hampton back, that all of a sudden we’re the team to beat again? Dream on.

By TennesseePaul

October 16, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

DOB: Thanks for the post. It’s a good read. I will have to agree with the Killers review. I have not been impressed with that CD. The cover model is a good foreshadowing of the quality of music.
I just picked up a Kings of Leon CD. I really enjoyed it. More so than the Black Keys. I’ll have to try out these Whigs and see what’s up with them.
I thought My Morning Jacket was a “mid-western” band. Somewhere out of Kansas or something? Where abouts are Kings of Leon from?

By TennesseePaul

October 16, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

KC: Unless something horrible happens to the enter Mets team, they’ll be the team to beat simply based on this years results. The team to beat certainly won’t be branded on the Braves after this season. I’ll agree though that the Braves will be much improved next year and should give all the teams a run for the money. But they won’t enter the season with that label.

By Brian

October 16, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry. In baseball, you don’t construct your roster to match up with one team.

Just a side note, BTW: the great Mets offense scored less runs than the Braves did. Philly was first with 865 runs scored(they play in a band box), Atlanta was second with 849 runs scored, NY was third with 834 runs scored. Atlanta had an OPS of .791, NY had an OPS of .780. Atlanta did this with Chipper Jones hurting all year and with no lead off man.

By rammerjammer

October 16, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Bring back Mike Stanton. Still effective, a perfect compliment to McBride, and he satisfies BC’s desire to have at least one really old guy in the pen.

By KC

October 16, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Georgetown Kid

I agree with your assessment of the Braves starting pitching situation. It simply doesn’t make sense for Atlanta to touch their current rotation (already considerably bolstered with the healthy returns of Hampton and Ramirez) unless it’s to add a top-tier starter. And with the deep-pocketed, starting pitching desperate teams out there (especially the NY teams)… what are the chances of the Braves landing a Jason Schmidt or Barry Zito? Very slim.

Now if there’s one on the trade market… the Braves might have as good a chance as anyone. But will there be a bona fide number-1… or even a number-2 starter on the block this winter? Not likely. Usually you would look toward players that eligible for free agency at the end of the season as players that might be available for trade at the beginning of the season. But the only big starters eligible for free agency after next season are with teams that have the money to hang on to them and try to resign them (assuming they’re worth it): Colon (Angels), Zambrano (Cubs), Carpenter (Cardinals), Kenny Rogers (Tigers), Curt Schilling (Red Sox).

Bottom line… with big spenders lining up on Schmidt and Zito’s doorsteps, the Braves aren’t going to sign either. And with little to nothing in the way of top-of-the-rotation pitchers available by trade… forget all the talk about Atlanta further altering the starting staff. The good news is that the there isn’t much out there for teams like the Mets to choose from either, and the Braves’ rotation already looks pretty good.

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

KC, you’re assuming Trachsel, Maine and Perez are going to make up the back of their rotation. I don’t think that’ll be the case at all.

Sorry, but until the 97-game winner with the money to spend proves otherwise, it’s going to be picked by most impartial observers to be the team to beat over the team that finished four games under .500.

By KC

October 16, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

TennPaul:

I can appreciate that the Mets will be the reigning NL East champs… possibly the NL Champs (but not the WS champs). As such… they will get a lot of well deserved respect.

However, the Mets were talked about as the team to beat by many earlier this season despite the fact that the Braves were the reigning division champs.

On paper… I like what I see right now from Atlanta more than I respect what I see in the Mets (and that’s assuming that they sign Schmidt or Zito).

By Head Coach

October 16, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Jmar , you just dont get it do you ? Nobody and I mean NOBODY has three lefthanders in a five man rotation. It’s unheard of and almost freakish. It would give the Braves a tactical season long advantage over the entire N.L. It would be a matchup nightmare for everybody else. Throw in Wickman closing and a leadoff hitter , guess what ? that’s right….. the Braves would be the team to beat no matter if they get picked to finish first or if the Mets get picked first. Bobby Cox has already said it and I see it , the Braves are going to have an outstanding team in 2007.

By rammerjammer

October 16, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Interesting, DOB, that you’ve heard nothing about Giles. Sounds like the Braves shouldn’t expect a lot in return for him, which is too bad.

He’s too young to have peaked, so he’ll probably rebound elsewhere. But his down season means we won’t get much for him.

Another Millwood situation (get a minor leaguer and hope for the best)?

By Jeff

October 16, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

A. Jones may sell some tickets, but if you want to put fans in the stands and sell a lot of merchandise, too, win games (well, the Cubs excetped).

Mananagement would be crazy not to see what the market would bring for A. Jones. A couple of good young pitchers plus the money saved by not having to shell out millions to Andruw could be plowed back into…yes, you guessed it, pitching.

By TennesseePaul

October 16, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

what are the chances of the Braves landing a Jason Schmidt or Barry Zito

KC: Adding Schmidt to the rotation would do more to hurt this team than help it. He’s hype. His career is average at best. And if it’s a choice of Glavine or Zito, I’d rather have Glavine and I’m not that big on the guy.

The Braves will need more proven starters if they are to be labeled the team to beat in the East despite this years results. There’s no way around it. The Phillies need upgrading as well, and they could very well get it. They had a winning season and would be next in line to receive the label. The Braves will be the under dogs next year unless they can add Johan Santana. Perhaps it’s best this way.

By TennesseePaul

October 16, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

You know, I’ve seen reports that the Indians have Giles in a list of possibilities. It was reported last week. I don’t know that they have anything we could use though… but who knows.

By Lew

October 16, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Head Coach-I don’t know about being too smart for your own good, but a good bit of what you say makes sense. I would love to see Zack Duke as aBrave. However, I don’t like the idea of getting rid of Villarreal. He had just come back from two surgeries and he looked pohenomenal after the All Star break. He turned into an extremely dependable and effective long relief man. He also was relatively effective as a spot starter. I think he should be an integral part of the bullpen in 07.

By Bob

October 16, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

Sorry DOB, but I disagree with you about the Whigs. I think that the Modern Skirts are a lot better than the Whigs.

By KC

October 16, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

JMar:

“You’re saying that because the Mets will have the exact same shortcomings next season as they did this, in which they destroyed the division, and we might get Mike Hampton back, that all of a sudden we’re the team to beat again? Dream on.”

You apparently hear me saying “take a 79 win team… add Mike Hampton, and wallah! You have a 95-100 team”. I agree with you, that would be silly. But that’s not what I’m saying at all.

Let me first point out that if we had the same bullpen we had in September all season long… the Braves would have won over 90 games. But re are the reasons why the Braves are a much better team heading into next year (without making a single trade or signing a single free agent) than their 2006 record would indicate:

1 – Mike Hampton: Here are a few things for you to chew on in regard to exactly what we’re getting back with Mike Hampton… • Doctors insist that it takes 18 months to fully recover from Tommy John surgery. Most pitchers return after only 12 months and struggle in their first several months back as a result. Hampton will hit that 18 month mark in March and will have fully recovered. • Hampton’s (non-Colorado) career numbers: 117-73, 3.57 ERA • After leaving Colorado, it took Mike Hampton a half-season to get his head and mechanics straight again. From the all-star break of 2003 (his first year in ATL) until he went on the DL last year… his numbers as a Brave were: 16-6 with a 3.43 ERA. • From the all-star break of 2004 until he went on the DL last year, Hampton went 13-2 with a 2.54 ERA. He was throwing the ball as well as anyone in baseball when he got hurt last year (he was 4-1 with a 1.83 ERA on the 2005 season before getting hurt). 2 – The bullpen will be VASTLY improved from what the Braves brought into last season. Bob Wickman will be there from day one. Macay McBride and Tyler Yates were learning on the job this year, but learn they did. McBride posted an ERA of under 2.00 from July 16th onward, and Yates September ERA as the Braves’ setup man was 2.70. Ad the return of a healthy Blaine Boyer and John Foster 2 of the Braves most productive relievers in ’05), and go out and get a proven veteran setup man… and you’ve got yourself one helluva bullpen.

3 – Horacio Ramirez: Missed half the season due to injury this year, but will be healthy and back in the rotation. He’s a lot better than most people realize, and if he can stay healthy… I’ve got $20 that says he’ll show it.

4 – Tim Hudson: The odds of Tim Hudson posting another ERA over 4.00 are pretty long. Hudson’s only 30 and he’s lost none of his stuff. He had mechanical inconsistencies this year that led to his erratic control. Any one see the last game he pitched? Look for a bounce-back season from Huddy. Sorry, can’t offer any wagers on Huddy… already got one with GRINCH.

5 – Chuck James: The Braves will have him in the rotation for a full season this year.

Put all that together with the fact that the Mets really can’t count on Pedro next year… and I think the Braves need only a setup man to look better than the Mets.

By KC

October 16, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

TennPaul:

“The Braves will need more proven starters if they are to be labeled the team to beat in the East”

I can only assume that by this statement… you have your doubts about one or all of these 3 pitchers: Mike Hampton, Tim Hudson, Horacio Ramirez. I just went on a long rant about Hampton. Historically, when pitchers the caliber of Tim Hudson struggle for no apparent reason (as he did this year), almost without exception… they come back strong the following season. As for HoRam… if you’ll forgive my reposting something from the other day, I’d like to point out why I think he is undervalued by most fans. HORACIO RAMIREZ: Over his first two seasons in Atlanta (2003/2004), HoRam went 14-8 with a 3.59 ERA, and the Braves regarded him as a top-of-the-rotation kind of lefty in the making. The injury bug bit for the first time in his sophomore season when he missed 2/3 of the 2004 season. He enjoyed a healthy season last year, but struggled somewhat in ’05, posting a 4.63 ERA and gave up a lot of long-balls.
This year he again missed much of the season due to injury, and his 2006 season when he was on the mound was peculiar. In his very first start of the season, he left the game early and headed straight to the disabled list. His last start of the season was one in which he also left early and was immediately placed on the DL. In both instances he tried to pitch through his problems before finally alerting BC that he couldn’t keep going. With that in mind, for the purposes of evaluating his 2006 season… let’s toss those 2 starts out and focus on the 12 starts he made between DL stints. In those 12 starts, Ramirez went 5-4 with a 3.89 ERA. Over that stretch, he was either remarkable or awful every time out… there was no in between. The good news is that he was mostly remarkable. He made nine outstanding starts in which we went 5-1 with 1.70 ERA. The other good news is that Roger MCDowell got him sinking the ball more, and his HR-per-9 innings ratio was cut in half from the previous year. In short, Ramirez had 3 terrible outings, and 9 truly outstanding ones. He certainly showed again this season the type of pitcher he’s capable of being. If you take away those 3 bad starts, he looked like a guy who could compete for CY Young at some point. But even with those 3 horrible outings, a 3.89 ERA is almost identical to the ones Glavine and Zito posted this year. We needed two more starters, and we got them… Mike Hampton and Horacio Ramirez. The rotation is complete. Respectfully, I don’t even understand the assertion that the Braves need more starting pitching, let alone agree with it.

By NLCHAMPS

October 16, 2006 07:17 PM | Link to this

Floyd will not be back next season. The Mets will look to sign a power hitting left fielder. This will provide balance to the lineup and make them less vulnerable to left handed pitching. Glavine is not a “LOCK” to have his option picked up next year. Duaner Sanchez will be back in the bullpen next season making their bullpen even better. The Mets will sign a top pitcher this off season and have several players in the minors with a good shot at making the rotation. Minaya will make sure the 2007 Mets starting rotation will be better. As for the braves pitchers Hudson, Hampton and Ramirez. There are many questions. 1. Can Hudson rebound from a bad 2005 season? 2. will Hampton be the same pitcher? 3. Will Ramirez find the form that made him a important part of the rotation in his first year? There are many IF’S in the braves 2007 season.

By NLCHAMPS

October 16, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

I meant a “right handed” power hitting left fielder to provide more balance to the lineup.

By KC

October 16, 2006 07:52 PM | Link to this

NL CHAMPS:

I promise I’m not trying to one-up you here… but I honestly think there are more questions facing the Mets this winter than the Braves.

In response to the stated questions facing the Braves:

Tim Hudson – Yes, obviously that’s a BIG if. If he’s on, he’s one of the best. Can he put 2006 behind him and keep the ball down and out of the middle of the plate next year like he’s done his entire career until this season? I think he can, and will. Again, historically pitchers of his caliber bounce right back after a season like this one. But obviously we’ll just have to wait and see.

Mike Hampton - I really don’t think this is much of a question at all. Again, after the 18 month (post-surgery) mark… pitchers almost never show any ill effects from the surgery. He’ll hit that mark in March. And his ability shouldn’t be questioned at all. He’s a bona fide ace.

Horacio Ramirez - “Will Ramirez find the form that made him a important part of the rotation in his first year?” He already did. Please see my last post (6:51). It is not a question of his form or ability. It’s simply a question of his health… and that’s a legitimate concern.

As for the Mets… I promise I’m not trying to diminish what the Mets have accomplished this season, but we both know that there was virtually no competition in the NL east… or in the entire NL for that matter this year. Given their starting pitching, I think the Mets overachieved this year. And that’s to be commended. We dog teams for underachieving, so why shouldn’t we give the Mets credit for overachieving? I think the rotation problems make what the Mets did even more impressive. That said, if they don’t drastically upgrade the starting pitching… I don’t think they’ll win 97 games again.

Questions facing the Mets rotation:

1. Pedro Martinez… He won’t return until sometime in the 2nd half of the season. Even then, there is a distinct possibility that he won’t be quite the same pitcher. Elbow surgeries have progressed to the point that they almost never affect the “stuff” or velocity of a pitcher (after proper recovery time). Shoulder surgeries on the other hand, often do.

2. Can they pick up an ace (or something close to it): Zito or Schmidt? Yes, they’ve got the money to spend, but so do a number of other teams that are also starved for starting pitching.

3. Even if the get Zito or Schmidt, they still need to add at least one more quality starter to go with it. Can they do that?

4. Will they re-sign Glavine? In all likelihood, they will but there’s no guarantee.

NL CHAMPS… respectfully, there are more questions facing the Mets’ rotation than the Braves’.

By StingerSplash

October 16, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

Good call, DOB, on MMJ and the DBTs, one of the best live bands out there today.

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 08:09 PM | Link to this

Brian, nobody said you do construct your roster to match up with one team. The Braves need another lefty reliever regardless, because you can’t turn to McBride in every situation when you need a lefty. Come on, how can you argue otherwise? (Several Braves certainly did not, including Chipper, who said the same thing the last week _ they need another lefty reliever. And the Braves do plan to get one.)

As for the rotation, I pointed out that Hampton joining James and perhaps Horacio is a good step, in that it gives the Braves three lefties. That’s good against a lot of teams, if the lefties are good pitchers.

And by the way, if your division was dominated by a team that returns every crucial piece of its powerful lineup, you damn sure better thing about how to beat them. You do play them 19 times, remember…

Yes, KC, I agree: There are more questions about the Mets’ rotation than the Braves.

And the Braves could really swing that balance with the acquisition of a certain 40-year-old lefty…. (just having fun, folks. No need to go down that road again if you don’t want to in today’s blog.)

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 08:17 PM | Link to this

TenneseePaul _ Kings of Leon are from … Tennessee, man. And not just based in Nashville, they’re from the hills around there.

My Morning Jacket is from Kentucky, of all places. Louisville.

Did someone say that last Strokes CD was “great?” Come on. Hey, respectfully disagree. But nothing wrong with differing opinions.

HBO’s playing the hell out of Walk the Line these days. Can’t get enough of the “Jackson” duet scene. Great stuff….

By Lew

October 16, 2006 08:19 PM | Link to this

KC-I have questions about two of the three. Hampton’s return does not bother me at all. Not only do I think he will come back strong, but the almost two year rest may well prolong his career. Hudson bothers me considerably. I’m not sure why you think he (or any other pitcher for that matter) automatically returns to form after an off year. If his problem is mechanical and lasted the entire season, I question why they couldn’t correct the mechanics a lot sooner than 07. As far as Horacio goes, I have not heard anything about his recovery. This in and of itself would bother me, but I’m not so sure the he will come back so well from the flexor tendon injury. The only other person I know who has had the problem is Thomson and he sure didn’t come back well. In fact, the tendon problem may have forced him to alter his delivery and may have caused his shoulder problems. Add to this the fact that Horacio has spent time on the DL in three of his four ML seasons (and surgery in the minors) and I’m not exactly heartened by his ability to avoid injury. Even when healthy he is inconsistent. With him due a raise up to $4million, I would try to trade him and failing that, I would consider not offering him arbitration Add that $4mil to the $10 mil I mentioned earlier and you can afford whatever top level pitcher you can find.

By KC

October 16, 2006 08:19 PM | Link to this

I think you’re probably right. I think the Braves will look to acquire on more solid lefty and a proven setup man. After that… I think they’ll be through with the pitching staff.

Leadoff hitter? Maybe. Dave Roberts and Juan Pierre are both free agents, and both may get offers from the Braves. If they do sign a free agent leadoff man, I think that will make Giles’ departure 100% certain.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 16, 2006 08:26 PM | Link to this

warren spahn. they need warren spahn. now, the rainout … plays right into the crafty hands of illustrious manager willie randolph who will now have a rested tom glavine. this journalist predicts tom glavine will pitch like a “P” player in the next game. now, who says bobby can’t/won’t use mcbride every night? isn’t that what bobby does when he likes a pitcher? and who’s to say that we won’t see remlinger back as a left-handed reliever? situational. situational.

By john

October 16, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this

How exicited are you for the My Morning Jacket Show!!

By Stinky

October 16, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

One easy way to shore up the pitching woes is to jetison Andruw. He’s not a leader. He could never head up a kangaroo court or show other hitters how to approach an at bat. Get rid of him while the gettin’ is good. Its pitching and defense that wins championships, not aging, streaky-hitting centerfielders who’ve lost a step.

By KC

October 16, 2006 09:06 PM | Link to this

LEW:

You don’t think 6-7 months is long enough for a tendon surgery to heal? I’m no doctor but… that sounds like a pretty good recovery period to me. If HoRam is healthy, I think he’s shown a world of ability. If I were GM of another team and HoRam were on the block… I pounce on that deal.

As for Hudson… here’s why I said that. A couple weeks ago I got to wondering how many prior examples there were of what we’ve just seen from Tim Hudson… An excellent pitcher in the prime of his career (all his “stuff” and velocity as good as ever), just have a lousy year for no real apparent reason.

I spent some time randomly looking up noteworthy pitchers. Everyone I could think of who pitched over the last 20-30 years. I probably looked up the career stats of at least 50 starters. Everyone from Roger Clemens to Bob Welch, Dave Stewart to Dwight Gooden, John Smoltz to Jack Morris…

I found a number of instances where good, healthy pitchers in the prime of their careers had a lousy season in which their ERA ballooned well up over 4.00. But in every case, (provided it had nothing to do with a sever injury), they bounced back strong the next season.

Here are a few instances of this I uncovered: Roger Clemens, Jimmy Key, John Smoltz, Bob Welch (it wasn’t in the prime of his career, but he bounced back with a good year), Mike Mussina (’96), Kevin Brown, Tom Glavine (though it wasn’t really the prime of his career), Barry Zito (though he hasn’t bounced back to where he was several years ago), Phil Niekro, Jerry Koosman.

I promise, I’m not cherry picking, and I’m not leaving anything out. I just couldn’t find any instances where a pitcher of Hudson’s caliber didn’t bounce right back.

Aside from all this… Tim Hudson had moments of brilliance all throughout this season, including his last start. It’s all still there. What happened this year? Who knows. But I find it almost unfathomable that he wouldn’t bounce back. I’m not predicting a CY Young award for him next season, but I’d look for an ERA back in the low-mid 3.00 range.

By J-MAN

October 16, 2006 09:09 PM | Link to this

This is what I would do if I were GM in order of importance. [Have Too’s] 1. Resign Andrew 2. Trade for Carl Crawford 3. Get another Lefty in the bullpen

[Don’t Have Too but would be nice category] 4. Trade for some young flamethrowers (Kids who can get it up over 95+ like the Tigers young studs and the Marlins of 2003) 5. Explore the option of getting another ace mabye clearing up the budget to do it, either go through free agency such as Zito or Schmidt or go trade route such as Pettite or Mussina or offer the World for Roy Halliday(won’t happen but worth a shot.)

1. Sell naming rights of Turner Field, I mean he doesn’t even own them anymore and it would give the braves some extra money to sign someone. How does Coco-cola Ballbark in Atlanta sound. Like Cha-Ching

DOB, let me know what you think and tell me the odds of any of this happening.

By KC

October 16, 2006 09:09 PM | Link to this

Stiky:

Please give me one rational thought… one fact, one statistic… hell, one ANYTHING to back up your claim that Andruw’s lost a step.

Let’s hear it.

By KC

October 16, 2006 09:12 PM | Link to this

Lew: meant to say tendon “injury”

By Stinky

October 16, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

KC, sore knees.

By Stinky

October 16, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

Kc, Andruws’s onwn admission that he needs to loose weight for his sore knees.

By Calvin

October 16, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

Mr. O’Brien, I just don’t see the Mets letting “a certain 40-year old lefty” go this off-season. Even if the Braves offer something that Glav…er.. a 40 year old lefty a nice contract, I can’t see them(Mets) not match or even exceed the contract. I hear that Mike Gonzalez will probably be available this coming off-season. Perhaps there is your lefty that is needed. Kerry Wood(I know, I know, injury prone) is going to be going to the bullpen from reports out of Cubby land and the Cubs won’t keep him because he is due a nice raise next year. Maybe, there is your set-up guy…or perhaps Eric Gagne, who the Dodgers will probably not resign for the same reasons as the Cubs, can be fit that role.

Can’t wait til Feb…

By KC

October 16, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

Stinky…

Hasn’t slowed him in the field. Look that season totals for put-outs, fielding percentage, etc.

By Stinky

October 16, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

ck, Andruw missing a lot of balls that he would have got to 3 years or 20 pounds ago.

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 09:22 PM | Link to this

Kerry Wood? KERRY WOOD!? Eric GAGNE? Are you insane? Or merely a masochist?

By Stinky

October 16, 2006 09:33 PM | Link to this

KC, Charitable scorekeepers have propped AJ up due to his rep. He is an old 30 year old. He’ll win one or two gold gloves that he doesn’t deserve just running on fumes. It’s easy to vote for an old standby.

By Thomas

October 16, 2006 09:52 PM | Link to this

Braves pitching

• John Smoltz: Great pitcher, just exersiced his contract option for 2007. He is the Ace of this staff, he needs to be the leader. His only problem is his age 39.
• Mike Hampton: Just had tommyjohn surgery. Braves are depending in him to be back fully healthy, and have the kind of years he had in houston. He would bring more consistancy to the rotations.
• Tim Hudson: Had his worst season of his career, this year. He got better the last 2 months of the season, but it was too late. He needs to be more consitant.
• Chuck James: My favorite pitcher tied with Smoltz, good young lefthander, if he could work for next season on keaping the ball down, and working on lowering his HR’s allowed totals.
• Horacio Ramirez: Another injured plagued season for him. If he can stay healthy he is a great pitcher to have.

This could be a very very good pitching staff, but all of them need to be consistant, not just Smoltz.

By Feeanch

October 16, 2006 10:04 PM | Link to this

Dave O’B— Add another band to your list of amazing acts from the South: MUTE MATH. They’re from New Orleans. And actually even better than The Whigs live. Sound like a cross between “The Bends” era Radiohead, mixed with the Police and stadium sounding-U2. And their lead singer sometimes plays a Keytar (yes, the dorkiest instrument ever; remember Revenge of the Nerds and Devo?)

I saw MM at Bonnaroo this year and again a few weeks ago in LA. I actually won a trip to see Tom Petty w/ The Strokes from 92.9 Dave FM, and saw they were playing the night before at a club. HOLY CRAP! Huge guitars, swirling keyboards, an absolute crazy drummer. Best live show I’ve seen since MMJ walked out barefoot onstage at the 12 noon opening show of Bonnaroo 2004 and I had no idea who they were.

Anyway, MM are headlining the Roxy on 10/27 and the Whigs are opening. If you want to meet up for a beer beforehand, email me. And go download Mute Math from iTunes now. I totally agree with your Strokes comments too. I’ve still got a bad taste in my mouth after their Tabernacle show in 2003 where Kings of Leon opened and played 45 minutes. The Strokes headlined and played 50 minutes…BOO.

And since this is a Braves Blog, I’ve got to say something baseball related. How would you rate Aybar’s performance? Should we get rid of Giles and move Willy to 2nd?

By Thomas

October 16, 2006 10:08 PM | Link to this

Hey speaking of Kerry Wood, what would happen to him. His a greattt pitcher when healthy, just he isnt healthy never.

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 11:05 PM | Link to this

Feeanch, that sounds like an interesting band, for sure. If there’s a sweep in the World Series, I’m there. Otherwise, that’s the night of Game 5.

I don’t know what I haven’t heard of them. I’ve gotten a bit behind in the past couple of months, I think, as far as reading up on new bands, etc. But if they really sound like a cross between early Radiohead, Police and U2, that’s a pretty potent mix. I’ll definitely have to check that out, see what they sound like.

I saw MMJ open for the Doves in the now-closed Cotton Club in the basement of Tabernacle in 2002. Outstanding show all the way around. Saw Kings of Leon with Secret Machines about 1-1/2 years ago at the Fillmore in San Francisco. Also excellent. Kings of Leon are really great live.

By Calvin

October 16, 2006 11:26 PM | Link to this

lol Mr. O’Brien

I guess that previous blog was kind of like the silly suggestion of trades you see from people. You know like Langerhans for Pujols and Johan Santana and Liriano for Jorga Sosa, Chris Riestma(I’m sure I butchered that one), and Mike Remlinger….lol.

By eware

October 16, 2006 11:37 PM | Link to this

DOB, what’s the best Drive-By Truckers album to buy? I have the song “Where the Devil Don’t Stay” and its awesome! I could use a little help.

Seriously, why are the Black Keys not the biggest band in America????!!!

What do you think of Matt Costa? Not a big fan of the surfer rock, but a few songs of his are pretty good.

“He’s the patron saint of quality footwear.”

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 11:43 PM | Link to this

Oh, and I haven’t seen enough of Aybar _ actually, almost none _ at second base to know if he can play there every day. Braves brass tells me he can, but fact that they didn’t play him there at all makes me wonder. Wouldn’t they want to see him if they planned to have him play there? Unless it’s Prado’s job to lose, and Aybar is penciled in as a utility guy, which could definitelky be the case because Braves need a utility guy who could play 3B for extended stretches if Chipper’s hurt.

Or, they might be considering keeping Giles, though I really doubt it. That money can be better spent elsewhere, and as we’ve discussed, there’s only a very limited number of places where the Braves can cut back on salary, 2B being the prime one.

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 11:50 PM | Link to this

Eware, the Black Keys aren’t the biggest band in America because they’re too good to be popular with the masses. That’s my best line of reasoning, because I agree with you, they should be.

Can’t go wrong with any DBT, but the four CDs I’d highly recommend are Southern Rock Opera, The Dirty South, Blessing and a Curse, and Decoration Day.

Listen to “Outfit” off Decoration Day and you might ask why they’re not the biggest band in America.

By David O'Brien

October 16, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this

This Arizona Cardinals collapse is horrifying to watch, but can’t turn away. Like watching a car crash.

Speaking of … weren’t there some folks here about mid-summer talking about how baseball was over because the Braves stunk and the Falcons were about to start playing, and the Falcons were a team committed to winning and did things right?

Or maybe I’m just imagining that I read that here a couple months ago…

By Lew

October 17, 2006 12:04 AM | Link to this

KC-All I can say is that I hope you’re right. DOB-Decoration Day is great. As far as the Black Keys-I still think that guitarist needs a good bass player and a much better drummer. He’s got some good licks, but the overall presentation lacks a full sound. But, as Dennis Miller once said-I could be wrong. Listened to the first Zeppelin cd today and it’s still great after almost 40 years. Listened to Let It Bleed by the Stones, too, Must be National Nostalgia day.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:28 AM | Link to this

KC: I can only assume that by this statement… you have your doubts

I haven’t finished your post, but I believe I know where it’s going. Hampton needs 18 months and has them, Hudson is bound to bounce back, Ramirez had 9 good outings out of 12, Smoltz is Smoltz, James is the future, Thomson was on a roll before the injury, Sosa was undefeated on the road, Reitsma has good stuff, Remlinger is a proven lefty…etc. I have my doubts, of course. Forgive me. This season has shaken my confidence in our pitching. Prior to this year, we had number 1 starters through and through and they never really missed time. Maybe here or there, but for the most part the core was healthy. Not any more. That cannot be assumed. I think that’s what is burried in JS’s statements about how he doesn’t need to go through this more than once to realize he doesn’t want to do it again. But that isn’t why I made the statement.

No KC. My statement wasn’t based on my doubts about the pitching. My statement was based on what I believe the assesments of the pundits will be; and they will not back this rotation enough to say that the Braves are the team to beat. Not after what the Mets have done. They may call the Braves the sleeper, or the biggest challenger, but they will not fully endorse a rotation with Hudson (coming off this season), Hampton (comming of injury), Ramirez (coming off injury), James (in a full season), Boyer (coming off injury), Foster (coming off injury), and Smoltz at 40. As a Braves fan, I think we’ll be fabulous and I look forward to it. But I don’t think non-fans are going to view the team as optimisticly as you and I. But it doesn’t bother me. Some of our best seasons have been when the weight was on to prove we could do it. And next year the weight is going to be piled on there.

By Cory

October 17, 2006 12:51 AM | Link to this

Why does Foster’s name keep getting mentioned along with Boyer? John was Foster was released last week. He’s gone. Off the 40 man roster.

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 01:03 AM | Link to this

Talk about mother nature doing a team a huge favor. Mondays rainout gives Glavine one more day of rest and makes him available for a possible game seven. As if the Mets needed anymore help , lol.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 01:07 AM | Link to this

Cory-You’re the second person on the blog to say Foster is gone, but I haven’t seen anything offical. Where did you hear it.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 01:14 AM | Link to this

Head Coach, what do you mean it makes him available for Game 7? Game 5 is Tuesday, Game 7 would be Thursday. Are you talking about Game 7 for the World Series? I sure hope so, because to think he’d be available to start Gm 7 of the NLCS is absolutely inconceivable.

Cory, you’re right. A lot of people just missed that announcement, as it was barely a line in the paper. Foster is off the 40-man. He could be re-signed, though, but the fact he’s off the 40-man should tell you plenty about his prominence in the Braves’ plans. Or lack of prominence.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 01:17 AM | Link to this

Lew, gotta disagree on the Keys, man. That sound is full, bro. Now, the White Stripes could use a bass player, but the Keys … which CD did you listen to? I think they’re phenomenal. You try Chulahoma, which is all blues covers of Junior Kimbrough? You can’t listen to that and think it’s not a full sound. It’s the blues.

And Rubber Factory _ that just rages, man. Great, great stuff.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 01:19 AM | Link to this

Head Coach, maybe you were talking about an inning or relief or something? Possible, but doubtful. Not gonna risk that with Glavine, I’d bet. He’s NEVER pitched in relief.

And if he starts Tuesday, he could start Game 1 or Game 2 Saturday or Sunday in World Series.

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 01:20 AM | Link to this

Yep , Cory is correct. Foster was released a week ago. Manny Acosta had his contract purchased from Richmond and was added to the 40 man roster. Wayne Franklin cleared waivers and opted for free agency. Kevin Berry and Josh Burrus were outrighted to Richmond and as you probably already know Ken Ray and Luis Hernandez were claimed off waivers.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 01:24 AM | Link to this

Lew, you still up? What a coinkideenk. DOB, the Cardinals just finished one of the greatest choke jobs in history. That said (and keep in mind, I absolutely thought Leinhart would be a bust prior to this), he showed me something. If he gets a coach to go with all the talent he’s already got around him, he’ll be something special. Denny Green should be fired immediately. No need to let him finish out the season for pride. NOW.

By Calvin

October 17, 2006 01:28 AM | Link to this

You hear the latest on A-Rod? Apparently, Lou Pinella, the new Cubs manager as of later today, wants the upper management to pursue a trade for the 31 year old slugger. It appears that the Cubs will increase their payroll to try and accommadate the trade. I wonder if he will play third base or go back to his original position at ss. I think this is a good fit for him because a. Pinella knows Rodriguez well from their time in Seattle and is sort of a father figure to him. That would be interesting to say the least given A-Rod’s recent playoff failures.

By Kentavo

October 17, 2006 01:29 AM | Link to this

DOB - save your money for The Who’s “Endless Wire” - first studio CD in 24 years, out Oct. 31. Then go see ‘em live Nov. 22 at Gwinnett Center.

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 01:33 AM | Link to this

Thats what I meant. If it goes seven games then everybody has to be prepared to possibly pitch. I wonder what happens if it keeps raining ? A playoff double header ? Why is Bud Selig so adament in not changing the first round from five to seven games ? Its two freaking games , if the cold weather is such a concern then start the season a week earlier or shorten the break around the all star game.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 01:37 AM | Link to this

Grinch, I concur on Leinhart. I, too, was a skeptic, but he really impressed me tonight.

Kentavo, I’ve heard some good early buzz on that Who CD. I’ll definitely get it. Supposedly it’s got a lot of their classic sound, even the Baba O’Reilly riff to start the first single, or something like that.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 01:54 AM | Link to this

Funny how that works, isn’t it? Some guys can look and act as stupid and inept as they can possibly be until the gun fires, then excel. I even lost a bet to my cousin that Matt would suck and the rest of the team would do well. Goes to show I don’t know everything (WRITE IT DOWN!!!). Hell, Joe Montana was lightly regarded in exactly the same way for the same reasons. The Grinch is humbled in his own arena (no pun intended). Glavine lucked out tonight. There’s a lot of destiny floating around right now.

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 02:51 AM | Link to this

Well I was just sitting here crunching numbers over the course of the last four seasons and you talk about eye opening stats. How obvious can it possibly get. 2003 101-61 five core starters , six total. 2004 96-66 six core starters , eight total. 2005 90-72 seven core starters , nine total. 2006 79-83 eight core starters , twelve total. you see the slow drop in quality pitching ?

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 03:05 AM | Link to this

And yet you continue to defend Tim Hudson. No offense, dude; it just seems ironic to me. Fire off if you want; I’m going to bed. Night, all.

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 03:48 AM | Link to this

Yes I believe in him and will continue to defend Hudson. The man is a winner , period. He is 55-34 with a 4.04 ERA over the past four seasons. Thats an average of 14 wins 8 losses and 210 innings a season. Hudson is a core starter and part of the solution and what is your malfunction , Grinch ? You want to dump a winner and how is that going to make the Braves a better team ? how ? go get some sleep , you need it.

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

Whats gonna happen to Ryan Langerthan, and Matt Diaz?

If they get a leadoff hitter that can play the outfield, one of them is going to get traded. Most likely will be Langerthans, because Matt Diaz was much more valuable offensively than Langerthans, but langerthans is more valuable defensevely. Maybe they get a leadoff hitter who plays second base, and nothing happens to them.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

“Please give me one rational thought… one fact, one statistic… hell, one ANYTHING to back up your claim that Andruw’s lost a step.”

From 97 thru 2000, Andru stole at least 20 bases a season. He hasnt stolen 20 in the last four seasons combined

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

“Well, Robinson did drop off in the numbers that matter most to run production.’

That statement sealed the deal pal. You know absolutely nothing about baseball. No offense. And I’m not trying to be an jerk. That statement is ignorant and ridiculous.

Frank Robinson had the best season of his career after he was traded to Baltimore and won the damn Triple Crown. He also won 2 WS rings with Baltimore and went to the WS 2 other years. He batted ~ .300 with a OBP of ~ .400 while in Baltimore for 6 years. His slugging percentage in the six years with Baltimore was ~ .543 which is higher than his career slugging percentage of .537. There was no dropoff there. Numbers don’t lie.

I can’t wait to hear your stupid justification for this one.

BB FAN,

Frank Robinson’s best season was 1962 with the Cincinnati Reds at age 26. Here are his percentage stats: .342 AVG/.421 OBP/.624 SLG in 701 PA.

Yes, Robinson was obviously an amazing player in Baltimore, but you have to admit he was at least as good (maybe better) in Cincinnati. Players generally peak in their late 20’s, but if their peak is as high as Robinson they are still going to be amazing after their peak.

You bring up his slugging percentage in his five years in Baltimore. But in his last five years in Cincinnati (in his late 20’s) here are his slugging percentages: .611, .624, .442, .548, .540. Yes, that’s twice he posted an over .600 SLG.

In Cincinnati he created over 100 runs a season in all but two seasons out of 10. In Baltimore he created 100 runs a season in 3 out of 5 seasons and came close in a fourth. He was as at least as good a run-creator in Cincinnati as he was in Baltimore.

Here’s his baseball-reference.com page:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinfr02.shtml

Scroll down to ‘Special Batting’ and take a look at those runs created numbers. You’ll see that Robinson was obviously at least as good in Cincinnati as he was in Baltimore.

Anyway, Andruw Jones is not Frank Robinson. Jones has never posted an OBP over .400 and never batted over .303 in a better offensive era. Although Jones will remain pretty productive, he’s not going to be close to what Robinson did in his 30’s.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

I’ll try this once more, I suppose. Hudson’s been in a steady decline. He’s still above average but only barely. He had all year this year (injury free) to fix his problem, and couldn’t/didn’t. That doesn’t make sense. If he gets neither better nor worse, he’ll be worth exactly what he’s paid next year. The two seasons after that, he’ll be making twice that much, which we can’t afford for someone pitching 13-12. That’s #1 money for a #4 starter. You and KC are betting he’ll bounce back to 2000 form, which would be the only way he’d be worth it. Maybe he will, and I hope he will, but I doubt it. All I’m saying is that if we trade him now we could get a young power pitcher for 13.5 million (or less) that EVERYONE could be more confident in. Please look at his pitching trends of the last three years and look beyond this upcoming season. That’s all I’m saying, and I don’t think that makes me a raving lunatic.

By KC

October 17, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

HEAD COACH:

Don’t worry… GRINCH is going to have to buy me a frosty beverage next year when Tim Hudson finishes the year with another excellent ERA.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

BB Fan,

You are still stuck on triple crown numbers. A hitter’s job is not to win the triple crown, it’s to create runs. Winning the triple crown obviously helps, but there are other statistics outside of the triple crown statistics that better indicate run creation.

Average doesn’t take into account walks or total bases and RBI are dependent on baserunners in front of a hitter and a hitter’s lineup spot. And non of the triple crown stats completely tell you how good a hitter is at avoiding outs like on-base percentage (1 - OBP = Out Percentage).

By KC

October 17, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

Robert:

Before all of Ken Griffey Jr’s major injuries (in Cincinnati), we was still one of the greatest outfielders of our generation… but not a base-stealer.

The same is true of Andruw. He is not a base-stealer. He never really has been. Sure, where he was 19-20 years old he stole a few… but that’s not his game man.

I’m just saying that step Andruw supposedly lost doesn’t show in the field. He still gets to more balls (that he shouldn’t be able to get to) than any outfielder in the game. His putouts and fielding percentage are right where they have been the last several years.

Of course… there’s always Stinky’s explanation… a conspiracy on the part of the score keepers.

By CD

October 17, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Dave, DBT live in Athens but all but one of the band grew up in northwest Alabama, the Muscle Shoals area. That’s why there’s so much Alabama in their songs. You should also check out the Gourds, who play a greasy, sloppy but great stew of country-rock with a little accordion now and then. Does it look like Andruw will be here all next season if he’s here opening day?

By Lew

October 17, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

DOB-I got Magic Potion because someone said it was more rock. The Dude is a good guitarist, no doubt. I really would like to hear him in a ful band, though. Now a Blues album would definitely fare better with the two person format. As far as the White Stripes-Ole Jack is ok. I’m not convinced he is as great as some contend. Now Meg White is a flippin joke. Head Coach-That 4.04 ERA over the last several years may work in the AL, but it won’t get it in the NL. I really don’t know if we should try to trade Hudson or not, but I have serious concerns about him. If you can’t straighten out his mechanics in the course of a full season (and he did get his butt kicked on opening day) then I’ve gotta wonder if something else is going on. Now Grinchy-You are a raving lunatic, but not necessarily about Hudson.

By Arkansas Hillbilly

October 17, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

“I met your mama when I was 19,

You couldn’t been anymore than 3

She caught me stealin’ y’alls color t.v.

She called the cops and they arrested me.

She was the wildest thing I’d ever seen,

The way she pointed that shotgun at me.

The police hauled my a* off to jail.

You mama signed the trailer to help make the bail.”

Eware You might as well go ahead and get Pizza Deliverance, Gangstabilly, and Alabama A* Whuppin’ too, because once you hear a couple of songs off the ones DOB recommended, you’re gonna crave more and more. You’ll be a DBT addict like me and there’s no twelve step program to cure it. Save yourself a couple of trips to the music store. (because you will go back for more) Gas is still pretty high these days…..

By KC

October 17, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Grinch:

Tim Hudson had two outstanding (Cy Young caliber) seasons in which his ERA was under 3.00. The rest of his career has seen his ERA in the low-mid 3.00 range, which is still pretty damn good.

Listen, there is no debate about Tim Hudson’s season this year. It was lousy… there’s no way around it. However, the “this is only the latest step in Hudson’s decline” argument is about to make me physically sick. The guy pitched through injuries each of the last two seasons (04 & 05), and still managed to finish in the top 10-15% of all major league starters with a 3.50 ERA both seasons.

It blows me away the way people keep talking about his last year in Oakland and first year in Atlanta like they weren’t good seasons. By Tim Hudson standards, they weren’t great efforts (though again, he was pitching through injury), but by MLB standards, they were excellent seasons.

I went back and studied all the top-tier starters over the last 25 years or so, and have come to realize that history is on Tim Hudson’s side. I have found close to a dozen cases where a top-tier starter struggled for one season for no apparent reason. In every single case (again, excluding injury related struggles), they bounced back strong the following season. (Please see my 9:06pm post).

Tim Hudson showed all throughout the season that the same brilliance is still there, including his last start of the season in which he looked excellent. He’s only 30, and he hasn’t lost a thing. All the tools are still there. For some unknown reason, he struggled with mechanical inconsistencies that caused the ball to drift back over the plate or get left up in the zone. In nearly every case where a marquee starter struggles in his prime for no apparent reason, that’s the cause (mechanical inconsistency). Again, in every case that I can find, that pitcher had a very good season the following year.

7 years of excellence vs. 1 bad year. A 30 year old pitcher with all the same tools…

Yeah, I’ll put my money on a bounce-back season.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

The Braves have to make some major changes. We need more than just the scrap heap set up men we have been using. Our starters are no longer dominant or even better than most. First we need a solid set up man. While Boyer fits the bill, we need to trade Giles to the A’s for someone like Kiki Calero who will have a limited role with the A’s. He has good stuff and will be the kind of arm we need. Horam is just not solid enough to pitch for the Braves. Trade him for solid bullpen help. I think a rotation of

Smoltz Hudson James Hampton Davies

is a good start. Lerew may be a good spot starter for the Braves.

In the long run trading Salty for an up and coming top level pitcher is a possibility. Most teams need a catcher and a switch hitting one would be welcome almost anywhere. He is limited defensively and he is like Vmart in Cleveland, a base stealers dream. We need to get a #1 or #2 type guy. Not a major leaguer one but a top prospect guy a year or two away.

We can expect no help in the Free Agency market. The Braves are no longer major players in the FA market. In this realm we need to keep Baez for a year as insurance.

The only way to make a big splash is to trade A Jones to someone like the Red Sox/White Sox/Angels for several major league ready arms. The Braves need starting pitching in the worst way.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

KC and Robert,

Andruw Jones’s Range Factor has dropped in recent years, which does seem to indicate he’s lost a step.

Definition of Range Factor from Baseball-Almanac.com:

• (Putouts + Assists) x 9 divided by Defensive Innings Played*

Range Factor simply stated is the number of plays MADE per game at the fielding position. It is better than Fielding Average in several respects: It can be calculated for almost any player this century and it takes into account the fielder’s own ability to get to a batted ball - rewarding the more gifted players at each position. Positions can only be successfully compared to the same position on the field when using this statistic and early in the season numbers are often skewed as players chances are not yet normalized.

Also stolen bases could be a decent indicator that AJ has lost a step. His stolen bases have dropped from around 20 a year to around 4 or 5 a year. That much of a drop probably indicates Jones is not as fast as he used to be.

Still, I think AJ is a great defensive outfielder because he seems to rely more on instincts and the ability to read the ball.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Shaun,

I never said Robinson was better in Baltimore than he was in Cincinnati!! You were the one saying he had a huge dropoff when he went to Baltimore. I was just proving you wrong! His overall averages are very close to what he did in Cincinnati. I don’t consider a 5 % decrease in numbers a drastic difference. He makes up for that just in presence alone. Your little “sabermetric” world can’t take into consideration the intangibles a player brings to a team.

And I would say the two seasons he had in 1962 and 1966 are pretty even. He did better in some stats in each season. But he won a WS in 1966. Obviously Baltimore was a better team though.

The point is that it still was not a good trade for Cincinnati.

And what Robinson had on Jones in offense is made up by Jones on defense. Or close to it. Obviously Robinson has better overall numbers, he played 21 seasons and Jones has only played 10 seasons. However, Jones is over half way to matching Robinson’s traditional baseball numbers (runs, homeruns, RBIs, ect). And he is pratically at the half way mark to Robinson’s runs created stat (1002 to 2062). I know you love that stat.

Jones should not be traded unless it’s an amazing, can’t say no offer. And no, I still don’t think 5 Matt Diaz’s for Andruw Jones would be a good trade. So get off that idea.

You have proven your lack of knowledge when it comes to “real life” baseball. You might be a whiz kid in the “sabermetric” world but that doesn’t always work in the real world. Intangibles and defense are a very important part of the “real” game of baseball.

Oh and don’t quite your day job because you won’t ever make as a GM.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

KC and Grinch,

Hudson is probably not the future Hall of Famer he looked like early in his career and the Braves are probably overpaying him, but he’s still a decent pitcher. Here are his two seasons least affected by luck:

2001, 18-9, 3.37 ERA, 3.83 RA

2004, 12-6, 3.53 ERA, 3.91 RA

By Carroll

October 17, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

DOB: Any chance the Braves may look to move Chipper? It seems that Texas or Anaheim may be a good fit for him…and of course the Yanks and BoreSox always have the means to take a player of his salary….and for that matter the ChiSox may also have some interest and the ability to absorb his contract.

Also, don’t you think that we could afford to move Rentaria? He was solid this year but nothing special…I think we could do just as well with TOny Pena or one of the other prospects….Pena would prolly even be an improvement defensively (which is more important to a team that claims to be building around pitching). Rentaria should bring us a quality player in return (especially at his price).

By KC

October 17, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

LEW:

Respectfully, I really think you make more of an issue out of the AL vs. NL thing than is warranted. Again, there’s less than a 10% difference in runs scored between the two leagues.

Did you look up the career numbers of any of the pitchers I mentioned? I’m sure there was great concern when Roger Clemens went 11-14, 4.46 ERA in 1993. The very next year, he posted an ERA of 2.85. Yes, that 4.46 was in the American league, but if was also before the “live-ball” era of the last 10 years.

Mike Mussina (back in his more dominant Baltimore days) posted a 4.81 ERA in 1996, and an ERA of 3.20 the following year.

I have found many examples of this type of thing, but none where the pitcher didn’t recover. Again, history is very much on Tim Hudson’s side.

By Carroll

October 17, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

BB: I don’t argue with you that AJ is good and has good numbers, but what the hell does he bring as far as intangibles?! I submit to you that NONE of the Braves have the intangibles that you see on winning teams. And while you may not trade him for 5 Matt Diaz’s, you could and should trade him for 3 Chuck James or Joel Zumayas.

We should all realize by now that pretty much all that matters is pitching…especially if you are a cash-strapped organization….you get 3 or 4 solid/dominant starters and a few solid relievers coupled with a solid closer, and you can just fill in the blanks around the rest of the diamond with the likes of Rafeal Belliard, Sid Bream, Mark Lemke, Greg Olson (anyone else remember the 1991 Braves?), and you weill be in really good shape. Great pitching can always mask other deficiencies but it doesn’t work the other way around.

By cctusc1

October 17, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

KC, I’d love to take your money, Hudson hasnt been the same pitcher SINCE coming to Atl. It’s not just this past season where he has struggled, but since putting the tomahawk across his chest. Too bad he’s costing so much money for the Braves, which makes it very hard to trade him

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Shaun,

Range factor does not mean everything!! It does not take into consideration that Jones used to have to catch everything because he had guys like Ryan Klesko, Gary Sheffield, Chipper Jones and BJ Surhoff in the outfield with him. Those guys were not exactly quality outfielders.

These last 3 + years, he has had Ryan Langerhans, JD Drew, Charles Thomas and Jeff Francoeur around him. They could all play centerfield for any other team.

And Jones does not attempt to steal bases anymore because it is hard on the body. The Braves would rather have him running down flyballs and driving in runs. That’s his job, not stealing bases.

Once again, your bullsh!t numbers don’t tell the whole story. You can’t just look at numbers, pal. And again, that is why GMs have to look at more than the numbers.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Dennis-The RedSox, White Sox and Angels don’t have several major league ready arms to trade for Andruw. Even if they did, they would need them for themselves. When is everyone going to realize that A.No one is going to trade all of their prospects B. Prospects will do us no good unless we’re rebuilding, which we’re notC.Scheurholz has said he will not make any monumental trades that would tear the Braves up and trading Andruw certainly would D.No one offered three prospects for Andruw before the trade deadline when teams traditionally overspend E.We WILL NOT TRADE ANDRUW because we have a much better chance of winning it all with him then without him

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

BB FAN,

I never said Robinson had a huge drop off. I just said he declined. And if Andruw Jones also declines similarly, he will not be the same type player Robinson was in his 30’s.

And Andruw Jones’s defense, while great, will not make up for the difference between his offense and Robinson’s. The best fielders contribute about three wins to their teams with their defense. The best hitters contribute about 10 wins to their team offensively. Defense cannot make up for offense that much.

By KC

October 17, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

cctusc1

Tim Hudson pitched through injuries in ‘04 and ‘05 and still posted an ERA of 3.50 both seasons which ranked him in the top 10-15% of all MLB starters in both of those seasons.

2006… hey, no one’s arguing with you man. He wasn’t very good this season. But this whole “Tim Hudson hasn’t been any good in several years” crap is a load of @#&#%&$^*. No offense.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

“Of course… there’s always Stinky’s explanation… a conspiracy on the part of the score keepers.”

it’s not conspiracy - it’s engrained bias - Like the ump who got in an arguement about balls and strikes with a rookie who was pitching to Ted Williams - ump sez “If it had been a strike, Mr Williams wouldve let us know by hiutting into the corner for extra bases”

Andru might never have been a big base stealer, but he used to steal more than he does now, which would seem to indicate he has lost a step.

It’s not so simple as FP’s and PO’s - How many balls does he need to dive or lean for that he used to camp under? Might not show up, especially if it’s not a huge difference (one step, not several steps)

Andru is a great fielder, and a good (not great hitter). He has clearly lost a step from his early days.

By DC Braves Fan

October 17, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Sheffield…I’ve read some rumors (prosportsdaily.com) that Atlanta might be interested should the Yankees not pick up his option. Thoughts on this? I liked him enough his first time around and an outfield of Sheff’s Chefs, Franc’s Franks, along with the best CF in the game, A.Jones, does sound appealing, if not makes one hungry.

By KC

October 17, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

LEW is correct.

Andruw isn’t going anywhere. Contrary to popular belief, the Braves do have a good chance or re-signing him, so they won’t be in any hurry to unload him. More importantly… Andruw is in less of a hurry to be unloaded, and can veto any trade. He’s not going anywhere. It’s a dead issue folks.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Shaun - adjusted OPS sez that while 62 was a great season for FRob - it was clearly only his third best year, with 66 and 67, his first two seasons in Baltimore ranking ahead of it.

His 1,2 and 4th best season were in balt - 3,4, and 6 in Cinci - with the only off year, if you can even start to call it that, that he ever had between 1959 and 1971 coming in 1963 in Cinci - 68 doesnt look so great, but the whole league was way down

It’s close, he was great in both places, but I think he was slightly better in Baltimore

I dont even know where the arguement was supposed to be headed that resulted in the debate of whether he was better pre or post trade.

If it had something to do with whether we should let the nearing-30 Andru go, well

Andru Jones is a great defensive outfielder, and a good enuff player overall, but he couldnt hold Frank Robinson’s jock

By Robert

October 17, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Hudson is, and has been, a quality starter - a very good number 2

He BORDERED on ELITE status for the period 01-03

By Lew

October 17, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Robert-If Ted didn’t swing, much less hit the pitch into the seats, it was a pretty good indication it was a ball. I don’t think any rookie pitcher was going to get a close call against Williams.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

BB FAN,

Okay, well watching AJ play it looks like he’s lost a step or two. That along with the stats leads me to believe he has indeed lost a step. Still a great fielder but not as great as he used to be.

Range Factor is not perfect but I don’t know if you can say it means nothing. It’s better than fielding percentage because it takes into account how many outs a player contributes to instead of how many subjectively clean handled chances. The best way to avoid errors is not make any plays. Fielding percentage is not a good way to measure defense. Range factor is not great, but it’s much better than fielding percentage.

And stolen bases and stolen base attempts may not be perfect either, but a significant drop in steal and attempts seem to indicate a player has slowed down.

All of these stats taken together seems to indicate AJ has slowed down.

Let’s see, we can take into account as much evidence as possible to try to find out if AJ has lost a step, or we can believe he hasn’t and criticize every single indicator one at a time so that we don’t have to examine the possibility that he has lost a step.

Why are you so threatened by objective evidence? My “BS numbers” seem to tell more of the story than what you are saying—AJ hasn’t lost a step because the evidence you bring up has flaws. Well, where’s your better evidence? I haven’t seen any.

I think you want to believe that AJ hasn’t lost a step and isn’t going to decline, so you ignore any possibility that he has lost a step and is likely to decline.

Look, I could care less if the Braves trade AJ. He can still help them so they’ll be fine either way. But the evidence suggest he will decline (although he’ll remain productive) and the Braves would be better off moving him if they are smart about it.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Robert,

OPS is pretty good, but doesn’t weigh on-base percentage high enough. It would be better to multiply OBP times 1.5 or two before adding in slugging. I think RC/27 (Runs Created per 27 outs) is better. Or just looking at AVG/OBP/SLG and keeping in mind that OBP is most important followed by SLG then AVG.

It’s not as clear as some thing that Frank was better in Baltimore, and in fact he may have been better in Cincy.

Thanks for being civilized in your disagreement. Obviously you are less threatened by facts than BB Fan.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

“These last 3 + years, he has had Ryan Langerhans, JD Drew, Charles Thomas and Jeff Francoeur around him. They could all play centerfield for any other team”

Dude, Langerhans wouldnt start on the Devil Rays or Royals, and Charles Thomas couldnt even play for Parkview

By KC

October 17, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

ROBERT:

I agree with you on Hudson… except he didn’t border on elite status from ‘01-03… he was an elite starter.

He’s still got that in him, but personally I’ll be happy with anothe season in the 3.30-3.50 (ERA) range.

Everyone keeps talking about Tim Hudson being “only slightly above average” in ‘04 & 05, even though he was in the top 15% of all MLB starters, and that 3.50 ERA is lower than that of many of the pitchers who are considered legit number-1 starters by many right now (Zito, Glavine, D.Willis, Schmidt, K.Rogers, Curt Schilling).

By Salty55

October 17, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Shaun The evidence (strongly) suggests I’m gonna die…should I go ahead and pull the plug now…or slowly decline? Will I know it…will I care!?!

This sabremetrics p** contest is chock full of holes.
1. All of your evidence is historical…it can’t look ahead and project 2. It’s comprised of data since the beginning of ‘who know’s when’, without regard to changing times and conditions.
3. People live longer, yet your ‘S-M’ has ‘em partnered with the banana peel and grave at 30! Players in their 30’s are in better shape than 30-40 years ago, even versus younger players. 4. All the stats compare players against themselves. Every player is surrounded by variables which can’t be ignored…their teammates and abilities, the opposition, the ballpark, and so forth. 5. Even win production: Babe Ruth was a bloody freak for his time…that’s why the #’s are so good…not to take away anything from his accomplishments…plus, to point #4 he was surrounded by a pretty good company. What was their impact on his success?

If the formula can’t look ahead, don’t tell me where I’ve been, especially when it’s gonna take years to prove any way. Just enjoy the games, the what-if’s conjectures, etc.

Sorry, foks…just couldn’t take it anymore!

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Robert: The conversation about Frank Robinson wasn’t so much about sizing AJ up to him, It was that you try not to trade your teams great players once they turn 27 or older, because great player typically stay great and don’t drop off after age 26. Some how Robinson’s trade was used as the example. The retort was, Robinson dropped off after the trade, justifing it. That he went from being out-of-this-world to just great (I’m still confused on that line of logic). The triple crown was brought up as one point showing that he didn’t drop off. The retort to that was, the Triple Crown is insignificant. And some how, all awards should now be based on a runs created formula. At any rate, I think it has been shown that Robinson was great his entire career and any team would have wanted him. And one team should have kept him the entire time.
The other half of that conversation was about the parts you can get in return for players that are great. And here the conversation was used to justify trading AJ for spare parts a-la Robinson. The replacements for Robinson were not equally good, not even the sum of all three.

KC: Here are a few instances of this I uncovered: Roger Clemens, Jimmy Key, John Smoltz
Are you talking about the bad year Smoltz had? The one when his arm blew out and he threw a knuckle ball to get through the season? That’s the year you are using to justify saying Hudson is going to bounce back? I don’t know about that. Look, I believe we are going to be a good team next year. But I wouldn’t use that season from Smoltz as a reason to justify Hudson is going to be good.
I hope Hudson does come back on top of his game. I hope he kicks @ss and takes names all season. I then hope we trade him. I’ll gladly take one of those Payne deals of 10 rookies for Hudson after next season. Hudson seems like a nice guy and all, but I think that much money could be better spent. I don’t agree with trading AJ like this, but AJ is a life long Brave and a fabulous defender.

Payne: Zone rating… Does this take into account the decreased pitching quality? When AJ first came up, he was backing up 3 hall of fame pitchers. Over the last few years he’s had some of the worst pitching I’ve seen in a Braves uniform to back up. I’ve read a lot of the Sabrmetric analysis of fielding and I agree with it, it’s near impossible to quantify a defender by numbers. You have to complement them with scouting reports. No matter what formula you try to use. I don’t think AJ has lost a step, but even if he has, he’s still a few steps ahead of everyone else. He certainly hasn’t lost so much of a step that it would justify trading him for 3 Matt Diaz’s.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

IMO - Andru’s career profile and physcial stature/status make me think he will be one of those guys who will have a steep, severe, and rapid decline in his productivity once he gets to the far side of age 30

Once he loses that SECOND step, and once his bat slows even a fraction, his batting average be at Tierra del Fuego in no time

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Carroll,

3 Chuck James or Joel Zumayas would be one of those trades that would be difficult to say no to.

Andruw Jones brings many of those intangibles to the table. He is the leader of the Braves. He is a quiet leader that leads by example like playing everyday even when he’s hurt. By making that diving catch to end a potential big inning. He makes the game fun for everybody by genuinely enjoying the game himself. He stepped up big time in 2005 when Chipper was hurt. His will to win is proven by his clutch hitting in late and close situations. And his defense can not be replaced.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

It would be better to multiply OBP times 1.5 or two

This is another issue I have with Sabremetrics. The constants they throw into equations are guesses. In a scientific world constants are measured out and discovered. They aren’t just arbitrarly inserted until the formula works outs. And this is how Bill James created all his formulas. He looked at numbers and randomly started adding, subracting, multiplying and inserting constants to get them to match other numbers such as runs. There is some wisdom in the analysis, but again I say, you can’t simply go off the numbers. You have to have scouting.

Charles Thomas is not a prime example of a solid defender. He was good for his time with the Braves, but he was terrible in Oakland. Absolutely awful. Same goes for Juan Cruz. It all goes back to how bad Bean was taken for Hudson. It went down about like this:
Shhhhhh. Of course. From a group of Libyan nationalists. They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and in turn, gave them a shoddy bomb-casing full of used pinball machine parts!

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Shaun, “The best fielders contribute about three wins to their teams with their defense. The best hitters contribute about 10 wins to their team offensively. Defense cannot make up for offense that much.”

If Andruw Jones only contributes 6-7 wins on offense and he contributes the full 3 (if not more) wins on defense, that equals 9-10. Robinson probably contributed 8-9 wins on offense and 1-2 on defense. He was a good defender but no where near Andruw Jones’ defense. That makes them about equal. And like I said earlier, if not equal, then close!!

Besides Andruw Jones is on the same pace (or very close) as Robinson is with your runs created stat.

Of course every player is going to decline. My point is that you can not look at stolen bases and range factor as evidence he has slowed down. They do not take into consideration the outfielders he’s played with the last 3 years are good enough to be centerfielders for just about any other team. It also does not take into consideration he doesn’t want to and the Braves don’t want him to steal bases.

And I never said that Range factor is nothing, I said is not everything! Read it carefully.

And I think Robinson was as effective in Baltimore as he was in Cincinnati. I NEVER said he was better pre or post trade. You were the one that said he was better pre-trade.

So, yes, I think your “sabermetric” world is bullsh!t because it can not factor everything in. There’s more to baseball than stats. Don’t get me wrong, stats are a huge part of the game, but they are not the only thing that decides the game.

If that was the case, then it would be easy to predict who wins the World Series each year.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Oh, the point is that Andruw Jones is still the best defensive centerfielder in the game today.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Salty55,

1. History is the best way to make projections. There’s really no other way to do it. Yeah, maybe AJones hits 70 homers next year or the year after. But based on historical data, it’s not likely. Until we can travel into the future, historical data is the best way to make predictions and projections. And those projections are pretty accurate most of the time.

2. Most intelligent baseball statisticians/sabermetricians/whatever do take changing times and context into account. In fact, context is one of the most important elements of sabermetric ideas.

3. Yes, players are in better shape later but general peak years are still the late 20’s. Why? Because not only do 30-40 year olds have better technology, etc. so do the 25-29 year olds. And I never said players’ careers are over after 30, I just said players generally peak in their late 20’s. AJones has likely reached his peak, but he’ll be pretty productive for a while longer.

4. Again, good sabermetricians/statisticians take context into account—things like ballpark, team, opponents, etc.

5. Again, Babe Ruth was a freak and it was a different time. But he still contributed wins more than anyone besides pre-1900’s pitchers. But again, sabermetricians take context into account. Babe Ruth shouldn’t be punished for being the first to figure out that homeruns are the most valuable offensive weapon; he should be rewarded.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

I never ever said it would be a good idea to trade Andruw Jones for three Matt Diaz’s. I just brought up that three Matt Diaz’s more than equals the amount of runs AJ contributes. Yes, if the Braves decide to trade AJ they would need to get players younger, cheaper and that play different positions than Matt Diaz.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Shaun,

Babe Ruth did not play against the best players in the world. So, don’t open that can of worms. Don’t get me wrong, Ruth was an amazing player but only in his era. While it’s possible, I would not put money on it, that he would be as successful in todays game.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

Well, I don’t think Bill James just guessed on the runs created formula. He took into account the factors of scoring runs—getting on base and advancing on the basepaths.

But I never said stats were perfect or that teams should ignore scouting. That would be rediculous. Why not gather as much info as possible from the most intelligent statisticians you can find to the most intelligent scount you can find to the part-time scout to the just-hired front office intern?

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly, is the “The Night GG Allin Came to Town” on Gangstabilly or Pizza Deliverance? I know it’s on one of those two, because I’ve got both of them and I know it’s on one of the old albums. Great song. Hilarious.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

I never ever said it would be a good idea to trade Andruw Jones for three Matt Diaz’s

If it’s not even a good idea, why would you even use it as an example of how to replace AJs contributions? You mentioned this in the previous blog. Something to the extent of, the Braves could replace AJ with 2 or 3 Diaz’s. Even thought that is entirely not true. Now you acknowledge that it isn’t even a good idea. At least you’re headed in the right direction.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

BB FAN,

I have no idea how Ruth would do in today’s game or if he played the best players in the world. All I know is he contributed more to his team winning than any player in history and that’s what I’m going by.

If you want to get technical, since human beings are stronger now and the way baseball filters in talent is better now, you could make the argument that Albert Pujols or Barry Bonds (if we assume he’s as clean as everyone else) are the best players of all-time.

I’m talking about in terms of contributing wins, Babe Ruth was the greatest player of all-time.

By Salty55

October 17, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Shaun: I don’t thing Babe Ruth figured out hitting home runs was the most valuable offensive weapon. He was just the first to do so on such a ‘gargantuan’ basis because he could, and it fit well with hot dogs, booze, and not having to run hard! :-)

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Payne: Good for you. So now, if a scout comes in and says AJ has about 4 more highly productive years left in him, are you going to retort and say the statistical average across all players declares differently? Would you base your trade soully on stats if the stats differ from the scouts?

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Bill James did guess on his constants in the formula. He also guessed on the manor in which each variable is included in the formula. But you’re right, he did logically conclude that the formula should be based upon some arrangment of getting on base, and plate appearances and so forth.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Salty55,

Well, he was the first player to use and uppercut swing and the first to combine power and on-base/out-avoiding ability with any kind of regularity. Whether it was because he could or whatever, he was the first to do it.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

“Babe Ruth did not play against the best players in the world”

No, because a lot of them were his teammates

Now, if you mean he didnt play against ALL OF and ONLY the best players in the world, because of the color line, then look at adjusted OPS - he still stands out even when a normalizing factor is used

In 140 years of organized baseball, the only guy that Ruth doesnt stand head and shoudlers above is the pumped up version of Barry Bonds - Beyond that, only Ted Williams even comes CLOSE

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

If it’s not even a good idea, why would you even use it as an example of how to replace AJs contributions? You mentioned this in the previous blog. Something to the extent of, the Braves could replace AJ with 2 or 3 Diaz’s. Even thought that is entirely not true. Now you acknowledge that it isn’t even a good idea. At least you’re headed in the right direction.

I used it as an example to show that trading Andruw would not be the end of the Braves franchise as we know it; that trading him could bring back much more value. The point was if two or three Matt Diaz types can match the production of AJ, the players they can get in a AJ trade could easily match AJ’s production.

By Carolina Lady

October 17, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Good-natured arguing on baseball can be fun and interesting. Arguing NUMBERS is just plain boring and totally non-productive.

A friend bought a new Lincoln a few years ago. It still looks great and runs great. But! There’s a scratch on the fender. And before long the brakes will need replacing. She’d better get rid of that thing ‘cause before you know it, it’ll fall apart. Better go get a couple of Fords to replace it!

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Carroll, I haven’t heard anything whatsoever to indicate Braves are interested in moving Chipper, or that Texas or anyone else is interested in picking up his $11 mill guaranteed salary each of the next two seasons (and vesting option for 2009)….

And you wrote: “Also, don’t you think that we could afford to move Rentaria? He was solid this year but nothing special…I think we could do just as well with TOny Pena or one of the other prospects…”

Oh, really? Pena or one of the other prospects is going to hit .293 with 40 doubles, 14 homers, 70 RBIs, 17 stolen bases in 23 attempts and a .361 OBP, including a .300 average and .372 OBP in 527 at-bats from the No. 2 slot (his 69 at-bats out of position in the 3-hole dragged his average down)?

Well, Carroll, if Pena or one of the prospects is going to do that, then he’s going to have a good shot at the Rookie of the Year award in most seasons. And since Pena’s never had an offensive season approaching that in the minors, might be a bit much to expect him to in the majors.

While Renteria didn’t have a Gold Glove season like he’s had in the past, he also had only 13 errors (less than HALF his total from 2005 and less than half of Furcal’s total with Dodgers this season). Renteria had the sixth-highest fielding percentage among NL shortstops, behind Omar Vizquel, Adam Everett, David Eckstein, Jimmy Rollins and Khalil Greene.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

“Bill James did guess on his constants in the formula. He also guessed on the manor in which each variable is included in the formula. But you’re right, he did logically conclude that the formula should be based upon some arrangment of getting on base, and plate appearances and so forth.”

So he made an original guess and then refined the metrics from there (it’s called iteration)

“If Andruw Jones only contributes 6-7 wins on offense and he contributes the full 3 (if not more) wins on defense, that equals 9-10. Robinson probably contributed 8-9 wins on offense and 1-2 on defense. He was a good defender but no where near Andruw Jones’ defense. That makes them about equal. And like I said earlier, if not equal, then close!! “

Plain and simple - No frickin way.

Andru Jones is a great defensive outfielder and a fine ballpalyer.

He isnt in the same area code with Frank Robinson

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Well, he was the first player to use and uppercut swing

I’ve got some video from 1887 when King Kelley played for the Braves. He used that upper cut swing. For some reason everyone else around him tended to bunt a lot.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

So, yes, I think your “sabermetric” world is bullsh!t because it can not factor everything in. There’s more to baseball than stats. Don’t get me wrong, stats are a huge part of the game, but they are not the only thing that decides the game.

What can factor in everything? Stats are better than most tools because they aren’t based on subjective opinion, they are based more on cold, hard facts. If you’re running a team it would be stupid to ignore either sabermetrics or scouts.

By Patrick

October 17, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

DOB,

I heard a rumor that if the Yankees decline Sheff’s option that the Braves would be front-runners to get him back?

You see this happening at all??

By Robert

October 17, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

“Don’t get me wrong, Ruth was an amazing player but only in his era. While it’s possible, I would not put money on it, that he would be as successful in todays game.”

ADJUSTED career OPS of 207 -

NORMALIZED

Now, it’s possible that the normalization of today’s stas is off in the ‘roid era, which would make Ruth’s numbers all the MORE impressive

I think that if he played today, he’d be the best player in the game (‘tho at age 101 he might not hit .340 every year)

Oh yeah, he had an ERA of 2.28 and 94 career wins as well.

Ted Williams was the greatest HITTER who ever lived (tho Albert Pujols appears to be close). Babe Ruth was the greatest PLAYER who ever lived

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Bill James did guess on his constants in the formula. He also guessed on the manor in which each variable is included in the formula. But you’re right, he did logically conclude that the formula should be based upon some arrangment of getting on base, and plate appearances and so forth.

A lot of science has some imagination and pragmatism involved.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

“Good-natured arguing on baseball can be fun and interesting. Arguing NUMBERS is just plain boring and totally non-productive.”

If it bores you, ignore it. Kindly let those involved in the discussion decide how productive they find it.

“She’d better get rid of that thing ‘cause before you know it, it’ll fall apart.”

Better a year or two too early than a long term contract and $50 million-plus too late

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

So, yes, I think your “sabermetric” world is bullsh!t because it can not factor everything in. There’s more to baseball than stats. Don’t get me wrong, stats are a huge part of the game, but they are not the only thing that decides the game.

Nothing can factor in everything, but with stats you can look at a snapshot of 500 plate appearances. Can’t really do that with scouting. If a player has a bad day, a scout may not actually see a players abilities. Also, scouts rely on observation and sometimes your eyes deceive you.

I’m not saying the sabermetric world is flawless, but I think it’s more objective and can take into account more factors at once than scouting can. Still, both are valuable tools.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

“A friend bought a new Lincoln a few years ago”

Well, there’s the mistake right there

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

So he made an original guess and then refined the metrics from there (it’s called iteration)
True, That is what it is called. But it isn’t explained when it comes to the constants that are arbitrarly inserted into an arbitrarly constructed formula. It’s why there are so many different iterations and variations on the formula which highlight different factors of the statistics. All of these are glued together with random number generators. It brushes over factors that are unexplained and leaves holes in the analysis. These show up when one makes trades for the likes of Charles Thomas, Juan Cruz and Dan Meyer based entirely on stats and not on scouting reports.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Just one more thing. This isn’t to attack Carroll’s question, and maybe he had someone else in mind other than Pena (I sure hope so), but it’s amazing how people can discount Renteria’s very solid season, a multiple All-Star, Gold Glove winner and postseason performer who’s still only 30 and getting only $6 mill from the Braves, compared to this:

Pena is 25, has spent most of six seasons in the minors, and has a pathetic .253 average and .285 OBP in his minor league career, with a slugging percentage that’s NEVER been higher than .366.

His best single-season totals: 25 doubles, 11 homers, 40 RBIs (yes, 40), .312 OBP (yes, .312)

In other words, combine his best totals in every category during any of his minor league seasons, and it doesn’t even come close, not even remotely close, to Renteria’s performance with the Braves last season.

Pena has hit .227 with one homer, two doubles, three RBIs and a .261 OBP in 44 at-bats in the majors. Yes, by all means, seems safe to get rid of Renteria and turn it over to Pena.

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Shuan , the king of the Idiocracy , the legend in his won mind , the Comedy man of this blog. Nice to see you are still arguing in circles , keep up the good work. Andruw is currently tradeable in any fantasy league of your choosing , go for it.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

A lot of science has some imagination and pragmatism involved

HA! There is no scientific formula, theorem, or postulate that has randomly inserted meaningless constants. Sabremetrics is far from being a science. Far, far far away.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

“I never ever said it would be a good idea to trade Andruw Jones for three Matt Diaz’s. I just brought up that three Matt Diaz’s more than equals the amount of runs AJ contributes. Yes, if the Braves decide to trade AJ they would need to get players younger, cheaper and that play different positions than Matt Diaz.”

Three matt diaz’s does NOT make up for the production that Andruw Jones gives!!!! You would have to replace 2 other players production as well. You can not put 3 Diaz’z in for Andruw Jones. Christ, are you really that stubborn? Are you really going to try to defend your idiotic statement with “3 Diaz’s would replace Jones production, but I would not trade Jones for 3 Diaz’s”? If you would not trade him for 3 Diaz’s, it’s because they would not replace Jones production. If they did, you would make that trade. Just admit you were wrong. You remind me of a kid that can’t admit when they did something wrong.

By Arkansas Hillbilly

October 17, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

DOB “G.G. Allin” is on Pizza Deliverance along with “Bulldozers and Dirt”, “Tales Facing Up”, and “Uncle Frank”—-(this song rocks hard).

I didn’t even think about this one but do you or any other of you DBT fans out there have the “Live at Cooley’s House” c.d.’s A friend of mine that now lives in Georgia sent me a copy of it. If you don’t have it let me tell you, it’s a live acoustic recording that sounds like they were just sitting around one night drinkin’ and carrying on. I’ll tell you one thing, this is how good acoustic music is supposed to be. It’s a rough-cut(and I do mean rough), 2 disc, no fancy editting, drinking session with all kind of good acoustic versions of some of their best songs. Isbell’s version of Danko/Manuel with P. Hood harmonizing is absolute magic. I don’t know where you can find it. I don’t think its listed in their discography but keep a heads up for it.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

About this fascination with pitching prospects-If pitching is at such a premium, why does everyone think other teams are going to give up their prospects? Look at the teams mentioned-Red Sox need all the pitching they can get their hands on. The Yankees have no prospects. What the White Sox had wasn’t enough to get them to the playoffs again and they probably won’t get rid of what they had. The same with the Angels. No one else can afford anyone like Andruw, so we won’t get their prospects, either. We have our own prospects. We raided our own minor leagues unmercifully in 05 and pulled all of our prospects to the bigs. It’s just going to take another year or so before our next batch is ready. Quit freaking out. We will be fine this year and in the future, just with our own system. We only need fine tuning this year. It is NOT a rebuilding year, nor should it be.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

Most sabermetrics is not based on Bill James’s formulas. Most of it is based on correlation and things of that sort. For example the fact that on-base percentage correlates with winning more than any other single percentage or rate stat. There’s no guess work or playing with variables there. Someone just did some studies and found that this was true.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

it’s more objective and can take into account more factors at once than scouting can
There is another mistake right there. This simply is not true. Which is the point BB FAN was making. Sabremetric stats don’t simultaneously factor in the opponent. They are purely one sided when it comes to offensive or defensive stats. When the outcomes of such situations depend entirely on the skills and abilities of both the player and the opponent.
For instance, in Major League, Soriano could hit the ball a mile. He’s in a league were everyone throws fast balls and a few curves. He looks great. His numbers are all there. Lots of HR, a servicable average and OBP and so forth. You sign him and proclaim him to be the next big star. But the numbers didn’t tell you he couldn’t hit a curve ball. Not only could he not hit it, he couldn’t even make contact.

By Arkansas Hillbilly

October 17, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Also acoustic versions of Decoration Day, Do it yourself, Uncle Frank, Where the devil don’t stay, The Company I keep, Outfit, hell I could go on and on……

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

That’s my point…you can’t just use Sabermetrics. A GM has to look at a lot of things other than just stats. You are the one coming to conclusions based on your sabermetrics crap.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Robert-You’re right-should have bought a Lexus. Even so, it should still be kept at least until it’s paid off. Trading Andruw this year is much the same situation as selling with money still owing. No one you get would replace him-hence, negative equity.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

BB FAN,

Three Diaz’s are as valuable as one AJ. Of course, you would need their value to be in different aspects because if not they would play the same position.

How’s this, since I’m having trouble conveying my point about Diaz. This is the same point but much more direct:

Willy Tavarez and Ryan Freel were as valuable in 2006 as Andruw Jones.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Robert, I can’t help but notice you pointed out bias toward players with big names, then said Hudson “was and is” a “high #2” starter. Was, yes. Is? 13-12 with a 4 ERA is a high #2 starter? That’s fulfilling some pretty low expectations. No, the guy isn’t dead yet and yes, he may bounce back and become a #2 starter again (if we were the Yanks or Sox I’d say why not take the chance?), all I’m sayin’ is we can’t afford to have 13.5 per tied up in a guy who may or may not do his job more than once every three starts. I wholeheartedly agree about Ruth, though. Even without the pitching, you could make the case. With it, that doesn’t even allow for argument.

DOB, if you have both of those alblums, then why’d you have to ask which one the song’s on? :-)

10Paul, you have VIDEO from 1887? And it wasn’t “Man doing a back-flip,” or something? Impressive. Not being a smart-a*, I just expect that’s pretty rare.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

Yes, looking at stats you do make some assumptions. You assume that over 600 plate appearances or more, a reasonably healthy player is going to perform more or less up to his abilities. You also have to take certain things into account, like ballpark, league, etc. and the good baseball statisticians do this. You can’t just look at someone’s AVG/OBP/SLG/PA and assume you understand what this player is capable of. You also have to look at his ballpark, his competition, his era, his league, if he was healthy, etc.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Shaun-I’m sorry-Ryan Freel and Willy Tavrez are not more valuable than Andruw. Flat out-there’s absolutely no argument you could possibly make to make me believe that. Dude-you should quit while you’re ahead-you keep getting further and further out in left field. Now the cutoff man can’t even see Juan Pierre.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Wasn’t Bill James the dude who started AA?

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Payne: The point is, you are subtracting one player and replacing with 2. How’s this, since you are having trouble understanding it. There are only 9 positions on the field. You just cleared 1. To replace that 1, you have gotten 2. You can only play 1 of the 2. You lose production from that position now.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Robert,

Babe Ruth was a fat alcoholic that had great skills to play baseball. If he did not work out and take care of his body in the 20’s and 30’s, what makes you think he would today? Now, I don’t blame him for being what he was, that’s his perogative. And hey, I’m not in tip top shape myself. But I just don’t think he would have been as successful, like I said earlier.

And your adjusted numbers do not and can not take into consideration if Ruth and his counterparts had played against the best players in baseball. minorities were not allowed to play. So there is no way of measuring what he might have done against an integrated league. I’m sure he still would have had impressive numbers, but he might not have hit for such a high average or with as much power. Nobody can calculate that!!

All a person can say is that for Ruth’s era (20’s and early 30’s), him, Cobb and Gehrig (and others) were the best. For late 30’s and the 40’s Williams and DiMaggio and few others were the best. For the 50’s and 60’s, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Frank Robinson and a few others were the best. for the 70’s, Reggie Jackson, Bench, Rose, Stargell, and a few others were the best. In the 80’s, it was Jim Rice, Mike Schmidt, Murray, Dale Murphy, Dawson, Ozzie Smith and a few others were the best. the 90’s saw Bonds, Griffey, Belle, Thomas, and others as the best. And today, Pujols, Delgado, A-Rod, Guerrero, Jones (and others) are the best. Each era has it’s own greats.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

“Shuan , the king of the Idiocracy , the legend in his won mind , the Comedy man of this blog. Nice to see you are still arguing in circles , keep up the good work. Andruw is currently tradeable in any fantasy league of your choosing , go for it.”

From the man who thinks the Devil Rays will trade Kazmir or the Pirates will trade Zach Duke for a handful of marginal prospects, that was quite bold.

Dude, you’re the king idiot who talks not in circles but in non-sequitirs

“Robert-You’re right-should have bought a Lexus. Even so, it should still be kept at least until it’s paid off. Trading Andruw this year is much the same situation as selling with money still owing. No one you get would replace him-hence, negative equity.”

I think the negative equity becomes a HUGE consideration if you’re thinking of resigning him. Why take a second mortgage on a house when you can sell, take some profit, and buy new for the same price?

Second, when it comes to cars, there’s German and then there’s poor imitations :P

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Grinch, because I’m sitting in a hotel in St. Louis and don’t have both of those albums with me. But thanks for your interest.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

TennPaul and BB Fan,

I just think it’s rediculous that you reject any statistical analysis or sabermetric analysis when scouting and observation have just as many flaws or more.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly, I’ve never heard of that acoustic set, but that sounds interesting, to say the least. I’d ask you more, but Grinch might dig some deeper meaning into my query.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Shaun-Using the run production stat of Runs +RBI-HR, which is a much more accurate way of evaluating run production——Tavares, 30 RBI plus 83 Runs minus 1HR=run differential of 112. Freel-67Runs plus 27RBIminus 8HR= run differential of 86. Now Andruw-129RBI plus 107Runs minus 41 HR= run differential of 195. So let’s see Tavarez 113, Freel 86 and Andruw 195. Put the two of them together and they barely beat out Andruw. Add to this that Andruw is a far superior fielder to either one and your argument is totally indefensible. A Froggy for you.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

“Willy Tavarez and Ryan Freel were as valuable in 2006 as Andruw Jones.”

That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Well, second dumbest. (Your 2 Diaz’s was the first.) Those two guys, plus 2 Diaz’s, would not be as productive as Andruw Jones. Any GM that makes that trade would be fired within a day.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

“Three Diaz’s are as valuable as one AJ. Of course, you would need their value to be in different aspects because if not they would play the same position.”

What you lose there is the production of the two guys whose positions the Diaz clones are taking

The question is this - for the cost of what it would take to sign Andru, can I sign someone else to play center field and simultaneously upgrade another position such that the team overall becomes better

For example, suppose that I can sign a Carl Crawford for $5 million dollars less per season, and that with that extra $5 million per season, I could fire the manager …………… :P

We know what you’re saying Shaun (and I agree with you in basic principle). But you gotta be real clear and precise about what you are saying and what you mean, to avoid confusing the dopey or giving someone fuel for counterattack

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Hillbilly, what was the other one of the DBTs’ early CDs, the ones that were re-released last couple years? I don’t have that third one, whatever it was, and was wondering if it’s any good. I like Gangstabilly and Pizza Deliverance, but not quite as much as the newer stuff. That stuff’s great, the old stuff just good, to me.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

The point is, you are subtracting one player and replacing with 2. How’s this, since you are having trouble understanding it. There are only 9 positions on the field. You just cleared 1. To replace that 1, you have gotten 2. You can only play 1 of the 2. You lose production from that position now.

Okay, how’s Willy Tavares and Ryan Freel? Those two players were roughly equal to what Andruw Jones provided and were cheaper. The Braves could play Tavarez in center and Freel in left. Or Freel wherever they needed to, if there was an injury. You lose production in center but gain it elsewhere.

It’s better to spread out production on cheap players than to spend all your money on one player. The Rangers and Mariners found this out by trading/letting go of ARod.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Yes, looking at stats you do make some assumptions. You assume that over 600 plate appearances or more, a reasonably healthy player is going to perform more or less up to his abilities. You also have to take certain things into account, like ballpark, league, etc. and the good baseball statisticians do this. You can’t just look at someone’s AVG/OBP/SLG/PA and assume you understand what this player is capable of. You also have to look at his ballpark, his competition, his era, his league, if he was healthy, etc.

I would postulate that you can’t just look at the numbers and assume you understand what this player is capable of. Oh wait: looking at stats you do make some assumptions.

I’d rely more on a scouting report than on a stat report. I wouldn’t throw one out over the other.
Maybe this will help you understand… Stats Reports are good, and so are Scouting Reports. The combined Scoutstat report (SSR) is a good way to evaluate a player. It does have a flaw though, the scouting report (SCR) should be weighted more heavily than the Stat Report (STR). Maybe multiply it by 1.5 or 2. 3 if you really want to, but it isn’t necessary. Personally I like to use 2.71828183 since its a natural number. In the end it would look like this:

SSR = EXP(1) * SCR + STR

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Lew,

“Shaun-Using the run production stat of Runs +RBI-HR, which is a much more accurate way of evaluating run production——Tavares, 30 RBI plus 83 Runs minus 1HR=run differential of 112. Freel-67Runs plus 27RBIminus 8HR= run differential of 86. Now Andruw-129RBI plus 107Runs minus 41 HR= run differential of 195. So let’s see Tavarez 113, Freel 86 and Andruw 195. Put the two of them together and they barely beat out Andruw. Add to this that Andruw is a far superior fielder to either one and your argument is totally indefensible. A Froggy for you.”

Very good points but I’ll take that a step further. You forgot to add in the other guy’s production in addition to Jones that Freel and Taveras would replace. Because you obviously can not put both of them into Andruw’s one spot in the lineup. Thanks for the help in proving that.

By rammerjammer

October 17, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

For what it’s worth, I’ve read the Braves are among five teams interested in Japanese lefthander Kei Igawa. He pitched 200 innings with 194 Ks and a 3.11 ERA for Hanshin. He’s 27. The other interested teams are the Mariners, Dodgers, Mets and Tigers. Here’s the Web site: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/atlanta_braves/index.html

By Lew

October 17, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Robert-We’re talking of keeping him for next year. Resigning him is a totally different issue. As far as “getting something” for him. So what if he leaves for free agency? You get supplemental picks and that huge $13.5 million salary is now freed up. What’s the big deal about prospects in return? Isn’t that what supplemental picks are? Only you get to choose them yourself.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

2006 Win Shares:

Andruw Jones - 25

Willy Tavarez - 13

Ryan Freel - 13

Win Shares are 1/3 of a win.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

We don’t reject the statistical analysis or sabermetric analysis. We just take into account along with the other factors. That is our point, for the 100th time, one can not draw conclusions about a player based solely on sabermtrics.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

The Braves could play Tavarez in center and Freel in left. Or Freel wherever they needed to, if there was an injury. You lose production in center but gain it elsewhere.

Actually no, you now lose the production from Diaz who was in LF. As I recall, it took several of those to equal AJ. It was between 1/2 to 1/3 of AJ’s performance. Let’s assume 1/3. Freel makes up 1/2 I’m guessing, so we see a drop off of 1/3 of the production combined in the outfield from that move. On top of that we lost a clean up hitter. And we took a step back in CF. We can keep trading players I suppose. But, we scored the second most runs in the league… I don’t think we really need to tweak our offense. Our pitching was the problem.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

“I’d rely more on a scouting report than on a stat report”

really?

Tell me, what percentage of the top tier of scouts’ picks end up even making it to the big leagues much less starring in the big leagues.

Why in the WORLD would you rely more on what somebody THINKS a guy MIGHT be someday able to do vs the numbers that give you an admittedly incomplete and imperfect but objective breakdown of what a guy HAS DONE?

If we listened to the scouts and ignore the stats, then guys like Mattingly and Piazza would never seen the big leagues and guys like Brad Komminsk would’ve been roster fixtures north of AAA

By Lew

October 17, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Shaun-Your win shares proves my point-the two players together barely squeek past Andruw. Just like my run differential points out. You can’t replace one player with two and possibly call it equitable.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

A great example is the year that Wade Boggs hit .259 for the Red Sox (I think it was 1992). He had always hit well over .300 so why the drop off? Well, he was going through a nasty divorce at the time. When it was over with by the following year, he was a .300 hitter again with the Yankees. There’s always factors that can not be detected in statistics.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

2006 Win Shares:

Andruw Jones - 25

Willy Tavarez - 13

Ryan Freel - 13

Win Shares are 1/3 of a win.

I’m pretty sure Tavarez and Freel combined made much less than AJones. So you get as much production and you have plenty of money left over to fill other holes. Economics is also a factor because you don’t just trade players, you trade contracts.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Freel and Tavares - ok their win shares add up to Andru’s, but geez, I mean, could we maybe talk about someone who can hit over .280?

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

Shaun-Your win shares proves my point-the two players together barely squeek past Andruw. Just like my run differential points out. You can’t replace one player with two and possibly call it equitable.

But you have to spread your production out. You can’t win with a couple of high-priced great players and a lot of fringe players. It’s better to get solid, relatively cheap players at every position and maybe one or two superstars.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

“A great example is the year that Wade Boggs hit .259 for the Red Sox (I think it was 1992). He had always hit well over .300 so why the drop off? Well, he was going through a nasty divorce at the time. When it was over with by the following year, he was a .300 hitter again with the Yankees”

he may have been a .300 hitter again, but except for 1994, he was never again even close to being the same player. In six of his last eight seasons, Boggs had an adjusted OPS of between 92 and 105 (very very average) - wheras from 1983-1991 he was below 140 (near lock HOFer level) only twice

His wife musta had some kind of chciken recipe

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

really?

Yes. What percentage of baseball players in general make it to the big leagues?

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

“Why in the WORLD would you rely more on what somebody THINKS a guy MIGHT be someday able to do vs the numbers that give you an admittedly incomplete and imperfect but objective breakdown of what a guy HAS DONE”

(I just asked that question of a BC supporter) - what was I thinking? that they’d use LOGIC?

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

DOB, I was just pokin’ at ya, dude, not calling you a liar. Jeez; try the decaf.

BBFAN, the whole “You can’t say Ruth was the greatest because the leagues weren’t integrated and we don’t know what would’ve happened” thing strikes me as kind of pointless. Yes, integration might have made the competition stiffer. It might have stayed the same; it might have watered it down. We’ll never know, because it didn’t happen. Since we can’t draw anything from that, why bring it up? I’d love nothing more than to see an at bat with Paige pitching to Ruth, or Matthewson to Josh Gibson. But I can’t. Gotta go on what there’s footage of and CAN be argued.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

“Robert-We’re talking of keeping him for next year. Resigning him is a totally different issue. As far as “getting something” for him. So what if he leaves for free agency? You get supplemental picks and that huge $13.5 million salary is now freed up. What’s the big deal about prospects in return? Isn’t that what supplemental picks are? Only you get to choose them yourself.”

Lew, I cant say that I know all the details of how compensation works, but if it were that simple, that you get the same but in fact get to pick yourt guys, then I dontn think teams would ever be looking to trade the free-agent-to-bes at the deadline

By ernesto

October 17, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

I think the composition of this team is a little worrisome - and I say that being a fan of every guy on the team.

I’m not as worried about the lack of a true lead-off hitter as I am the lack of guys who know how to work the count. Having A freeswinger on the team is Okay, but we have a lot of them.

the Rotation is a whole bunch of question marks and a stud 40-yr old.

The Bullpen is…..well, we all know what it was, and bringing back Tyler “Who wants a souvenier?” Yates doesnt’ make me feel a whole lot better.

I certainly think this team is better than it’s 2006 season, but I don’t think, given its current composition, that we won’t see it again.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

A great example is the year that Wade Boggs hit .259 for the Red Sox (I think it was 1992). He had always hit well over .300 so why the drop off? Well, he was going through a nasty divorce at the time. When it was over with by the following year, he was a .300 hitter again with the Yankees. There’s always factors that can not be detected in statistics.

Does this prove that statistics cannot be trusted? Do you think a scout could have predicted Wade Boggs would hit only .259? You actually are quoting a stat to prove that stats are unreliable. If stats are so unreliable, how do you know that Boggs wasn’t just as productive in 1992 but it just didn’t show up in the stats?

According to your reasoning, Wade Boggs’s divorce did show up in the stats because his batting average (which is a stat) went down.

So stats are stats reliable or aren’t they?

By Robert

October 17, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Here’s another way to think about it’

Scouts provide a subjective opinion of a player’s TOOLS

Statistics are an imprefect reflection of a player’s SKILLS

Tools and skills are the difference between Oliver Perez and Greg maddux

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

If we listened to the scouts and ignore the stats…

I guess I should have been even more clear and precise about what I mean to avoid confusing the dopey or giving someone fuel for counterattack

I’m scanning back over the posts… nope, can’t find one that says we should ignore the stats completely. That was never the point.

But when drafting you would base your picks more heavily on stats? You have a chance to draft a 17 year old AJ or Pujols, and you’re looking at his stats from little league more than the scouting report to make up your mind as to how he might perform against the best players in the world?

By Robert

October 17, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

“Yes. What percentage of baseball players in general make it to the big leagues? “

Low - and the scouts, for all their self-professed wisdom and knowledge that noone outside the game can even dare to think they could underSTAND, much less possess, dont do that great a job of upping the percentages

They tell us who cant play with good accuracy (not hard to do). They tell us who they think MIGHT could play with great self-assuredness. They tell us who definately CAN and WILL play with a precision akin to deer hunting with a machine gun

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

Taveras and freel are fringe type players.

The Grinch,

Thta’s the point. There’s no way of knowing therefore one can not assume that Ruth was the best ever. That’s why One has to break it down into eras. That way, things are going to be pretty even within a 10-15 year period.

By KC

October 17, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

TennPaul:

“Are you talking about the bad year Smoltz had? The one when his arm blew out and he threw a knuckle ball to get through the season? That’s the year you are using to justify saying Hudson is going to bounce back?”

Did you even look at Smoltz’s career stats before submitting the above post? No, of course I’m not talking about the season before his Tommy John surgery (1999). I’m mildly insulted that you even think I would be dumb enough to that season to Hudson’s. First of all, I remember that season well and I know Smoltz wasn’t himself due to health concerns. Second, it wasn’t even a bad season! He posted a very good 3.19 ERA in 1999.

I’m talking about 1994. That of course wasn’t a full season due to the strike, and it wasn’t quite as bad (6-10, 4.14 ERA) as Hudson’s was this year (13-12, 4.86)… but Smoltz lone sub-par season was prior to the “live-ball” era of the last decade when the offense in MLB exploded. But I do remember that it was a very similar situation. He was struggling for no apparent reason. He just seemed to be a little out of sync that year.

Do what I did TennPaul… go to mlb.com, and look at every pitcher who has finished top-10 in ERA over the last 20 years, and check out their career stats. You will find numerous of a lone bad season in the middle of a bunch of solid ones in the prime of pitcher’s careers. I don’t think you’ll find any instances where a pitcher of Hudson’s caliber didn’t recover. I can’t predict the future… all I’m saying as that historically, good, healthy pitchers bounce right back from the type of season that Hudson just had.

Based on all the factors I can see… I think it is in fact very likely that Hudson will bounce back and have a solid season next year. I’d say the odds are 3-to-1 in favor of Hudson posting an ERA of under well under 4.00 next season. I’ve already got a wager on the table with GRINCH on this one, but if you would like to get in on the action… I’d be happy to include you in a friendly wager.

By KC

October 17, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

TennPaul: Meant to say… “to compare that season to Hudson’s (this year)”

By Arkansas Hillbilly

October 17, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Gangstabilly - 1998

Pizza Deliverance - 1999

Alabama A* Whuppin’(live recording) - 1999 (awesome version of “18 wheels of love” with long spoken intro describing his mama and a truck driver named Chester, the biggest, meanest * * at R&D Trucking)

Southern Rock Opera - 2001

Decoration Day - 2003

Dirty South - 2004

Blessing and a Curse - 2006

Live at Cooley’s must have been around 2004 because it had a few Dirty South songs on it.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Taveras and freel are fringe type players.

Freel had a VORP of 17.9 (He was worth about 17.9 runs more than a fringe player offensively).

Tavares has a VORP of 5.8. He was about 5.8 runs better than a fringe player offensively.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

KC: Good to know. I’m still not 100% sold though. I hope he does. I can’t imagine him being any worse though. We’ll see.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

A great example is the year that Wade Boggs hit .259 for the Red Sox (I think it was 1992). He had always hit well over .300 so why the drop off? Well, he was going through a nasty divorce at the time. When it was over with by the following year, he was a .300 hitter again with the Yankees. There’s always factors that can not be detected in statistics.

If Wade Boggs’s divorce or whatever happened could not be detected in statistics, why did it show up in his statistics (namely batting average as you point out)? I’m still waiting on a explaination. Could it be statistics are more reliable than you would like to admit?

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

KC, you’re gonna be one beer-buyin’ fool if you keep this up. Too bad it ain’t the old launching pad so you could just bring in a cooler from home and save yourelf some money. :-)

By KC

October 17, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Yeah, maybe Hudson doesn’t bounce back next year. But if that’s the case, it will be without precedent (that I can find), at least over the last 20 years.

By geauxbraves2000

October 17, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

The only thing stats mean is what a player has done, it has nothing to do with what a player is going to do. No stats, no prospectus or whatever can predict what any player at any time is going to do. Player A is 0-100 with the bases loaded. Will he get a hit his next at bat with the bases loaded?

I like stats, I like seeing what a player has done in the past in certain situations, but it doesn’t mean he is going to do it again.

Geaux Braves!!

By KC

October 17, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Grinch, so far you’re the only one with the sand to take me up on that bet. I think it’s just cuz you’re a generous guy, and don’t mind buying the drinks. lol

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

KC: I don’t bet against my own team or any of the players. I just can’t do it. Not for beer or thirty peices of silver. I couldn’t live with my self.

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

The only thing stats mean is what a player has done, it has nothing to do with what a player is going to do. No stats, no prospectus or whatever can predict what any player at any time is going to do. Player A is 0-100 with the bases loaded. Will he get a hit his next at bat with the bases loaded?

Past statistical data is a pretty good indicator of future performance. Stats give you an idea of what a player is capable of. Sure, players change. Some work hard and become good and some get lazy or injured and become bad. But generally speaking player performance is largely projectable based on past performance. Anyone want to test this? Here are some projections for 2007:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007zipsprojectionsatlantabraves/

Print them out and file them away and we’ll see how close they come.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

For the 101st time, I never said stats are useless. I said they can not be the only thing that you base conclusions or predictions on. Look back at my posts and you will see that I never said anything like Sabermetrics are useless. I called your sabermetrics bullsh!t because that is the only thing you were basing your conclusions on.

A person has to take everything into consideration. I have said that numerous times.

By KC

October 17, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

TennPaul:

I appreciate your conviction. You’re a good man!

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

BB FAN,

When did I base my conclusions soley on statistics?

If you are talking about Andruw Jones I’m looking at age and statistics.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

10Paul, I’m definitely not gonna root against Hudson. If the season starts and he’s on the mound, I give him the same attention I do anyone else on my team. I hope the guy goes 26-1 with a 0.38 ERA. That’s a beer I’d love to buy. Just havin’ a little friendly wager and going with a gut feeling. I’m a far cry from old Iscariot, I hope. :-)

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Shaun, *”Freel had a VORP of 17.9 (He was worth about 17.9 runs more than a fringe player offensively).

Tavares has a VORP of 5.8. He was about 5.8 runs better than a fringe player offensively.”*

That’s an example of where your stats are a little flawed. I would not give up Andruw Jones for those guys and your 3 Matt Diaz’s. The defense Jones provides and the presence he brings to a lineup is worth more than anything those guys bring.

Now, Freel is a little closer to being useful as long as they throw in two Chuck James types. That would be a deal I would consider. Not sure if I would take it but it would be considered.

“If Wade Boggs’s divorce or whatever happened could not be detected in statistics, why did it show up in his statistics (namely batting average as you point out)? I’m still waiting on a explaination. Could it be statistics are more reliable than you would like to admit?”

I have no idea what the hell you are saying here. You obviously misunderstood my point. The point was that nobody could have guessed that Boggs would have hit .259 in 1992 based on his stats from his previous 10 years because he never hit below .300 in those 10 years. In fact he only hit less than .325 once in those 10 years and that was .302. So going by the stats says he hits over .300 but the divorce distracted him and he had the worst season (.259) of his career.

By KC

October 17, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

I haven’t really weighed in on the Andruw thing… so I’ll do that now.

I don’t see a great deal of evidence that Andruw has lost a step. I’m not convinced of that at all. But even it that is true… he’s still the best center fielder in the game and gets to more flyballs (that he shouldn’t be able to get to) than any other outfielder in the game.

So, if on a scale of 1-10, Andruw went from a n 11 to a 10… I’d say he’s still pretty good.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

“But when drafting you would base your picks more heavily on stats? “

Depends - on who the stats were against. When you are deciding who to promote from the minors, I think the stats should weigh in over the scout

The trouble with stuff like Little League and high school stats is that even the guys who cant really play in the bigs will stand out vastly from the crowd - Take that to the mid to high minors tho, and they wont stand out any longer

So use the two together - the scouts to draft, and then the stats from there.

Too many teams stick too long with suspects who the scouts thought could play even after the stats reflect the fact that they cant

Thing is Paul, you skewed this thing - We were talking abouting evaluating big league players in possibly replacing Andru, or in judging who ranks with whom in terms of history - For those purposes, the STATS far outweight the scouts. EG - Noone thought Ryan Howard could play, but the stats show that all the “they” were just wrong

When challenged on this, you changed the premise to one where now we are talking about who to draft. Tricky, but it didnt work

By Shaun

October 17, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

I have no idea what the hell you are saying here. You obviously misunderstood my point. The point was that nobody could have guessed that Boggs would have hit .259 in 1992 based on his stats from his previous 10 years because he never hit below .300 in those 10 years. In fact he only hit less than .325 once in those 10 years and that was .302. So going by the stats says he hits over .300 but the divorce distracted him and he had the worst season (.259) of his career.

I don’t know. He was 34 in 1992. He had to decline at some point. I don’t remember too much, but I’m sure it was a minor surprise, but not a huge one. But how do you know it was the divorce? He could have been playing hurt or it could have been because he was upset about contract negotiations or anything.

Stats cannot predict the future, but who said they could? Nothing can predict the future—stats, scouts, anything. But certain stats are pretty reliable indicators of player performance, if you take into account other things like age and park effects, etc.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

The stats do not make the game. The stats are the result of the games. Nevertheless, when the stats come against other professional level ballplayers, the stats are a far better predictor of future outcomes than the dreams of the scouts.

Scouts look at how a guy fits into his uniform and dream about what a player he could become, if only the flaws werent there

Thing is, very few players change fundamentally. They either have it or they dont. Now whether they stay on top has to do with how well they continually make adustments. And there are some well documented age-associated bumps and peaks that we can predict with REASONABLE certainty (the big time big league hitter will see a significant bump in prouction somewhere age 23-25 and then again to get to peak at 26-28, for EXAMPLE)

Likewise, guys who have good fundamentals may SEEM to lose that for a while after a promotion as they are initally a little overmatched, but they will gradually come into their own - for example, Barry Bonds had a .223 average and 102/65 K/BB in his first year in the bigs, and then his K/BB and averages improved significantly. But if you look at his (brief) minor league career, he had a 1/1 K/BB ratio at AAA prior to being promoted in 1986. In other words, he didnt change fundamentally to get a better plate discipline several years into his big league career, but rather made the adjustment to do so at the new level

By Robert

October 17, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

“I’m not convinced of that at all”

Whether you (or I, or anyone else) is convicned of something doesnt change whether it’s fact or fiction)

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

*”When did I base my conclusions soley on statistics?

If you are talking about Andruw Jones I’m looking at age and statistics.”*

Frank Robinson, Andruw Jones and every other argument you have made has been backed up solely by stats. Mostly your runs created stat. Like I said, Andruw Jones has played 10 years in the majors and he has 1002 runs created and Frank Robinson played 20 + years in the majors and he had 2062 runs created. However, you say Andruw Jones is not even close to Frank Robinson offensively. Even though your precious baseball-reference says Frank Robinson is the most similar player to Andruw Jones at tthe ages of 28 and 29. Now of course I don’t look too much into that because they also say Ruben Sierra is close to Andruw Jones for many years. And there’s only about 3 years where Ruben Sierra was anything close to Andruw Jones.

Now, I agree that Frank Robinson was a better hitter than Jones is, average wise. But like I said, it’s impossible to fairly judge players from different eras. And anyway, with what Jones gives me defensively, he may be as valuable as Robinson was. It just depends on the team. I believe that as long as Jones avoids major injuries, he will be a Hall OF Famer just like Robinson is.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

We could debate statistics versus scouts until the cows come home, but the Braves currently are a scout driven team. Also statistics during the regular season do not equate into post season success. Thus the A’s situation, never advancing as far as they should.

The Braves need pitching. We need a few young hard throwing prospects. Power pitchers tend to be more successful during the post season. The best bargaining chips we have are Andruw Jones and Salty. Salty’s trade value is down due to his poor AA season. However most know that after he rested his wrist he hit much better. And he is hitting .556 in the AFL. We have McCann and Pena with C Sammons waiting. If we trade Salty it should be for a guy like Humberto Sanchez in the Tigers farm system. Hard thrower like the guys already in the majors. With A Miller waiting he may be available prospect for prospect. The Indians are loaded with pitching as well.

I love watching Andruw Jones play, but I want the Braves to win and I do not feel we have a commitment from ownership to do what is necessary to keep our core players nad add the needed ones. A Jones should be traded if he can improve the Braves starting pitching. The White Sox were offering Brandon Mccarthy and a prospect for A Jones. If that was the case, do it. Mc Carthy will be a front line starter next season. There would be many teams willing to anti up top prospect/players for A Jones.

I do not feel our current starters will get us where we need to go. Get young pitchers for the future.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Noone thought Ryan Howard could play

I haven’t heard of this statement before. How did this guy ever get signed by any team if there wasn’t a soul who thought he could play?

The thing is Robert, I’d still base my choice on scouts as well as stats as I’ve always said. I’d rely more on the scouts, but saying so doesn’t mean I’d toss out the stats if a scout is claiming something drastically different. A scout can give me insight that a stat cannot. Scouts can tell you if the guy is a hot head, how he mixes with other players, his habits and attitudes, a flaw in his mechanics. Those type of things.
Suppose you want to do a trade and you have a chance to pick a pitcher like Hudson. His stats have been in steady decline. But you send your scout out there and he notices a flaw in his delivery. He recommends the trade because he believes that Hudsons work ethic and willingness to take direction will enable him to correct the flaw in his delivery and return to top form. Stats won’t tell you that. They will show you what his top form would look like and what his low form will look like. But you have to use both, and I’d weight the stats with the scouts.
Advanced scouts are also useful. Teams use them a lot. Billy Bean got his first baseball office job as an Advanced Scout. Stats won’t tell you what a pitchers habits are on the mound, how to read his pick off move and the other teams tendancies and weaknesses. (Kirk Gibson, 1988 WS, he hit that homerun as a direct result of a scouting report. Not all reports are written and every body is a scout). Stats will help in some ways, but in others, you need a scout. There’s more to this game than just the numbers.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Here is the proof of my point:

World Series Winners 2005 Chi White Sox - great rotation 2004 Red Sox- Pedro, Lowe, Schilling 2003 Marlins- J Beckett, B Penney 2001 Diamondbacks- R Johnson, C Schilling 2002 Lackey, KRod and Purshival Pitching wins series!

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

And don’t tell me that you would have guessed that after his previous three years he hit .330 in 1989, .302 in 1990 and .332 in 1991. Everybody was shocked…the media, the fans, ect. Nobody could figure out what happened to him. Until a few years later, he admitted to the divorce issues. If you claim to have predicted that, then you are more full of sh!t than I would have thought.

So now you are adding that stats are pretty good indicators if you take into affect age, ballpark, ect. That’s exactly what I (and others) have been telling you. You preached stats, stats, stats until the last couple of posts. I guess you realized what an ignorant idiot you sounded like. Are you a politician by chance? I thought only politicians changed there beliefs based on the audience’s opinion.

By KC

October 17, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

TennPaul:

Hate to butt in but… Given that Hudson was pitching through injury both of the seasons in which he posted a (still very good) 3.50 ERA… I don’t see the “steady decline”. He wasn’t 100% either of those two season and still performed quite well.

Now I do see an obvious sudden decline (his 2006 season), but that’s likely to be an isolated incident.

Okay… that’s all I’ll see on that. I’ll leave the Tim Hudson issue alone now. :0)

By Lew

October 17, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Robert-It is about that simple. Andruw would be considered a TypeA Free Agent. If we offered him arbitration and he signed with someone else, we would get two supplemental picks after the earlier rounds. I think we get compensation even if he is not offered arbitration. Maybe DOB or someone can weigh in on that.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

“Suppose you want to do a trade and you have a chance to pick a pitcher like Hudson. His stats have been in steady decline. But you send your scout out there and he notices a flaw in his delivery.”

Buy low, sell high. In other words, if I can trade for him on value based on NOT having a correctable flaw, then ok. But trading for him ASSUMING a flaw that can and will be corrected? No way. I wanna be on the OTHER end of that deal

I concede your point that both should be used

By Lew

October 17, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Dennis-Where in the world are you getting the information from that Andruw is sought by many teams offering God knows how many prospects? Last season, right before the trade deadline, the only deal we know of is what the Red Sox offered for Andruw. That offer was a total joke. Coco Crisp is not even a marginal player in my estimation and the only prospect they offered was Hansen, who is no big deal. When JS asked them to include Lester, a much better prospect (who since has been diagnosed with cancer), Boston bal;ked and shut down the talks. The only teams wealthy enough to afford his salary do not have the players we would need to trade for. Boston has no pitching, The Yankees have no prospects and as far as the Angels or White Sox, why would they trade for Andruw when they can get Soriano or Carlos Lee without giving up a single player. Andruw WILL NOT BE TRADED. We don’t even need to mention he’s a 10-5 player and can veto any trade.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

“We could debate statistics versus scouts until the cows come home, but the Braves currently are a scout driven team”

Disagree. The Braves are driven not by scouts, but by. No, stop, never mind, dont re-open that can of worms

“Now, I agree that Frank Robinson was a better hitter than Jones is, average wise”

No. Frank Robinson was a FAR better player, than Andru Jones. PERIOD.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

” Salty. Salty’s trade value is down due to his poor AA season. However most know that after he rested his wrist he hit much better.”

Used car salesman?

Try and trade Salty now, with that line, and the correct response would be, If he was so much better than maybe y’all (the Braves) better keep him and lets talk about trading for Sammons or McCann instead

By Robert

October 17, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Well, Lew if it is that simple, then keep him for this year. We agree that RE-signing him is a different issue altogether (I think we should be open, but expect that the prcie will be too high)

“Pitching wins series! “

Not in 91,92,93,96,97,98,99,00,01,02,03,04,05, or ‘06, when you’re the Braves. So what’s the excuse when you have Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, AND a genius manager?

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

KC: =) I knew you’d perk up with that statement. I was about to slip in a qualifier. It was more of a hypothetical than an actual. Hudson having a bad year fit the mold and was the first thing that came to mind.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Dennis, another thing- Have you looked at Brandon McCarthy’s stats? A 4-7 pitcher with a 4.68ERA, who gave up 77 Hits and walked 33 in 84 IP hardly inspires me with warm and fuzzy thoughts, much less as a replacement for a perennial All Star, Gold Glove winner and a guaranteed 35-50HR and 125 RBI. I’m sorry. Throw in another minor leaguer and I’m still not ready to pull the trigger on that deal. Not to mention, you still have to replace those runs, which will probably require spending the salry you just saved by trading Andruw. If you look at Tori Hunter, possibly the closest match to Andruw, both offensively AND defensively (31HR and 98 RBI), you will see the Twins just picked up his option for next year at $12 million. Andruw, at $13.5 mil hit 10 more HR and knocked in 31 more runs than Hunter. You get what you pay for. If you get rid of it, you must replace it.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Lew

The players union is trying to do away with compensation picks for free agents saying it restricts the signing of them. I will try and find the links but the Sox still want to examine trading for A Jones. The Angels do not have that great pitching but they have tons of major league ready prospects. They need offense. Also A Jones said he would consider a trade if it was to the right place. He is represented by Scott Boras and we all know his method does not mesh with the Braves method.

The free agent market is very down especially for pitchers. When Soriano, and Lee sign it will be pretty limited.

I am not saying it wil happen but that it should be a consideration. Notice the co-relation with that quality of the Braves staff and World Series appearances? Last appearances in 2000 and 1998 when we were pretty strong. None since.

Great pitching usually wins.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Predict that some Bobby Cox fan is, as we speak, fighting off a seizure as they type in that the Braves did not have truly outstanding pitching in one or two of the years mentioned previously

And I think I made a typo. I meant to say “genus” instead of “genius”

Equus asinus

Here’s a great page (not baseball)

http://www.orednet.org/~jrachau/defined.htm

They actually ask, “What’s the first thing you think of when a donkey comes to mind?”

By KC

October 17, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

TennPaul:

Are you saying I’m in danger of becoming predictable?

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

My two cents : Hudson made all 35 starts , 23 were quality starts. The Braves went 21-14 in his 35 starts and 218.3 innings. 23 quality starts 21 team wins , 12 bad starts 14 team losses. see the correlation ? Hudson wins two out of every three starts , he is a core pitcher and a winner. End of trade discussion stupidity.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Robert,

Pitching did win the series:

91 A guy named Jack Morris out pitched the Braves

92 93 Remember Jimmy Key and the Blue Jays staff 95 Braves Staff 96 Yankees Wettland, Rivera, Pettite 97 Brown, Leiter etc

Better pitching did win!

As far as Salty he is not as good defensively as McCann. He is 6’4” and 220lbs. He was hurt most of the year but played anyway. After getting rested his average jumped as well as his home runs. Teams can run on him. Similar to Vmart in Cleveland. He is hitting .556 in the Arizona Fall League. He is a stud and everyone knows it. But the Braves like McCann and he is our guy. A move to first may be in order for Salty but it has not happened.

He is a premium trading chip. There is no need to worry about used car talk.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Salty did improve… After July, he batted .338 and collected five of the nine homers he hit this season
According to Mark “W.W.D.W.” Bowman

But trading for him ASSUMING a flaw that can and will be corrected
This is how the Braves ended up with most of the back end of the staffs through the 90s. It worked out well enough. Granted though, it cannot be assumed a given. But at any rate, that’s why you take into account player demeanor. If the player hates and refuses direction, the flaw is going to linger. (See AJ and his swing). Hopefully Francoeur adjusts and produces even more next year.

91,92,93,96,97,98,99,00,01,02,03,04,05, or ‘06
Robert, 2006 is going to be decided by pitching. Tigers pitching. Off the top of my head 1995, 2002, 1997, 2003, 1991, 2005, 2004 were decided by pitching. The White Sox for instance pitched 4 complete games in the post season. And at the same time, all those results came about due to pitching. Poor pitching kept most of the league out of the play-offs. In particular in 2006, poor pitching kept the Braves out of the playoffs. You agree right? Or do you think Sosa, Thomson, Travis Smith, Jason Shiell, Remlinger and Reitsma were WS caliber pitchers?

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

KC: Statistically, yes. =)

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

As far as McCarthy,

Yes but look at his starts not bullpen. His two starts he was lights out. His two starts he went 5 inning each and gave up one hit and two hits against the Twins and Indians.

Lew also understand I hope we keep AJ but he will walk next year with Boras as his agent.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

As far as McCarthy,

Yes but look at his starts not bullpen. His two starts he was lights out. His two starts he went 5 inning each and gave up one hit and two hits against the Twins and Indians.

Lew also understand I hope we keep AJ but he will walk next year with Boras as his agent.

By Robert

October 17, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

“91 A guy named Jack Morris out pitched the Braves

92 93 Remember Jimmy Key and the Blue Jays staff 95 Braves Staff 96 Yankees Wettland, Rivera, Pettite 97 Brown, Leiter etc

Better pitching did win!”

Better managing won in every year except ‘05

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Robert,

“No. Frank Robinson was a FAR better player, than Andru Jones. PERIOD.”

I don’t think you realize the impact player you have been seeing for 10 years. If you don’t think Jones is on pace for a Hall OF Fame career, then you may not know baseball as much as you think.

Statistically speaking, Andruw Jones is either half way to Frank Robinson’s stats or more than half way. (And that includes Shaun’s favorite of runs created). Jones has played in half the seasons as Frank did so that is where he should be. (Robinson - 1829 runs, 2943 hits, 528 2Bs, 723Bs , 586 HRs, 1812 RBIs, 204 SBs, 1420 BBs, 2062 runs created. Jones - 962 runs, 1556 hits, 303 2Bs, 32 3Bs , 342 HRs, 1023 RBIs, 133 SBs, 647 BBs, 1002 runs created and Jones has improved his plate discipline).

However, Jones is far better defensively than Robinson ever was. So I would say they are similar. What Robinson has on Jones in average, Jones makes up for on defense. Jones provides leadership, a presence and plays through injuries like Robinson did. They both change or changed the oppositions game plan offensively and defensively. Teams actually try not to hit the ball to centerfield with Jones there. Similar to what Mays did on defense.

Robinson is considered one of the best ever however, if Jones avoids injuries, he will be as well. I will admit that Jones staying healthy for another 10 years is an “if”, but he has said he wants to play another 10 years. We’ll see but right now he is on pace to finish with over 600 homers and 1800 RBIs and 2000 runs created. Take that and add it to his unbelievable defense and leadership and you have one of the greats.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

Tenn Paul

Good post. We have had nibblers instead of Smoltz type guys who cam throw the heat when needed. What we need are two more young Smoltzies! Of course they are a bit hard to find! Dent

By Lew

October 17, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Dennis-I understand the need for good pitching. What I’m saying is go to the Braves web site and check out our own prospects. Look at Ryan Basner, Phil Stockman, Rich Scalamndre (who we got for Sosa), and Matt Wright at Richmond. Then check out Glen Tucker, Ralph Roberts and Sean White at Miss.. When you’re done with them, check out Matt Harrison at Miss. Believe me, we have our own prospects. Does everyone forget that last year we put a team on the field consisting of 9 home grow players. We have talent in the pipeline. Just look at who we called up last year-Francoeur, McCann, Boyer, McBride, Davies. Look at this year with James, Stockman, Brayan Pena and Thorman. We hit the minors heavy and it will just be another year or so until the next batch is ready. Also, why does everyone think the Braves are broke? We can’t go out and spend like the Yankees, Mets or Red Sox, but we have $$ this year to address neeeds if we trade Giles. In the next couple of years, Chipper’s contract ends, as does Hampton’s and Smoltz’s. That will give us much more $$, even if we sign Andruw to a four or five year deal, which realistically may happen. I really can’t understand this fire sale mentality among fans. The Braves management has repeatedly said they will fine tune the team only-no major pieces will be traded and it is doubtful you will find a Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz deal out there.

By BB FAN

October 17, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

*”Pitching did win the series:

91 A guy named Jack Morris out pitched the Braves

92 93 Remember Jimmy Key and the Blue Jays staff 95 Braves Staff 96 Yankees Wettland, Rivera, Pettite 97 Brown, Leiter etc

Better pitching did win!”*

Very good point. Many people mistakenly think that the Braves have always had the best picthing staff. But they have never had a great bullpen. And power picthing normally beats finesse guys like Maddux and glavine. Especially when they are past there prime.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Lew, you don’t get compensation for free agents not offered arbitration.

Gonna agree with Robert on one thing: Much as I like Andruw and as great as he’s been defensively, he can’t hold a candle to Frank Robinson as an all-around player. Frank Robinson was one of the greatest five or so players for about a decade, in the opinion of many.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Oh Yeah, I almost forgot-Matt Harrison. He’s 11-8 in the minors with a 3.35 ERA and has struck out 114 batters while walking 33. Who says we have no prospects of our own? The kid is 21 years old.

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

The Free agent market for pitchers is down ? Say what ? Roger Clemens , Jason Schmidt , Greg Maddux , Ted Lilly , Mark Mulder , Andy Pettitte and Barry Zito. Those are just the blue chippers. Dennis you should check your facts and engage your brain before you open your mouth.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Dennis-Don’t be so sure Andruw will walk after next year, even with Boras as his agent. If he does, so what. We will have $13.5 million to replace him. If we can replace him.

By David O'Brien

October 17, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Grinch, never drank decaf in my life. Not about to start now.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Better managing won in every year except ‘05

A statistical abirition.
I love your enthusiasm Robert. Every year the Braves take the field you believe, in your heart of hearts, that they are the best team that ever took to the baseball diamond. No team could ever match them. Every year you see them and you say, this team is going to walk over every other team. No other team has anywhere close to the talent as the Braves. How could one fathom that a team could possibly have a better hitting club? A better fielding club? Or even a better pitching team? It’s unheard of! Luck? HA! that is for others, not this team. They shall win on sheer talent. They shall set the level so high that nothing can stop them. Yes, they should be WS winners. Crown them now…oohh if only we could get a new manager…

By Lew

October 17, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

DOB-Thanks, I wasn’t sure about the compensationwithout arbitration. Even so, everyone thinks you get nothing if a free agent walks. Not so. You get his performance when he’s on your team (with Andruw that is considerable) and when they leave you have all of the money you were paying them. Seems reasonable to me. I’m not really in favor of running a team like the Yankees do with all the veterans, but keep in mind, there has really only been one WS winner with all kids. The Marlins may never pull it off again. Look at the vaunted rotation of Beckett, Burnett, Penny and Clement. Just how far did they take the Marlins?

By KC

October 17, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

What is decaf??

By NLCHAMPS

October 17, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

KC, I don’t know if you’re out there but I wanted to make a follow up statement about the questions regarding the Mets rotation. The same things were said during the spring. They went on to win the east and are 2 wins from the World Series. I think many underestimate the arms that we do have in our system. I also think Wright and Reyes will get even better. Peterson has done a good job as the pitching coach(The braves of all teams should know the value of a good pitching coach) and I’m sure one of our young arms will make the starting rotation. making them the team to beat next season.

By Dennis

October 17, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Head Coach

Zito and Schmidt are the top tier. Mulder may never regain his pitching due to his severe injury. Lilly and Maddox are no longer blue chippers. Petitte is servicable but no longer top shelf. Clemmons is super but may finally retire. Like I said once Zito and Schmidt sign the ranks are thin. I question if Zito is worth it anyway. Except for Clemmons who would you want over Smoltz? None of them!

By Jim

October 17, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

I am hearing AROD to the Cubs trade rumors. One set of names I heard was A-Rod for A. Ramirez and Zambrano with perhaps additional throw-ins both ways. Has anyone heard similar rumors?

In predicting the structure of the Mets rotation next year, you have to include Pelfry and Huber in the mix. Both are big prospects who may or may not have a big impact on their staff. Brian Bannister will also be back in the mix for their rotation (as will Zambrano for what he is worth). The Phillies will have Wolf back for the whole year and with a rotation of Hamels, Wolf, and Myers, a speedy leadoff man like Rolins, and stars like Utley and Howard, they will also be a formidable foe — as will the Marlins and possibly also the Nats.

(By the way I am the original Jim, not the one who was posting under this name for the last few days!)

By Robert

October 17, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

“I don’t think you realize the impact player you have been seeing for 10 years. If you don’t think Jones is on pace for a Hall OF Fame career, then you may not know baseball as much as you think.

Statistically speaking, Andruw Jones is either half way to Frank Robinson’s stats or more than half way”

Raw stats - Comparing raw stats from two totally different eras is quite misleading

Now, try something normalized. Frank Robinson had a caeer adjusted OPS of 154. He hit .290 and drove in 1800 runs in an era where .300 hitters and 40 home run seasons were few and far between

Andru Jones has a career adjusted OPS of 117, and a career best adjusted OPS of 133

Andru’s quantitatives look good - but consider - his 51 home run season with 128 rbi and .263 average was good for an adjusted OPS of 133.

Harmon Killebrew in 1967 had 44 home runs, 113 rbi, and hit .269 - that gave him an adjusted OPS of 174

In other words, 40 or 50 home runs aint what it used to be, so by saying he is halfway there or whatever at a relatively early age, it doesnt make the case very strongly

Put another way, if Andru played in Robinson’s time, he’d have 20-25 dingers and about a .220-.240 batting average

Andru is in fact, a big time defensive player, but he does not rank in the top tier of impact players on offense, in this generation, much less all-time

By Robert

October 17, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

“However, Jones is far better defensively than Robinson ever was. So I would say they are similar. What Robinson has on Jones in average, Jones makes up for on defense. Jones provides leadership, a presence and plays through injuries like Robinson did. They both change or changed the oppositions game plan offensively and defensively”

Sorry man, but noone pitches around Andru Jones. And LEADERSHIP? Andru?

Put the crack pipe down

By geauxbraves2000

October 17, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

DECAF?!? Please watch your language. :)

Geaux Braves!

By Robert

October 17, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

“Crown them now…oohh if only we could get a new manager”

Now would be pushing it, but if you take 91,92,93,95,96,97,99,00, and ‘01, you coulda crowned ‘em at LEAST three and quite feasably six times in that period, if only …..

But we’ve been round and round (and round) on that one

Yes TP, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, and Chipper, and McGriff, and Justice, yes, they WERE THAT good

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Sorry man, but noone pitches around Andru[w] Jones.

Except Kenny Rogers in 1999 =)

By Head Coach

October 17, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Zito is 29 , Lilly is 30 and Schmidt is actually a Braves product( now you learned something new today). Zito is 102-63 lefty with a 3.55 ERA and you wouldnt want him ? your Funny ! Schmidt is 33 with a career 127-90 record and 3.91 ERA .Clemens(spelled properly) is actually less of a bargain at this point in his career unless you consider the 3.1 million per victory the Astros paid in 2006 a bargain. Thats a four month 22 million contract and a 7-6 record. So keep talking Dennis , you make me smile.

By NLCHAMPS

October 17, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

JIM, Your point regarding Pelfrey and Humber are correct. Pelfrey great poise and stuff in his few starts. I think he will be in the rotation. Humber is coming back from and injury and we’ll have to wait before we can make any assessments on him. Bannister to too much of a “nibler” for me to think he’ll make the rotation. His starts were high in pitch count due to his constant nibling. He’s have 100 pitches by the 4th or 5th inning. I do predict Glavine, Trachsel and El Duque will not be back. Their rotation has got to get younger.

By Metropolitan Man

October 17, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry NL champs, gotta disagree. Traschel most likely wont be back next season, Glavine definately yes. Bannister was alrigt and if you look at the Tigers, we have a bunch of young guns ready to get a start next season. And lets not forget about the wild card D. Willis. Trade talk is gonna start about him. Like I said before, the METS are now an atrractive franchise with money, its gonna be hard to say no to them. Delgodo turned us down before and he couldnt be happier, thats a sales pitch that cant fail.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

Matt Lehr just got busted for using steroids. Matt Lehr. Q: Is there anything more embarrasing than having to use steroids to get UP to being the worst player on the Falcons offensive line? That guy is the definition of weak link on a weak unit. Well, good thing this didn’t come at an inopportune time, or anything.

By NLCHAMPS

October 17, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

Metroman….Glavine does have the best chance of the three I mentioned but Bannister nibbles and nibbles. His fast ball avg’s 85 MPH. I can’t see him in the Rotation. D. Willis would be great but I don’t think Florida will trade him since payroll is not an issue and their new manager may insist he not be traded before he accepts the job. There may be other trade possibilities Minaya is working on as we speak. One thing I am confident in is that Minaya will have an improved rotation set for 2007.

By Robertq

October 17, 2006 06:13 PM | Link to this

“Sorry man, but noone pitches around Andru[w] Jones.

Except Kenny Rogers in 1999 =)

THAT was highly funny

By Lew

October 17, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Metro Dude-What makes you think Dontrelle is up for grabs this offseason? He’s still cheap and I would think the Marlins don’t need anymore cheap talent. They already robbed everyone in their firesale. I’m coming down to Atlanta next Labor Day and intend to go with Grinch to see the Mets. Want to come with us? Apparently either Grinch or KC will be buying the other’s beers. I may need help carrying them.

By Ron Roberts

October 17, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

impartial observer

KC, you’re not an impartial observer, man. You’re a damn fine Braves fan, but an impartial observer you are not.

We can if/but the Pedro Martinez situation, but we have our if/but situation(s) with Mike Hampton and Horacio Ramirez. HoRam hasn’t had a full, healthy (or even close to one) season in a long time now, and Mike Hampton’s an enigma until otherwise proven.

So we go with Smoltz and Chuck James and Tim Hudson as our givens, but I’m only confident about one of ‘em, and here’s a clue who it is… it’s the elder hurler. I like what I saw from Chuck James and think he’s gonna be dynamite for a long time, but the term “sophomore slump” isn’t around for nothing, and I’m just not convinced Tim Hudson’s gonna ever be the kind of pitcher we expected him to be.

Going into 2007 with a proven closer makes the Braves about 10 games better, in my estimation, but that’s still behind the Mets.

And any move they amke to improve this team that includes shipping off Andruw will have a negative effect on our offense, period. If we get a knockout starter for him, then we’re back to what we were before 2001…an average-hitting team with good-to-exceptional pitching.

Is that enough to win the division, let alone a World Series? Ehh, hard to say.

But the Mets would have the better lineup, and we’d have at least two question marks in our rotation after an offseason that’ll assuredly see them sign a Schmidt or Zito, too.

By Metropolitan Man

October 17, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

You can count me in. I’m definatley up for some good old rivalry baseball next season. And the reason I say Dontrell is the wild card is becasue the fish will be strapped for at least 2 more years and if the right deal came along why not trade dontrell. They tried an even swap at the begining of the year with D. Wright for D. Willis so I know he can be had. Besides Dtrain is pretty close to cashing in any year now so I have hope. And forget next season, who is trying to go to the sports bar to catch dem METS this season, 1st couple of rounds on me.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

Man. Metro Man was gonna by me beer if I showed up last week and I didn’t. So I guess I owe him. If we go to a game it looks like KC will buy mine, I’ll buy Metro’s…maybe we can all chip in on Lew. Hell, let’s just get a keg and have done with it. :-)

By Metropolitan Man

October 17, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

Now that baseball has evloved I agree with Lasorda. Championships are won and lost in the bullpen. Because we dont have strong pitchers like we did prior to the 80’s, getting a strong bullpen is all too important. So with that said I dont think it will matter how you start a game, but how you finish. So next year look for alot of teams starting pitching to look suspect but have strong pens that will keep them in the race. We saw plenty of it this year and the cat is out of the bag. No wonder alot of teams overspent on just releif. And in turn this will drive starting pitching prices up again like Gasoline.

By NLCHAMPS

October 17, 2006 07:19 PM | Link to this

Even all you Glavine haters have to admit he’s looked fantastic so far. I hope he can keep it up tonite and get us back to NY with a 3-2 lead. Then we could end it at home. El Duque will be back to help us in the WS!!!!

By journalist jimmy smith

October 17, 2006 07:26 PM | Link to this

it is a big day in hip hop judging from the front page of ajc.com. and didn’t rapper fabolous once play for the indians? dob may soon be a columnist but until baseball season rolls around again dob should cover hip hop for the big stories in the ajc. now, the 300,000,000th american arrived today - in a hospital or over a fence. this journalist thinks there should be a few left-handed pitchers available in 300,00,000 people. still, bobby would probably come back with remlinger and call him a lefty. now, baseball … imagine if chipper and andruw had ever combined in the playoffs for production like beltran and delgado this year.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 07:46 PM | Link to this

That was hilarious, Jimmy Smith. In a hospital or over a fence. Yeah, I’d say 300,000,000 is about 200,000,000 too many. But nobody ever asks me.

By andrew

October 17, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

any news of the braves selling yet. if we get owners who actually want to spend money we have the core to be really good

By journalist jimmy smith

October 17, 2006 08:03 PM | Link to this

journalist has found a left-hander for the braves. read on:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -Former Dodgers left-hander Fernando Valenzuela has a new teammate as he begins his third season with the Mexicali Aguilas of the Mexican Pacific League - his son.

Fernando Valenzuela Jr., a first baseman playing winter ball for the first time, spent last season with the Mobile Bay Bears, the Double-A affiliate of the Arizona Diamondbacks. At age 24, he is the oldest of Valenzuela’s four children.

The elder Valenzuela, who turns 46 next month, had a 173-153 record and a 3.54 ERA in 17 big-league seasons - 11 with the Dodgers. He was the NL Cy Young Award winner and Rookie of the Year in 1981, when the Dodgers won the World Series.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 08:14 PM | Link to this

Grinchy-You know I’m the designated driver. My beer drinking days have been done for many years. I’ll just laugh my a$$ off at the rest of you.

By Robert(Justice Is The Best)

October 17, 2006 08:18 PM | Link to this

Journalist Jimmy Smith, that fence comment was wrong, man. But, damn funny!

Now, I think the Mets will probably dust off the Cardinals but anyone who thinks they can beat the Tigers are crazy. The Tigers have far superior starting pitching and their bullpen is ever bit as good as the Mets. Besides, the Tiger starters aren’t going to be afraid of that big bad Mets lineup. They did tame what some called the best lineup ever assembled, didn’t they? As good as the Mets lineup is, its nowhere near the Yanks lineup.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 08:21 PM | Link to this

Yeah, 300,000,00 and less than 1 million live in Vermont. Y’all getting a clue as to reasons why I’m here? It’s almost worth the snow. At least the snow gives me all the more reason to hit spring training. To thaw out.

By Robert(Justice Is The Best)

October 17, 2006 09:09 PM | Link to this

Lew, I bet Vermont is a nice place to live. That is one of the places I have always wanted to visit.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 09:12 PM | Link to this

Looks like Glavine did his usual. He was all over the place in the first, but the Cards obliged him by swinging at ball 4 every time. Now he’ll settle into a groove for about 6 innings. Lew, thank god you’re the DD; I expect we’ll need one.

Head Coach, Fernando’s only 46 and still has a winning record and a 3.59 ERA (which has probably gone up a full point in the last couple of seasons). By your logic, we’d be “idiots” to pass him up based on his career numbers. Now if we could just coax Don Sutton and Phil Neikro back into uniform to go with Ferdy, Smoltz and Hudson our numbers would make us the best rotation ever! Never mind that Smoltz is the only one within rifle shot of his prime.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 09:26 PM | Link to this

Should’ve added “in terms of current production.” Tim Hudson’s still young enough to pitch well, but then so am I.

By Lew

October 17, 2006 09:45 PM | Link to this

RJIB-Email me at lewhartman@adelphia.net and I’ll send you fall pictures. Right now it’s getting cold and will get even colder. In the summer and fall, though, it’s as nice as anywhere I’ve ever seen.

By ssiscribe

October 17, 2006 10:10 PM | Link to this

ATL SOUTHSIDE — I’m going back to watch the game shortly. I have no takes, no comments, no analysis, other than to say JJS’ comment of “in a hospital or over a fence” is one of the funniest things I’ve read since I started getting on here last offseason.

So wrong, yet so funny. JJS, have you checked the toes of the 300-millionth American? After all, toes are not to be trifled with.

(And, sentences aren’t to be ended in prepositions, but moving along …)

Cards GOTTA win tonight to have any chance of advancing. But, it’s a moot point regardless. I’ll take Motown in five, no matter who the Tigers play.

Later on, denzines. Any good gigs coming up at Smith’s? I need me some good barbecue! Enjoyed some of my old-school fare at Hudson’s in DVille last weekend.

—30—

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 10:20 PM | Link to this

Now would be pushing it, but if you take 91,92,93,95,96,97,99,00, and ‘01, you coulda crowned ‘em at LEAST three and quite feasably six times in that period, if only

Now you’re getting closer. Could of crowned them at least 3 to 6 times. Well, one of those years they did get the crown, so now were down to 2 to 5 other years that you’d say they were the best team in baseball, but didn’t win it all. So of the run, by your count, 13 of the years, 2 to 5 should have ended in a WS victory. This means that 8 to 11 of those years it wasn’t a “sure thing.” So 8 to 11 of those years there is no excuse needed. By your account, they weren’t the best team in baseball.

We can quible over those 2 to 5 times, but it’s pointless. They didn’t win. I would agree that there are a handful of times I think they were the best team and should have won. Sh!t didn’t pan out that way though. So beit.

Next year is were it all begins again. JS is going to make the right moves and the NL East is going to be a Beast again. So no one in baseball is going to be able to look at next years NL East victor and claim they played in a weak division. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a WS contender from the NL East and I hope it’s the Braves.

By The Grinch

October 17, 2006 10:23 PM | Link to this

I just had some pretty good ribs, Scribe, but then I cooked them. It stands to reason. Speaking of pork, the Mets bullpen just saved Glavine’s bacon. Did anyone else notice when they showed his pre-game interview that he looks and sounds now like he’s from New York? Even got the big chain on his neck and that odd contortion of the mouth when he speaks. At least now he identifies with somewhere; he used to just look and sound like a robot.

By TennesseePaul

October 17, 2006 10:25 PM | Link to this

Alright. What is up with Weaver??? I want answers. We can pick on Bonds all off season but this is getting to be obsurd. This is back to back games that Weaver has kept them in there and that is HIGHLY uncharacteristic.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 17, 2006 10:44 PM | Link to this

trifle not with toes? with toes one must not trifle? toes are not those with which to trifle? journalist is having a hard time with this one, scribe. “toes are not to be trifled with” sounds alright to this journalist. perhaps the wurlitzer winner can re-word this sentiment for journalist jimmy smith. dob has did it before for jimmy smith. in the meantime, there are significant toe issues facing the 2007 braves team. this journalist predicted toe woes in the spring - and oh, this journalist wishes this journalist had been wrong. now, sensitivity and political correctness … jimmy smith is ashamed that this journalist suggested the 300,000,000th American may have come in over a fence. sometimes this blog gets this journalist in trouble.

By berigan

October 17, 2006 10:54 PM | Link to this

TennesseePaul, even with tonight’s start, Glavine has given up only 4 runs in 3 playoff starts this year, and Kenny Rogers had something like an 8.89 Playoff ERA before this year….that’s why I love this game above all others.

By JJMB

October 17, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this

journalist jimmy smith,

other considerations would be: crawling through a tunnel, flying in on an airplane, being smuggled in a truck, being smuggled in a car, being smuggled in a ship or boat, walking through open land, or simply running through a border check point.

By berigan

October 17, 2006 11:00 PM | Link to this

journalist jimmy smith Ever what the T.V. series back in the late 80’s/early 90’s starring Ken Wahl and Kevin Spacey, Wiseguy?? Only the toes knows!

By Tomahawkin

October 18, 2006 12:24 AM | Link to this

Gawd A-Lot of people on the Cards Bandwagon up in here…Try living up here with their fans and You guys will join me on the Tigers bandwagon…Since I hate both teams I hope Leyland and the Tigers wipe the Floor with whoever represents the National League in the Series…

BTW anyone notice how into the game the cardinal crowd was??? Now thats how you represent yo team at the ballpark

OT Did anyone catch the FIU Football game at the U in the OB, That commentator is crazy…I thought It was funny, It sounded like he was Miami Alumni again…

D.O.B. There is a breakup music blog, I’m suprised that you’re not on it

U know I had to throw my insights on some smooth R&B…

By The Grinch

October 18, 2006 12:30 AM | Link to this

And Adam Wainwright gets the save. Lovely. The Cards are gonna get torched by the Tigers. Berigan, I remember “Wiseguy.” Didn’t that guy kind of remind you of Chris Noth from “Law & Order?”

Jimmy Smith, my aunt Nancy used to make a desert she called a “trifle.” As far as I know, it contained no toes. Perhaps she is wiser than she seems. :-)

JJMB, you forgot swimming across a river.

By David O'Brien

October 18, 2006 12:38 AM | Link to this

THIS JUST IN: Adam Wainwright is really good. That’s two saves and eight strikeouts in 5-2/3 scoreless innings of five postseason appearances. Damn.

By the way, expect the Mets to make a serious bid for Soriano, for sure, and probably for Zito. That’s what I’m hearing here.

By Tomahawkin

October 18, 2006 12:46 AM | Link to this

The Cold Part about it, Is that could’ve been Wainwright wearing a Braves jersey closing games out there…I see him as their closer next year…

By Head Coach

October 18, 2006 12:49 AM | Link to this

The Cardinals just went up 3-2 in the N.L. Championship series. They have thier ace Chris Carpenter pitching game six. Bye bye Mets , nice knowing you. I feel sorry for the Cardinals in the W.S. , those Tigers are just about unbeatable.

By The Grinch

October 18, 2006 12:49 AM | Link to this

Oh lord, DOB. Are they really trying to replace Cliff Floyd’s production? :-) I shouldn’t joke about that; that may put them over the top for once.

T’Hawkin; wat’s up, Mutha&%*%#? The series is gonna be a joke, whoever’s playing. Might as well get into some swervin’ music.

By Tomahawkin

October 18, 2006 12:55 AM | Link to this

Grinch Don’t Call me that, I’m Sensitive, lol, I will be 4 the Tigers all series, That team gives me memories of what It was like being in school in Atlanta in 1991

By Tomahawkin

October 18, 2006 12:57 AM | Link to this

I’m sure glad we didn’t Sign Cliff Floyd when he was a free agent a couple of years ago…I don’t see Floyd on the Mutts Roster in 2007

BTW Where are all da Mutt Trolls at? I thought they were going to flood up these blogs wit their nonsense…

By Head Coach

October 18, 2006 01:14 AM | Link to this

LOL , Tomohawkin/Grinch. the same blogger talking to himself. Dude dont put your? right next to a word without spacing it. you give yourself away.

By Drummerdad

October 18, 2006 01:42 AM | Link to this

DOB, I am not convinced that Schuerholz will keep Tim Hudson. Seems like you had a line from him not too long ago that indicated Huddie as being an afterthought when he was asked about next year’s starters. And I’ll be dogged if we ought to let the Meets grab Soriano. Why spend big bucks on Glavine when we could use that towards a deal to lure Alfonso? Pardon my banal kneejerk.

By berigan

October 18, 2006 01:55 AM | Link to this

Where would the Mets be without Glavine? Where would the Cards be without Wainwright?? Better question…where would the Braves be right now with those 2 players?

By The Grinch

October 18, 2006 02:23 AM | Link to this

Back again. Head Coach, what? Not only am I the most outspoken person on this blog as far as multiple personalities go (which makes you accusing me of m/p blogging beyond ridiculous), you’re suggesting that question marks need a space before them to be grammatically correct? I’ve gleaned from past observation that we both tend to drink heavily at night; I’ll chalk this one up to that and let it go.

Berigan, there are a whole lot of things from women to cars that I wish I hadn’t let go. As a wise man once said: “Doo-doo occurs.”

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

BBFAN,

First of all, no one is denying Andruw Jones isn’t a great player, a Hall of Fame player. But Frank Robinson is better. Here are their career highs in AVG/OBP/SLG:

AJ - .303/.366/.575

FR - .342/.421/.637

Here are their career numbers:

AJ - .267/.345/.505

FR - .294/.389/.537

It’s not really that close and AJ played in a better offensive era. AJ’s superior defense makes up for that big a difference.

As far as stats go, I use them a lot but they are not the only things I use to construct arguments. I remember making an argument about Tim Hudson’s higher walk rate with the Braves perhaps because Atlanta’s philosophy and Oakland’s philosophy are different in terms of pitching around hitters and because he issues more walks to the #8 hitter in the NL.

Statistics are simply the best and most complete way to measure player performance. I challenge anyone to find a better way. Notice I didn’t say stats were perfect or you could look at only stats, but I did say they were the best way to evaluate player performance. Obviously it would be rediculous to NOT look at other factors when judging players. Even anti-stat people probably agree that stats are the best way to measure player performance. Even you, when you brought up Wade Boggs, used a stat—batting average—as an indicator that he had a down year in ‘92.

I think you are uptight because you think I am disrespecting Andruw Jones or something. I’ve said that I think he’s amazing and a probable Hall of Famer. Just because I think the Braves should trade him if the right deal is out there or just because I don’t think he’s quite as good as Frank Robinson was doesn’t mean I’m anti-AJ or I would be jumping for joy if the Braves traded him.

By Robert

October 18, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

“JS is going to make the right moves and the NL East is going to be a Beast again.”

As in the beast of burden in the Braves dugout

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

And don’t tell me that you would have guessed that after his previous three years he hit .330 in 1989, .302 in 1990 and .332 in 1991. Everybody was shocked…the media, the fans, ect. Nobody could figure out what happened to him. Until a few years later, he admitted to the divorce issues. If you claim to have predicted that, then you are more full of sh!t than I would have thought.

Here’s a quote from Wikipedia:

Boggs admitted in 1988 to 12 counts of adulterous affairs, and many baseball observers felt a lawsuit filed against Boggs by a former mistress in 1989 distracted Boggs that year.

Wouldn’t his poor performance show up in 1988 or 1989? Why did it take him four years to become so distracted that his batting average dropped?

Could it have been that 1992 was his last year in Boston and contract issues caused him to slump? Could it have been injuries?

Here’s a quote from a piece on Boggs in the Boston Globe:

It [1989] was the only time that Boggs seemed affected by outside forces. He’d been able to keep hitting through the snubs in the minors, the death of his mother, and the calamity of the palimony suit, but it wasn’t until he felt betrayed by the Sox front office that he finally stopped hitting .300.

“The only bitter taste that I had with the Red Sox was with the way the front office handled that whole thing at the end,” said Boggs. ”The thing that blew up everything was the death of Mrs. Yawkey. We had a five-year deal on the table and Mrs. Yawkey wanted me to sign that five- year deal. She told me in the parking lot at Fenway Park at the end of 1990. She said, ‘We have a five-year deal on the table and we want you to sign and we’re going to keep you in Boston because we want you to follow along the same lines as Ted and Carl.’ She died in 1991. I still had a year left and she wound up dying and when she did, they pulled it off the table. We sat down and said, ‘Where’s the five-year deal?’ and they said it was no longer on the table. It was John Harrington, John Donovan, Haywood Sullivan, and Lou Gorman. They said, ‘Here’s the deal — a year and an option.’ “

True, no one predicted that Boggs would have a down year in 1992. But maybe they would have thought it possible if they had known what was going on behind the scenes with his contract situation. Boggs probably still had the ability to hit well over .300, but just didn’t that year. Just because a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on heads, doesn’t mean it’s going to in 50 out of 100 flips.

Stats give you the best snapshot of a player’s ability. Yes, there are factors you can’t predict, but under normal conditions most players’ numbers are predictable.

So what is your point? What do you suggest, ignoring stats? Well, I don’t think a scout or even a psychologist could have predicted that Boggs would have had a down year in ‘92.

It was just as likely Boggs would have hit over .300 in ‘92. He didn’t because of external factors that no one could have predicted. Still, player performance is generally predictable based on stats, age, park effects and playing time, so you’d be a moron if you ignored stats. No one said you should look only at stats. But stats are the best way to get a somewhat close to complete snapshot of player ability.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

First of all, no one is denying Andruw Jones is a great player, a Hall of Fame player, I meant to say.

By The Grinch

October 18, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Fixin’ to go to Athens. Anyone want anything from the Varsity?

By KC

October 18, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Maybe it’s time to drug test Jeff Weaver. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED WITH THIS GUY???

A couple weeks ago he looked like he should change his name to Jorge Reitsma. Now… What in the @&#^#^ is going on with this guy???

By BB FAN

October 18, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Shaun,

“I think you are uptight because you think I am disrespecting Andruw Jones or something. I’ve said that I think he’s amazing and a probable Hall of Famer. Just because I think the Braves should trade him if the right deal is out there or just because I don’t think he’s quite as good as Frank Robinson was doesn’t mean I’m anti-AJ or I would be jumping for joy if the Braves traded him.”

I never thought you were disrepecting him nor did I think you were anti-AJ. I just don’t think people realize how good he has been. And of course, he still has a long way to go before he is a Hall Of Famer. But he has a great start.

And your comment of 2 Matt Diaz’s OR Chuck James would replace Jone production was comical and simply rediculous. There’s no way Matt Diaz should be mentioned in the same sentence as Andruw Jones.

By NLCHAMPS

October 18, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Glavine’s pitches were up all nite and got hit. I’m disapointed but not surprised by the outcome. The Cards have a great home record. They only had two less wins at home than the Mets. This series will go seven. We’ve been down 3-2 before (1986)and got it done……..LETS GO METS!!!

By KC

October 18, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

Dear Impartial Observer Ron Roberts,

(In reference to your 6:26pm post)

First of all, if you’re of the opinion that I always look at the Braves through rose colored glasses, you never heard me opine on our team a couple years ago that featured Jaret Wright and Russ Ortiz as our top two starters. I was pretty hard on that team. Anyway, as to the Braves rotation next year, Mike Hampton, and Horacio Ramirez… Regard me as a blind optimist if you like, but take a look at the facts before you dismiss what I’m saying.

Mike Hampton: • Is Mike Hampton “injury prone”? 2005 was the first season in 9 years in which Hampton failed to make at least 29 starts. (Making less than 30 starts only once over that period) He’s have had the full 18 month recovery period that it takes to fully recover from Tommy John surgery. Pitchers almost never show ill effects 18 months after the fact anymore. • Hampton’s (non-Colorado) career numbers: 117-73, 3.57 ERA • After leaving Colorado, it took Hampton a half-season to get his head and mechanics straight again. Then from the all-star break of 2003 (his first year in ATL) until he went on the DL last year… his numbers as a Brave were: 16-6 with a 3.43 ERA. • From the all-star break of 2004 until he went on the DL last year, Hampton went 13-2 with a 2.54 ERA. He was throwing the ball as well as anyone in baseball when he got hurt last year (he was 4-1 with a 1.83 ERA on the 2005 season before getting hurt). HORACIO RAMIREZ: Over his first two seasons in Atlanta (2003/2004), HoRam went 14-8 with a 3.59 ERA, and the Braves regarded him as a top-of-the-rotation kind of lefty in the making. (He missed much of the ’04 season due to injury). He enjoyed a healthy season last year (’05), but had an “off” season, posting a 4.63 ERA, but the Braves never lost faith in him. This year he again missed much of the season due to injury, and his 2006 season when he was on the mound was peculiar. In his very first start of the season, he left the game early and headed straight to the disabled list. His last start of the season was one in which he also left early and was immediately placed on the DL. In both instances he tried to pitch through his problems before finally alerting BC that he couldn’t keep going. With that in mind, for the purposes of evaluating his 2006 season… let’s toss those 2 starts out and focus on the 12 starts he made between DL stints. In those 12 starts, Ramirez went 5-4 with a 3.89 ERA. Over that stretch, he was either remarkable or awful every time out… there was no in between. The good news is that he was mostly remarkable. He made nine outstanding starts in which we went 5-1 with 1.70 ERA. The other good news is that Roger MCDowell got him sinking the ball more, and his HR-per-9 innings ratio was cut in half from the previous year. In short, Ramirez had 3 terrible outings, and 9 truly outstanding ones. He certainly showed again this season the type of pitcher he’s capable of being. If you take away those 3 bad starts, he looked like a guy who could compete for CY Young at some point. But even with those 3 horrible outings, a 3.89 ERA is almost identical to the ones that guys like Glavine, Zito, and D.Willis posted this year. There are concerns about HoRam’s ability to stay healthy… and those concerns are legitimate, but his ability isn’t questioned by anyone who’s paid attention.

By KC

October 18, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Sorry, didn’t mean to run it all together… (little hard to read)

Dear Impartial Observer Ron Roberts,

(In reference to your 6:26pm post)

First of all, if you’re of the opinion that I always look at the Braves through rose colored glasses, you never heard me opine on our team a couple years ago that featured Jaret Wright and Russ Ortiz as our top two starters. I was pretty hard on that team. Anyway, as to the Braves rotation next year, Mike Hampton, and Horacio Ramirez… Regard me as a blind optimist if you like, but take a look at the facts before you dismiss what I’m saying.

Mike Hampton:

• Is Mike Hampton “injury prone”? 2005 was the first season in 9 years in which Hampton failed to make at least 29 starts. (Making less than 30 starts only once over that period) He’s have had the full 18 month recovery period that it takes to fully recover from Tommy John surgery. Pitchers almost never show ill effects 18 months after the fact anymore.

• Hampton’s (non-Colorado) career numbers: 117-73, 3.57 ERA

• After leaving Colorado, it took Hampton a half-season to get his head and mechanics straight again. Then from the all-star break of 2003 (his first year in ATL) until he went on the DL last year… his numbers as a Brave were: 16-6 with a 3.43 ERA.

• From the all-star break of 2004 until he went on the DL last year, Hampton went 13-2 with a 2.54 ERA. He was throwing the ball as well as anyone in baseball when he got hurt last year (he was 4-1 with a 1.83 ERA on the 2005 season before getting hurt).

HORACIO RAMIREZ: Over his first two seasons in Atlanta (2003/2004), HoRam went 14-8 with a 3.59 ERA, and the Braves regarded him as a top-of-the-rotation kind of lefty in the making. (He missed much of the ’04 season due to injury).

He enjoyed a healthy season last year (’05), but had an “off” season, posting a 4.63 ERA, but the Braves never lost faith in him. This year he again missed much of the season due to injury, and his 2006 season when he was on the mound was peculiar.

In his very first start of the season, he left the game early and headed straight to the disabled list. His last start of the season was one in which he also left early and was immediately placed on the DL. In both instances he tried to pitch through his problems before finally alerting BC that he couldn’t keep going. With that in mind, for the purposes of evaluating his 2006 season… let’s toss those 2 starts out and focus on the 12 starts he made between DL stints.

In those 12 starts, Ramirez went 5-4 with a 3.89 ERA. Over that stretch, he was either remarkable or awful every time out… there was no in between. The good news is that he was mostly remarkable. He made nine outstanding starts in which we went 5-1 with 1.70 ERA. The other good news is that Roger MCDowell got him sinking the ball more, and his HR-per-9 innings ratio was cut in half from the previous year. In short, Ramirez had 3 terrible outings, and 9 truly outstanding ones. He certainly showed again this season the type of pitcher he’s capable of being. If you take away those 3 bad starts, he looked like a guy who could compete for CY Young at some point. But even with those 3 horrible outings, a 3.89 ERA is almost identical to the ones that guys like Glavine, Zito, and D.Willis posted this year.

There are concerns about HoRam’s ability to stay healthy… and those concerns are legitimate, but his ability isn’t questioned by anyone who’s paid attention.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Sounds like Soriano’s price is going to soar! After securing Lou for the Cubs, rumors began swirling that the Cubs will make a major acquisition. The Chy-town papers are saying they are aiming for Soriano along with a pitcher or other prominant player.

I’ve gotta say, that LCS commercial that MLB is running with Tommy Lasorda is hilarious. He’s response to finding out they guy is a Cubs fan is just classic. I laugh every time I see it.

By Lew

October 18, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Shaun-I never thought you were disrespecting Andruw. My problem was with your substituting Freel and Tavares for him and thinking two players replacing one was even vaguely equitable, despite salary differences. Any time you have to replace one player with two, you are not duplicating production. It is an impossibility. No matter what stats you pull out of thin air.

By Steve

October 18, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Dave,

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported this morning that the Indians would look at Marcus Giles. Don’t know who they would give up, but I think it’s time to give Aybar and Prado a chance. Also, I’m also worried about all the guys leaving the front office (Tyrone Brooks the latest, after Moore, Picollo, and several others) and that Blauser won’t be returning to Mississippi. Makes you wonder who’ll fill all these positions once John and Bobby retire and who the support system is in the meantime. Any thoughts?

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

KC: Your points on Hampton have been well made. But Ramirez… if that guy can’t be labeled injury prone, then no one can. His HR to 9 inning ratio was cut in half? Over a grand total of 14 starts. I’ll agree, he was great when he was on, but horrid when he was off. I hope he can come back on top of his game next season, but his injury is the same one Thomson had, and that didn’t turn out too well for Thomson. We’ll see, but I’d still like to see another proven, solid, top of the line, young, phenom with a healthy track record in the rotation. I don’t know if we’ll get one, but that’s the dream.

By KC

October 18, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

TennPaul:

This is one more reason I think the Mets have big problems heading into next season. There are going to be a number of big-spenders perusing the free-agent market this winter… especially when it comes to pitching.

The Mets will be far from the only team making ridiculous offers to Schmidt and Zito, and other big free agents.

By Lew

October 18, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

KC-I agree with TenPaul (who is usually on the mark) about Horacio. I like Horacio and feel that he could be a good pitcher. However, after four seasons, two things are apparent: he is wildly inconsistent and quite injury prone. Two seasons on the DL and surgery in the minors are bad indications. His inconsistency is frustrating at best. He either looks like Sandy Koufax or his Evil Twin. Yes, his HR total was on the decline (stopped throwing his 4 seam, which usually ended up in the stands), but was still inconsistent. I would try to trade him for bullpen help, or, failing that, not offer him arbitration. I’m sorry, but with him due a raise to $4 million, we could much better spend the money. If you figure $5 mil left after jettisoning dead woood and paying Wicky and arbitration raises, plus the $5 saved by trading Marcus, you have $10 mil. Add Horacio’s $4mil to that and you can get whatever top line starter you desire.

By BB FAN

October 18, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Robert,

“Raw stats - Comparing raw stats from two totally different eras is quite misleading

Now, try something normalized. Frank Robinson had a caeer adjusted OPS of 154. He hit .290 and drove in 1800 runs in an era where .300 hitters and 40 home run seasons were few and far between

Andru Jones has a career adjusted OPS of 117, and a career best adjusted OPS of 133

Andru’s quantitatives look good - but consider - his 51 home run season with 128 rbi and .263 average was good for an adjusted OPS of 133.

Harmon Killebrew in 1967 had 44 home runs, 113 rbi, and hit .269 - that gave him an adjusted OPS of 174

In other words, 40 or 50 home runs aint what it used to be, so by saying he is halfway there or whatever at a relatively early age, it doesnt make the case very strongly

Put another way, if Andru played in Robinson’s time, he’d have 20-25 dingers and about a .220-.240 batting average

First, I agree with you that raw stats from different eras can be misleading.

However, your normalized stats or adjusted stats are misleading as well. It only takes that and compares the player with his own counterparts from that year. It does not take into account that the game has changed a lot over the years.

For example, while I think that homeruns have been obviously bloated due to some guys using steroids, I do not believe it has affected batting averages as much.

Before the 70’s, starting pitchers went 8 or 9 innings. Therefore, a hitter from that era was able to face the same pitcher 4 or 5 times. Including ~ 2 at bats when the starting pitcher was tired. A hitter could really improve the average due to this.

Starting in the 70’s, the closer was born. Guys like Gossage, Sutter and Wilhelm started closing the game out by pitching the 8th and 9th innings. Starting pitchers started coming out earlier. In the 80’s, the 9th inning closer was born. Teams had different guys for the 7th, 8th and 9th innings.

In todays game, the starter goes 6 innings. Then a middle reliever comes in for the 7th, then a set up pitcher comes in for the 8th, and finally a closer in the 9th. So todays hitters get to face the starter for 2 at bats and then face 2 or 3 different, fresh pitchers in his last 2 or 3 at bats. And that does not even take into consideration that managers have their “specialist” pitchers to use as well.

Now, of course, then you add steroids to the list of those 7th, 8th and 9th inning guys and it really makes it tough on hitters that are not taking steroids.

And I think there are guys like Griffey, Andruw Jones, Pujols, A-Rod, Howard and many others that you can say did not take steroids. I think we all know who was definitely taking steroids. And we have a few guys that might be questionable, but there are numerous guys that we know never took steroids.

I believe this has made it more difficult to hit for a high average. And it contributes to the reason there has not been a triple crown winner since the 60’s or a .400 hitter since the 40’s.

And because every hitter had the same advantages and disadvantages in a certain era, your adjusted stats do not mean anything.

To say Andruw Jones would have hit .220 with 20 hrs in Robinson’s era is ignorant. Nobody knows and there’s nothing to suggest that.

Some of the 40, 50, 60, and 70 HR seasons are not what they used to be. But for a guy like Andruw Jones, Ken Griffey, A-Rod, Ryan Howard, and others, those types of seasons are still amazing. Those guys did legally and they faced 3, 4 or 5 pitchers a game and some of those pitchers were on steroids.

So don’t lump all of todays players in with the cheats of the game. There are not that many users. And there were just as many pitchers that used as hitters.

Like I said, Robinson was obviously the better hitter. There’s no doubt about that at this point in Andruw’s career. However, Andruw’s defense was so far superior to Robinson’s that I look at them at very similar overall.

By KC

October 18, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

TennPaul:

I never said anything to the contrary. I agree. I think HoRam’s ability to stay healthy is a significant concern.

I just have a hard time with people who are ready to just toss Ramirez aside. They obviously haven’t noticed this kid’s ability. Is he a left-handed Kerry Wood/Mark Prior situation? Maybe, but it’s too early to say that. Let’s hope he can be healthy for the most part in the years to come.

And I have a real hard time replacing a potentially excellent with a pitcher of lesser ability, simply because he’s less injury prone.

Besides, the fact is that with Davies and Cormier (3.25 ERA in September as a Braves starter) waiting in the wings… we can find a 5th starter for a while should some one go down.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

BB FAN,

As far as run contribution, two or three Matt Diaz’s and/or Chuck James’s would likely replace one Andruw Jones. Does that mean they can do everything Jones can do? No. Obviously in a trade the Braves would likely need a centerfielder or would need to move Langerhans or Francouer to center.

2006 Runs created:

AJ - 108.9

Diaz - 51.324

Gee, Diaz’s offensive production is pretty close to half of AJ’s. I know AJ’s defense compared to Diaz’s adds some to that total, but was my comment that rediculous? I know Diaz alone is nowhere close to Jones, but several solid players are just as good as one star player, or even one Hall of Fame calliber player.

I think you are of the mindset of Hall of Fame player = no non-Hall of Famer(s) can come close. Well, imagine if the Mariners or Rangers took that point of view. They would have never traded ARod and likely would have been stuck with his large contract and ARod and a lot of below average players. Oakland or Minnesota could never contend if they took that approach.

I’m not saying you should dump Hall of Fame players in every circumstance. But if a Hall of Fame player is due for a large pay raise and is approaching a likely decline phase and you can receive a probable star and two or three solid players, you should pull the trigger.

By BB FAN

October 18, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Robert,

Andru is in fact, a big time defensive player, but he does not rank in the top tier of impact players on offense, in this generation, much less all-time”

“Sorry man, but noone pitches around Andru Jones. And LEADERSHIP? Andru?”

I hate to break the news to you, but plenty of pitchers pitch around Andruw. I have seen it numerous times this year.

And he is a leader. WHat do you call going out everyday and playing even when injured. He may not be as vocal a leader as some, but he leads by example. Giving up his body by making diving catches every game makes him a leader. Crashing into walls for his team to make the catch makes him a leader. Hitting as well as he has the last few seasons in close and late situations makes him a leader. Those are the things he does that makes him a leader. I would say that’s a pretty damn good leader.

And leading the NL in RBIs and teh Mjors in Homers in 2005 makes him a top tier impact player. Finishing 5th in the NL in Homers and 6th in RBIs in 2006 makes him a top tier impact player. Winning 8, soon to be 9 gold gloves makes him a top tier impact player.

If he can avoid injuries, he will end his career as one of the best all around players. Defense counts. Now obviously, unless he starts hitting .300, there are going to be better offensive players than him. And there will obviously be players considered better.

There’s an argument for many players to be considered one of the best.

By KC

October 18, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Lew:

First of all, I just feel like if he can have another full season without significant injury trouble, he’ll get beyond those inconsistency issues. I can’t make a case for that… that’s just what my gut tells me. As dominant as he was in 9 of his 12 starts… it’s difficult for me to picture him continuing to get bitten by those periodic meltdown starts.

But even if he did exactly what he did in 2006 for the rest of his career… a guy who will absolutely shut down the other team 9 out of 12 times is a very valuable piece. That kind of pitcher is likely (with a half-way decent offense and bullpen) to win twice as many games as he loses (even if 3 out of 12 starts are lousy).

Even with his inconsistency, he still (between DL stints) posted a 3.89 ERA. In his first two seasons he posted a 3.59 ERA. That’s the kind of pitcher I think he already is. I think he’s a guy that when healthy will post in ERA in the 3.00’s every year. These days… (when the average ERA is probably a 1/2 a run to a full run higher than it was 15-20 years ago)… that kind of pitcher is very valuable. And to be honest, I think (again, if he can stay healthy) that HoRam is going to turn in some pretty impressive seasons before it’s all said and done.

I guess we’ll find out what the Braves brass think of him this winter. My guess is, he’ll be the Brave’s 4th starter this spring.

By KC

October 18, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

My MLB “First Team”:

1 - Ichiro (LF)

2 - Jeter (SS) It kills me to put a Yankee on this list but…

3 - A.Soriano (2B)

4 - Pujols (1B)

5 - V.Guerrero (RF)

6 - M.Cabrera (3B)

7 - A. Jones (CF)

8 - B.McCann (C)

9 - Santana (P)

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

BB FAN,

A lot of HR and RBI doesn’t necessarily mean a player is a top offensive performer.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2562

Yes, I’m bringing up this article again. Here’s something from that article:

Counting stats (RBI, HR, runs scored) aren’t very informative because they’re highly context dependent and don’t account for how many outs a player is using up.

Percentage stats are far better than counting stats, but only in the presence of a sizeable data sample (i.e., plate appearances).

Percentage stats are only negligibly influenced by teammates and lineup slotting, but, like all traditional statistics, they are influenced by ballpark and historical era.

Players at the corner positions generally produce better offensive numbers than those players at the more vital up-the-middle positions.

AVG isn’t really useful unless viewed in tandem with OBP, SLG and plate appearances.

And the greatest of these is OBP because it can also tell you how often a player creates outs at the plate.

By Greg

October 18, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

I’m so happy to see the Mets go down in the playoffs. This is for all you Mets who bellow so much about how the Braves have 14 division titles and only one championship. Now you know how hard it is to make it to the Series. And once you get there, you face a system that highly favors the AL. I predict Tigers over Cards in 5. If the Mets make it, Tigers in 4. The National League is now the Minor Leagues. I hate the DH, but having it may be the only way to restore parity between the AL and NL. The DH is just a huge advantage for AL teams in a short series.

By Ron Roberts

October 18, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

KC… I didn’t question Horacio’s ability. But his injury problems are a legitimate concern.

I only see you as being a partisan in any future Braves’ discussions because you probably the latest one to fall off the “we can pull this out” bandwagon this season.

Do you deny that? You maintained very late into the season that the Braves would overcome all the wild card contenders because they were a better team. You DO tend to see the glass half full, and that’s not a KNOCK, man, so stop getting bent out of shape. I just think some perspective is in order, too, sometimes.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 18, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

let’s trade third basemen with the cardinals. just a thought.

By Lew

October 18, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

KC-His health and ability to remain healthy are iffy at best. Two seasons out of four on the DL for significant periods of time, two surgeries (including one early in the minors) are not encouraging. I agree he could become a very good pitcher and has shown flashes of sheer brilliance. However, can we really afford to take the chance, especially with so many other questions unanswered about our pitching staff. I don’t think we can afford to find out. $4million is a lot of money for a team on a strict budget to pay for another DL season. I’m also troubled that we have heard zero word on his rehab or progress. Not a word. It may be that I have missed a report from DOB or another source, but it still makes me wonder. I do however, agree that Hampton will come back strong. The Dude is as big a competitor as Smoltz. I expect a 12-15 win season from him.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

My 2006 MLB First Team:

C Joe Mauer

1B Albert Pujols

2B Chase Utley

3B Miguel Cabrera

SS Derek Jeter

LF Manny Ramirez

CF Carlos Beltran

RF Vlad Guerrero

SP Johan Santana

By Robert

October 18, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

“To say Andruw Jones would have hit .220 with 20 hrs in Robinson’s era is ignorant. Nobody knows and there’s nothing to suggest that”

Not half as ignorant as thinking that Andru Jones is in the same area code with A Frank Robinson, an ARod, or a Griffey Jr

By Lew

October 18, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Faith, Hope and Charity. And the Greatest of These is OBP.

By NLCHAMPS

October 18, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Greg…..I can’t speak for all Met fans but my humble belief is that the braves should have had more Championships because many of those playoff teams had dominant pitching (probably the best). Everyone knows the Mets starting pitching was never dominant.

By David O'Brien

October 18, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Steve, the Cleveland rumor has been out there a while, not really new. Several other teams are going to be looking at Giles, too, and as I’ve said, I don’t see how he’ll be back. I think he’ll be traded. Don’t know what Cleveland or any other team will offer yet, if that was the next question.

No, I’m not concerned about those leaving front office, other than Dayton Moore. He was a big loss, I think. Blauser leaving? Sorry, doesn’t mean much to me. What about him led you to believe he’d be a replacement for Bobby, his one totally undistinguished season managing a Double-A team? Come on. Whenever Bobby leaves, the Braves will have no trouble whatsoever hiring a top replacement. Same for John. They have one in-house right now I believe could do a fine job, Frank Wren. And T.P., to me, is a far more attractive managerial candidate than Blauser, just based on what I’ve seen from him, his interaction with players, etc.

But that’s getting ahead of ourselves, since Cox has given no indication that he’s going to step down after the 2007 season. I mean, why spend a lot of time thinking about something that, when it happens, is going to happen quick. Who would’ve thought, for instance, a year ago that the Cubs would be hiring Lou Pinilella today? Or that Joe Girardi would be a manager of the year and get fired?

New ownership might have its own ideas about a managerial replacement. Hell, ownership could change hands twice before Cox steps down, for all we know.

By KC

October 18, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Joe Mauer:

608 plate appearances / 521 at-bats

• .347, 13-HR, 84-RBI

• 86-runs, 79-walks, .507 slugging

• HOMERS: Averaged one HR per 40.07 AB’s.

• RUNS: Averaged one run scored per 6.06 AB’s / 7.07 plate appearances.

• RBI: Averaged one RBI every 6.20 AB’s

Brian McCann:

492 plate appearances / 442 at-bats

• .333, 24-HR, 93-RBI

• 61-runs, 41-walks, .572 slugging

• HOMERS: Averaged one HR per 18.41 AB’s.

• RUNS: Averaged one run per 8.07 plate appearances. (McCann’s injury and inability to run the bases well, even for a catcher, should also be taken into account)

• RBI: Averaged one RBI every 4.75 AB’s

Project McCann’s numbers to 521 AB’s (Mauer’s total), and you will have 28 homers, 110 RBI. At 608 plate appearances, McCann’s run total projects to 75 runs.

COMPARE:

.333, 28-HR, 110-RBI, 75-runs

VS.

.347, 13-HR, 84-RBI, 86-runs

As great a hitter as Joe Mauer is… Brian McCann is a little bit better.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

I just have a hard time with people who are ready to just toss Ramirez aside. They obviously haven’t noticed this kid’s ability. Is he a left-handed Kerry Wood/Mark Prior situation? Maybe

It’s the Wood/Prior situation that makes it more necessary to obtain a dependable healthy starter. If we slot HoRam in as the #5 guy, then that might take some weight off of it. But pushing Chuck James higher in the rotation doesn’t seem to be the best idea. This statement is based only on the fact that Chuck James will be entering his first full season as a starter. He has a lot of up side, a lot of potential, but is not a guaranteed comodity just yet. And, after this season’s fiasco, I don’t think it is wise to head into a new season with the question marks sprinkled throughout the rotation.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

KC,

Mauer

114 Runs Created, .347 AVG/.429 OBP/.507 SLG/608 PA

McCann

98 Runs Created, .333 AVG/.388 OBP/.572 SLG/492 PA

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

As great a hitter as Brian McCann is…Joe Mauer is a little better.

By Robert

October 18, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

BB Fan - When they pitch low and outside to Andru, it’s not to pitch around him, but rather to strike him out

By Robert

October 18, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

“WHat do you call going out everyday and playing even when injured. “

depends on the nature of the injury.

If it’s some minor ache or pain, I call it expected. If it’s an injury that impairs performance and where there is risk of further damage playing with it then I call it stupid

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Mauer has a .041 point edge in OBP, which is the most important single stat in terms of creating runs. Plus, McCann was hurt which made Mauer more valuable also.

Yes, we should take into account McCann’s injury, but that works into Mauer’s favor. I know it’s not McCann’s fault, but it’s hard to contribute more to winning than another player when you have 116 fewer plate appearances than that player.

By Greg

October 18, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

I disagree that the Braves had great playoff pitching during the run. Great regular season pitching, yes. But playoff games are won by power pitchers. We only had two great playoff pitchers during the run: John Smoltz and Steve Avery. Maddux and Glavine are great pitchers, but in a short series, a stingy umpire can turn them into batting practice hurlers. And that’s exactly what happened on several occasions.

As for the Mets’ pitching injuries. You don’t get that as an excuse. In 91 we didn’t have our leadoff hitter and best base runner for the entire postseason. We would have been able to beat the Twins in ’91 if Otis Nixon hadn’t decided that cocaine was better than winning. The list goes on and on. Smoltz out a year and a half. Galarraga got cancer for God’s sake. It’s always something going into the playoffs.

My point is that the postseason is a crapshoot. And that crapshoot is heavily weighted toward the American League because of the DH. Very few NL teams have a deep enough bench to counter the DH effect. Like I said, I hate the DH, but until the NL switches over, the AL will own the World Series.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

KC: Here is one way of looking at it. The OPS. But instead of mulitpling by a random number, factor the SLG as follows: TB + BB + HBP / TPA.
Player OBP SLG paSLG OPS paOPS
McCann: .388 .572 .604 .960 .992
Mauer: .429 .507 .566 .936 .995
Francoeur: .293 .449 .472 .742 .765
Chipper: .409 .596 .644 1.005 1.053

They are practically identical in that respect. McCann has way more pop when he comes to the plate. I tossed in Francoeur and Chipper just for reference.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

McCann may never have the same number of PA as Mauer. Lest we forget, Mauer also works as a DH.

By Robert

October 18, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

BBFan

AL 1951-1976 - Ba never higher than .262, and as low as .230

Since 1993, only once lower than .267, and as high as .277

NL variance is somewhat less, but 50’s-70’s its mostly .250’s and occasionally sneaks into the .260’s, while since 1993 it’s been below .260 but once and gets up in the mid .260’s. The NL hit .243 in 1968

You might THINK that the specializtion of pitching brought the numbers down, which in fact it likely did in that it would be even WORSE if the game were pitched like it was in the 50’s and 60’s, but overall, there has been a VAST increase in hitting, leagues wide

Next - prove to me that Griffey, Pujols, and Andru are steroid free

Not saying they are on the juice, but in this day and age, to say that ANY player can just be deckared clean and above suspicion without a thorough formal inquiry/examination is just plain cavalier and dare I say, ignorant

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

I hate the DH, but until the NL switches over, the AL will own the World Series

Thems fighten words. The only league that should switch over is the AL back to the right way of playing baseball. Down with the DH!

By Robert

October 18, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

“It’s always something going into the playoffs.”

Oh woe is us. If it isnt cancer or cocaine or the designated hitter it’s those cruel umpires.

It’s the same thing every year, whether we go to the playoffs or not

Equus asinus

By Sonny

October 18, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Hey DOB…thanks for supporting “The Whigs”, they are a great local band who are just getting warmed up. They remind me that rock ain’t dead after all!

I can’t wait for the MMJ show, those guys are SICK!

I do like the new Strokes record though…

By Robert

October 18, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Do you folks realize how abSURD it sounds for y’all to claim that the Braves didnt have superior pitching?

Name the sure fire HOFer starters from this era - Go on

Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, Glavine, Smoltz, Mussina

you wanna expand the list go on and throw Schilling and if you want even Oswalt in there

You end up with what - 10 guys if you stretch it?

And three of the ten are together on the Braves for how many years? 9?

One guy is gonna finish with 350 wins, the second with 300+, and the third with 200+ plus 150 saves and a three year run as arguably the best closer in the game

But these Braves teams didnt have superior pitching

The early 70’s Orioles could be considered at par with the mid 90’s Braves. The 98 Yankess were a special team - solid thruout and great leadership on and off the field

Unless it suddenly takes a Maddux a Glavine and a Smoltz to equal one Kevin Brown (which I suppose is possibly if two Freels and a Diaz make an Andru) then this notion that the Braves were outclassed pitching-wise is abfrickinSURD

OutPITCHED? Yes Because they were not properly prePARED to pitch in the playoffs by old equus. But outCLASSED - to do that is to show absolute abject ignorance of the greatness that was on those mid 90’s Braves teams, player-wise

By Robert

October 18, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Here’s one for ya - take out Maddux’s first playoff stint - 1989, and his career playoff era of 3.34 becomes 3.02, which is better than his career regular season ERA of 3.07

Glavine’s playoff era thru ‘06 first round was 3.47, regular season 3.46

Smoltz 2.65 in the playoffs, 3.27 in regular season

Now, the power pitcher is best in the playoffs, but on the whole, the finesse guys werent being bopped around like rented Coxes

Tell me again how outclassed the Braves pitchers were

By Robert

October 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Down with the DH?

Lord have mercy, TP and I agree on something :)

By KC

October 18, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Personally, I think Total-bases is the truest test of a hitter. That takes all offensive tools into account: speed, power, plate discipline.

Project McCann’s numbers out to 608 plate appearances, and McCann would have 318 total bases VS. Mauer’s 264.

By KC

October 18, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Shaun:

I’m not saying that McCann contributed more to winning than McCann. Because Mauer was able to stay healthy, and because they can always use him as a DH… Mauer probably played a slightly bigger role in his team’s offense than did McCann.

What I’m saying is that McCann is a slightly better player.

McCann has much more power, has significantly more total-bases per plate appearance, and from what I’ve seen is even a slightly better defensive catcher.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

KC,

Actually total bases doesn’t take into account walks and we can’t know how good a hitter is at avoiding outs by looking at total bases.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

I’m not saying that McCann contributed more to winning than McCann.

Well that’s good. It’d be d@mn near impossible or at least highly confusing.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

KC,

With all due respect, I think your opinion is biased. As I said before, Mauer has put up better numbers throughout their pro careers.

Total bases doesn’t take into account walks and it doesn’t tell us how good a hitter is at avoiding outs. And from all I’ve heard, Mauer is a Gold Glove calliber catcher.

Like I said when we got into this discussion before, I know it’s early to make this statement, but both have a decent shot at the Hall of Fame. And I think the hometown thing works out for both teams; both teams got the right catcher for themselves. I just think Mauer could be a Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Rickey Henderson very special type player.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

KC: Personally, I think Total-bases is the truest test of a hitter. That takes all offensive tools into account: speed, power, plate discipline.

If this is how you feel, then you should start judging by the paSLG.
TB + BB + HBP / TPA.

Player paSLG
McCann: .604
Mauer: .566
Francoeur: .472
Chipper: .644

This formula includes walks. It’s like a slugging by plate appearance. It shows the average number of bases earned per plate appearance. It treats BB and HBP as singles.
Not including BB and HBP would tell you more about the hitting abilities though. That is to say, what happens when he makes contact and puts the ball in play.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

I’m not saying that McCann contributed more to winning than McCann.

Well that’s good. It’d be d@mn near impossible or at least highly confusing.

TennPaul,

Mauer created 114 runs.

McCann created 98 runs.

From there I think it’s safe to assume Mauer contributed more to winning.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Payne: What is your formula for runs created?
Are there any other formulas for runs created?
Is there a different means for judging player value?
Name three sources that disaggree with you and why.

And lastly, that still doesn’t explain how McCann could out perform himself. But you needn’t explain that part because it was merely a joke.

By NLCHAMPS

October 18, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Greg, you’re basically agreeing with me in an indirect way. like I said, The braves pitching during your run was excellent. In the playoffs they couldn’t get it done (Except in 1995). This is why they only reached the top of the mountain once. They underachieved Greg. They had a staff that should have won 4-5 titles. Neither the 2000 or 2006 Mets comes even close to some of those braves rotations. If they had it this year the Mets would win it all.

By Robert

October 18, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

runs created still is affected by the team around them

RC/27 may be a better indicator (runs created per 27 outs) - in other words, how many runs a team of player X clones would generate on offense

In ‘06 McCann 8.45 , Mauer 8.23

Adjusted OPS - McCann 146 in ‘06, Mauer 144

Mauer has outperformed McCann in the minors, tho McCann seems to have better power

Call this one a draw? I’ll take the guy thay get out from behind the plate ealier in his careeer

More RC/27 - In ‘06 and career

Andru - 6.57 / 5.97 Frank Rob - career 7.40 ARod - 7.18 / 8.01 Griffey Jr - 5.22/ 7.51 Ryan Howard 10.55/ 9.27 Barry Bonds 8.64/ 9.92 Ruth 12.93 career Williams 12.03 career Aaron 7.65 career Cobb 8.84 career

7.50 is studly stuff. McCann and Mauer are both studs. Andru aint even a stud wannabe

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

What is your formula for runs created? Are there any other formulas for runs created? Is there a different means for judging player value?

I’m pulling the runs created from baseball-reference.com. Here’s what they use:

Runs Created = (H + BB) * (TB)/ (PA)

Here are Win Shares numbers:

Mauer - 31

McCann - 23

I pulled these from The Hardball Times. Here’s what they say about Win Shares:

Win Shares is a very complicated statistic that takes all the contributions a player makes toward his team’s wins and distills them into a single number that represents the number of wins contributed to the team, times three.

And here’s how they do their calculations:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalc

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

So there are no other formulas for runs created? This is it. Just win shares and runs created? That’s the only valid way of analyzing a player? Are there no references to sources which disagree with analyzing players this way and why?

By rammerjammer

October 18, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Here’s the entire Cleveland newspaper story regarding Giles, for those who might want to analyze every word:

Name to remember: Marcus Giles has caused some stirring among the computers in the Indians’ front office. The Braves are reportedly ready to trade their second baseman and the Indians are listening.

Ronnie Belliard might still be No. 1 on the Tribe’s wish list to fill the hole at second, but Giles is gaining ground. Giles, Brian’s younger brother, is eligible for salary arbitration and will be expensive. He made $3.85 million this year and can be a free agent after 2007.

If the Braves can’t trade Giles, they may non-tender him. He hit .262 (144-for-550) with 32 doubles, 11 homers and 60 RBI this year. It’s the fourth straight year his average has dropped, starting with .316 in 2003.

“The market for second basemen isn’t good enough for us to overlook anyone,” said (Indians GM Mark) Shapiro when asked about Giles.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Runs Created = (H + BB) * (TB)/ (PA)

So riddle me this. Why are HBP not included in the numerator, but they are included in the denominator? Similarly, the Sacrifice fly is included in the denominator, but not adjusted for in the numerator. So you have only a sampling of the total times the player got on base. And a sampling of times he created a run (sac flies and squeeze plays are not included). Then it’s multiplied by the total bases (Why TB? Why Multiplied?). All of this is averaged over the total times a player comes to the plate. Honestly, it really does make sense as to why this is the formula to use over some other formula.

By crs

October 18, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

First, the dead weight that is Chipper Jones needs to be unloaded, he is injured way too much, he reminds me of Dale Murphy less the character, certainly if Dale can be dealt, Chipper can be dealt. A decision too needs to be made on Andruw Jones, if we can not afford him it is time to deal him now for a proven starting pitcher and some prospects. And can we finally get some speed so we can small ball some runs?

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Should have been doesn’t, but I think the question marks every where implied such.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

Well, Mauer’s AVG and OBP was better this year and he wasn’t that far behind in SLG plus he had more PA than McCann. And from everything I’ve heard and read, Mauer’s a Gold Glove calliber defensive catcher. So, I think Mauer was more valuable than McCann in ‘06.

And throughout their pro careers (major and minor leagues), Mauer has posted far better AVG and OBP’s and isn’t that far off in SLG. Since OBP is more important to creating runs than other stats, I think Mauer is a better player in terms of creating runs.

Can’t go wrong with either, but I think Mauer is better.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

Runs Created = (H + BB) * (TB)/ (PA)

Here’s something from Wikipedia:

Runs created is believed to be an accurate measure of an individual’s offensive contribution because, when used on whole teams, the formula normally closely approximates how many runs the team actually scores. Even the basic version of runs created usually predicts a team’s run total within a 5% margin of error.2 Other, more advanced versions are even more accurate.

Here’s the complete page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_Created

By Lew

October 18, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Hey-Ya know what? It doesn’t matter whether Mauer is better than McCann. He plays for someone else. He will probably never play for the Braves.I wouldn’t trade McCann for any reason whatsoever. It doesn’t make any difference if he is decimal points or thousands of points better. It really doesn’t. Really. It’s likely they will both win the Silver Slugger in thier respective league. Shouldn’t this be enough?

By KC

October 18, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Shaun:

“Mauer created 114 runs.”

“McCann created 98 runs.”

Thank you for making my point. According to your calculations, Mauer created 16% more runs than McCann… despite having 24% more plate appearances, and 18% more at-bats. So I say again…

As good a hitter as Joe Mauer is… Brian McCann is slightly better.

By KC

October 18, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

SHAUN:

Have you considered sending your resume to ELIAS? People who loves stats as much as you do are probably hard to come by. :o)

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

KC,

Based on their entire pro careers (major and minor leagues), it looks like Mauer is better. McCann had a better year per plate appearance in 2006, but Mauer was more valuable (he contributed more to his team’s wins) because of more plate appearances and games played.

By Robert

October 18, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

TP - If you have another formula, please share it with us.

If you’re saying you want to know where the formula came from, dig thru one or more of those sites Shaun references (and the sites those sites reference and so on)

Or go dig into some works by guys like Bill James, Ron Shanlder, or Alex Patton

Funny thing is, I think I started this Mauer vs McCann debate as an alternative to talking about Bobby Cox.

Maybe we oughta revert to the former discussion?

By Greg

October 18, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

For the record I would love to see the DH abolished. But it will never happen. And as long as the DH is in effect in the AL, it puts the NL at a distinct disadvantage. Given that the Player’s Association will never allow the AL to drop the DH, the only way for the NL to gain parity with the AL is to adopt the DH. I hate the DH. But this is the cold, hard fact. The AL goes into any Interleague play with a major advantage. So what if their pitchers have to hit in our parks. In their parks, we match guys just up from AAA and guys who never will be stars known as pinch hitters with Travis Hafner, David Ortiz, and other professional hitters who can’t field. That’s an overwhelming advantage for the AL.

By ncscoots

October 18, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

My favorite part of the whole game last night? Seeing that little smile break out on Dave Duncan’s face when his son cranked a pinch-hit homer. Can you imagine? Sitting in the dugout, with a team trying to get to the World Series, in the absolutely PIVOTAL game of the NLCS, your boy pops one out, and you realize that you can’t go absolutely gonzo? That all you can do is…that little smile, to put paid to all those days of playing catch and hitting fungo and everything else with your kid. Man, it made even an old cynic such as I goosebumpy. I don’t really care what happens to either of these teams the rest of the year, but I’m glad I watched that one last night. That little smile is my highlight of the season.

By KC

October 18, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

SHAUN:

Again, I concede that because Mauer was able to be in the lineup more (health/DH)… he was slightly more valuable this year.

My point is that based on the performance of both this season, I would conclude that Brian McCann is a slightly better hitter than Mauer. Especially when you take into account that McCann did much what he did hobbled, and catching every day (often in heat indexes of 100 degrees)… While Mauer often got to DH, and played all of his games in air conditioning.

By Shaun

October 18, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

KC,

I don’t know about Elias. They seem to spit out meaningless stats, which are sometimes fun to look at, but I prefer the ones that actually tell us something.

By ncscoots

October 18, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

that whole Mauer-McCann thing is akin to Willie-Mickey-And-The-Duke back in New York. Outstanding players so close to equal in talent that the differences are more a matter of style than substance. And a single year’s experience isn’t enough to judge either of the two young catchers, anyway. Call me in ten years, and we can talk. But even then, I suspect it will be still be a question of Monet vs Manet, eh, Lew?

By rammerjammer

October 18, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Marcus Giles to Cleveland for starting pitcher Jake Westbrook. This trade can happen and would meet both teams’ needs (and both teams are making these guys available).

Westbrook is exactly the 200-inning starter JS is looking for. He’s only 29; born, raised and still lives in Georgia! His ERA’s a bit fat and he allows A LOT of baserunners, but that’s what they said about Wickman, right?

I know he’s not a lefty, DOB, but you can’t have it all.

This could also mean middle-relief for Ramirez, which might be a better fit for his apparently fragile physique, and there’s your second lefty in the bullpen to go with McBride.

By ncscoots

October 18, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

No scenario that includes Horacio Ramirez in the bullpen is likely to come to fruition. It’s been tried, resulting in horrified onlookers the baseball world over. Doubt the Braves want to inflict THAT on the world (or themselves) again.

By Ron Roberts

October 18, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

I think KC should take a P.R. gig with the Braves. This guy is pro-Tomahawk to his last breath!

…not that that’s a bad thing. Just doesn’t always make ya right.

Glad we got McCann… I think he and Mauer were about equal, minus the injury time McCann was dealt. I’d take either one.

By KC

October 18, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

*rammerjammer: *

We don’t have a need for a starting pitcher.

Horacio Ramirez is a very solid (potentially great) starter when healthy. His health is a concern, but I don’t think the answer is to replace him with a pitcher of lesser ability simply because that guy has spent less time on the DL.

As to your “Ramirez in a middle relief role”… Endurance is not a problem for Ramirez. He has no trouble pitching late into ballgames. Getting injured or being prone to run out of gas early are two entirely different things. I should also mention that HoRam does not seem at all well suited for relief work, and the few times he’s done it did not go well. He is however quite well suited to start, and he’s pretty good at it.

By ncscoots

October 18, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

KC, if HoRam were the only “if” for the Braves’ starting rotation next year, I’d tend to agree with you wholeheartedly re not needing starting pitching. Alas, that isn’t the case. And, yes, I know your thoughts on the matter, no need to repost the in-depth reasoning for your position. But I think even you will admit that there are more “ifs” than “givens” for the SP next year. Those of us who advocate a trade for another PDRSP simply seek a hedge against the possibility that ALL the “ifs” won’t break the Braves’ way. Lethal or brutal, the starting pitching could be either, or anything in between, as now situated.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Let me put it this way, do you know any source which disagrees with this method of player evaluation/formula? Could you explain why that source disagrees?

My hesitation on this state is based on this. The sum of Hits plus walks multiplied by the total number of bases is a meaning less number in and of itself. I’ve read the research, that this formula closely approximates the Runs created by a team. This is shown by looking at the total runs scored by that team and comparing the results of this equation to that figure. But this doesn’t closely approximate an individual’s runs scored. McCann scored 61, but his RC is 98; Mauer scored 81 and his RC is 114. In both cases it overstates the production by around 50%. That isn’t very accurate. So again, I’d say it’s rather meaningless. Is there a better formula? That is what I’m seeking. Apparently no one knows.

Returning to classical statistics we could look at the SLG. I took the SLG and re-calculated it to include BB and HBP since your arguement against it was that it did not include these. So, I altered the formula to be based on a per plate appeance level and the total number of bases a hitter collects (including the walks and HBP) when he comes to the plate. In this evaluation, McCann is the greater than Mauer. On top of that the formula still makes sense.
KC has applied the RC results over comparable amounts of PA/AB and shown that McCann has a slight edge.
Now, I’m not saying McCann is by far the better player hands down. To me, it looks very close. So close, the only real desciding factors or personal preference and/or needs. Mauer is a swifter runner than McCann but has less power. Therefore Mauer would bat higher in the order. McCann on the other hand has all the power, but isn’t as fast and would therefore bat lower in the order. So, when building a team, personally I’d have to look at what is needed, a higher order batter or a guy with pop?

By KC

October 18, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Ron Roberts:

The fact that I’m a Braves fan means I’m motivated to talk or defend Braves players who I feel are sold short or are talked about unfairly. When I look at the stats or other facts and feel that people are unfairly blasting a Braves player or are not giving him the credit he deserves, I speak up. However, I can just as clearly see instances where players on other teams don’t get the credit they deserve, but they’re not my team so frankly I don’t really care. I can also see instances where Braves players have received more credit or attention than they deserved. But again, as a Braves fan… that doesn’t bother me.

Being a Braves fan doesn’t mean I’m diluted or can’t see things clearly, it just means that I usually choose to talk about the positives, not the negatives, in regard to my team. And as I mentioned in a previous post, there certainly have been times when I’ve raked this team pretty hard for its makeup, such as the Braves team of a couple years ago with Wright and Ortiz at the top of the rotation.

I tend to think that there is usually some substantive basis for the opinions I hold (right or wrong), and that they’re not simply a product of my believing what I want to believe. I have to say Ron that it strikes me rather pretentious of you to label yourself the “Impartial Observer” while seemingly dismissing my posts as the ravings of an avid Braves fan blinded by love for his team.

If you want to challenge my opinions or ideas… GREAT! Argue with me. Tell me why I’m wrong. Throw up a statistic that seems to tell the story better than the one I quoted. That’s what this forum is for. But I would appreciate it if you didn’t dismiss my viewpoints as somehow less rational than yours… because you are after all the “Impartial Observer”, and I am just the diluted Braves apologist.

By KC

October 18, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

nscoots:

I’m sure the other “questions” you’re referring to are Mike Hampton and Tim Hudson. As you said, there’s no reason for me to restate my arguments for each… but I’ll just say this:

Even though I consider a bounce-back season from Hudson to be likely, and he doesn’t worry me in the least… I will concede him as a question mark.

I do not however consider Mike Hampton a question mark. There is just very little precedent in recent years for a guy showing any ill effects from Tommy John surgery 18 months after the fact. According to every doctor that performs this procedure, Hampton should be FULLY recovered from the surgery come this spring. And I certainly don’t think there’s any basis for concern about his ability or makeup as a winner. So I reject the notion of Hampton being a “question mark”.

I agree with you that HoRam is a question mark (his health… not his ability). You can certainly make a case that Tim Hudson is question mark in terms of his returning to the form that made him a top-of-the-rotation status. But unless we can get another top-tier starter, I don’t see the sense in touching this rotation.

None of the suggestions I’ve heard are better options than Hudson or Ramirez.

By Lew

October 18, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Scoots-You may well be right. But you’ve got to realize that Dali had a better OBP than Manet or Monet. Manet had a higher BA, but Monet was so blind he couldn’t see Juan Pierre in left field.

By rammerjammer

October 18, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Atlanta needs a solid, durable starter and Westbrook fits the bill and is with a team that’ll take Giles, too.

Ramirez, in his last three seasons, has pitched 60, 202 and 76 innings with 55 starts and 2 complete games.

Westbrook, in his last three seasons, has pitched 215, 210 and 211 innings with 96 starts and 11 complete games.

Who would YOU count on?

By ncscoots

October 18, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Actually, I agree with you about Hampton’s health. Where I might disagree with you is the expectation that he will immediately and without falter return to his former level of performance. It’s unrealistic to expect that a guy who hasn’t pitched competitively in 18 months will light it up from the get-go and have no setbacks whatsoever over 35 starts. Were he surrounded by four other known commodities, that wouldn’t be such a big issue. But he isn’t, as the SP now stands. IMO, you simply can’t count on Hampton returning to being a lock-down pitcher as a GIVEN. I think he’ll be outstanding, but that’s a long way from being SURE about it. Hence, he’s part of the “ifs”.

By ncscoots

October 18, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Lew, you say true…and don’t forget, Van Gogh had a little pop in his bat, too, so I guess you build your lineup according to your needs :-)

By Robert

October 18, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

” but both (Mauer and McCann) have a decent shot at the Hall of Fame”

Very good, very talented players - both of whom show the promise to be one of the next generation of stars

But we’re about a decade early in talking about either and the HOF (unless of course, they are buying tickets)

By David O'Brien

October 18, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

CRS, Dale Murphy wasn’t owed $11 mill for each of the next two seasons when he was traded, plus a vesting option for the third year. Nevermind the fact Chipper has no-trade protection as a 10-and-5 guy (as I’ve said I don’t think that’s a big deal, because the only teams that would be interested in him are probably attractive AL teams that he’d probably agree to be traded to, if it came to that. But it won’t come to that, not this winter at least.

By KC

October 18, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

rammerjammer:

Listen, I’m a big believer that ERA and innings per start are the only two stats that really matter in the end for a starting pitcher. But this one jumped out at me, and I’ve just got to mention it… 247 hits in 211 innings pitched. YIKES! Apparently he works his way out of jams more times that not, but that it doesn’t look like hitters have any trouble seeing this guy.

Look, Westbrook seems to be a decent starter. As you’ve pointed out, he’s been very reliable. But he’s entering his 7th season, and by now you have to think that what you see is pretty much all you’re going to get. The Braves have traditionally used the 5th starter role for young pitchers with the potential for excellence. Horacio Ramirez still fits that mold. Jake Westbrook does not. He’s an average starter who will give you innings. There’s something to be said for that.

Still, I’d rather take my chances with HoRam who is already a solid starter and has shown the unmistakable potential to be a top-of-the-rotation type of starter. I don’t see the need to downgrade the ability of our rotation in order to upgrade its reliability… not with Davies and Cormier both waiting in the wings to step in as a 5th starter if needed.

By Blake

October 18, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Very interesting article on mlbtraderumors.com about Glavine coming to Atlanta. Any thoughts DOB?

By David O'Brien

October 18, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly, talk about coincidence: Guess who a bunch of us are going to see Friday night in Detroit: That’s right, the Truckers. At the Majestic Theater in beautiful downtown Detroit.

Bunch of us baseball hacks are going, including a buddy of mine who’s been friends with the dudes in the band for a lot of years. At least a couple of the guys in the band are huge baseball fans, by the way. They always want to talk baseball when they belly up to the bar with this dude who covers the Orioles for the Washington Post, and he always wants to talk music with them.

By geauxbraves2000

October 18, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

A lot of “ifs” next year. Will Hudson turn things around, when will Ramirez go on the DL, Who’s #5, and of course Hampton.

Will the offense learn how to hit left handed pitching. Will the offense be shut down time and time again by no name pitchers or 3-10 7.04 era guys.

Will the baseball Cardinal’s win tonight? Will the football Cardinal’s ever win? Where’s the beef?

Geaux Braves!!

By David O'Brien

October 18, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

Blake, for all I know that could be someone just talking crap. That’s the problem with those sites _ if you’re going to say “my sources” and we don’t even know who the person is who’s writing it, then what credibility does it have? I mean, if you have an anonymous writer quoting anoynymous sources … well, I need more than that.

Sorry, but they’re the most heavily covered team in the National League, and not one of the dozen or so people who covers the team every day for a living has reported this “handshake agreement” or that Glavine is definitely going back to Atlanta. No one. So until this writer gives me some reason more to believe him, or it’s reported by someone with credibility and his name attached, I’m taking it all with a grain _ or tub _ of salt.

By rammerjammer

October 18, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

KC,

HoRam is a dilemma. If you deal him, you won’t get much because of his health issues. If you keep him, you can’t count on him to give you what you need.

I agree with your assertion that Westbrook is “a decent starter,” but he has fewer question marks than any of our incoming starting four. You’re right…what you see is what you get.

That’s where we part on Ramirez. Who knows what you’ll get? You can’t count on him.

Perhaps, as you said, we did traditionally use the fifth starter for young pitchers with “potential” (a four-letter word as far as I’m concerned), but that was when our starting four included Maddox, Smoltz, and Glavine.

The incoming four next year might be good, but not THAT good. So the luxury of test-driving a fifth starter is gone. We need a proven commodity, not potential.

Oh, one possible key to Westbrook’s success despite the high hit ratio..only 15 HRs and 55 walks allowed. Compare that to any of our starters.

By KC

October 18, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

geauxbraves2000:

Every team has games or goes through periods where they are shut down by mediocre pitching. It happens. There’s nothing wrong with this Atlanta offense. That’s not to say it couldn’t be improved… but it’s already as good as any in the NL.

Mike Hampton is not and “IF”. He’s just not. I’ve said it 100 times here and I’ll say it again. 18 months is how longs doctors say it takes to fully recover from Tommy John surgery. There is virtually no precedent in recent years for a pitcher showing any ill effects from Tommy John surgery 18 months after the fact.

Pretty much all of the issues you see players have in the first years back from that procedure are a direct result of their coming back after only 12 months. Let me also point out that 2005 was the first season in 9 years in which Hampton failed to make at least 29 starts.

There is no cause for concern about Hampton’s health in ‘07… none.

As for Hudson, it is very likely that he will bounce back. I won’t go into detail on that, but if your curious as to why I’m so confident of that, you’re welcome to check out my Oct.16-9:06pm post.

HoRam on the DL… you got me there. While I’m confident in his ability, there’s no way I can honestly tell you that I’m confident in his ability to stay healthy. Let’s just hope he can stay out there on the mound for 30 or so starts this year. If he goes down… we’ve got Davies and Cormier ready to step in as a 5th starter.

By Jim

October 18, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

KC,

You can’t make your Soriano your MLB all-star second baseman when he didn’t play 2nd base all year. You might just as well say that Pujols could play left field and have both him and Howard on your all-star team. The fact that McCann did not have quite enough ABs to qualify for listing in the top 10 will work against him when all-star teams are announced. Mauer got more publicity, more visibility, and will undoubtedly be the near unanimous choice. Your selection of McCann is not necessarily wrong, but also has an element of projection in it to what more he could have done given the same number of ABs.

None of the outfielders leap out you this year. Soriano could make the team in LF. There are as many reasons not to take Andruw, Beltran, Manny, Vlad this year as to select any one of them. One player you definitely overlooked in the OF is Lance Berkman. He has to be one of the 3.

By Robert

October 18, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Why IS it that the Braves get shut down time and agin by no name pitchers or 3-10 7.04 ERA guys anyway?

By KC

October 18, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

geauxbraves2000: Didn’t understand one of your questions…

“who’s #5”

Either James or Ramirez… probably James will serve as the 5th starter (with Smoltz, Hudson, Hampton headin the rotation). It’s gotta be one of those two… who else would it be?

By KC

October 18, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

rammerjammer:

Gosh… You and I differ greatly on the strength of the Braves rotation 1-4 next year. I guess you’re probably coming from the same angle that many people are (considering Hampton and Hudson both question marks).

I think the opposite. I think Smoltz is still an ace, Hudson is likely to bounce back, after 18 months… Hampton’s health is not a concern at all, and Chuck James is one of the better young lefties in the game. I think the Braves can look toward their rotation to be tremendous next year.

Why do we need dependable mediocrity? If Ramirez gets hurt… call up Davies or Cormier (who did a great job for Atlanta as a starter down the stretch… 3.19 ERA in September). Davies was awful following his return from the DL, but from what I hear, the Braves organization still has a lot of confidence in him.

Anyway, as I see it Atlanta has 3 options for a 5th starter, with Ramirez being far and away the top choice. (HoRam may actually be the 4th starter, but I think he and James are interchangeable… either one could be pitching further up in the rotation on most teams.)

By Jim

October 18, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

I am not convinced that you can plug Prado/Aybar/Orr/? into 2nd base and not seriously downgrade that position. We haven’t seen enough of Prado (or Aybar) to suggest that he can adequately replace Giles. Giles has become a very good defensive 2nd baseman who is fearless in turning the DP and he is someone who is always hustling and full of life. He means a lot to the team defense and the team chemistry, and his offense, even in a down year, will also not easily be replaced.

If he is to be replaced by a proven veteran through trade, there will not be any significant savings in salary. I don’t think a mediocre starter like Westbrook (a wash in salary savings?) would be enough to replace Giles’s D + hustle + offense.

If we can improve the team by addition — good, but we will not improve it by subtraction!

By KC

October 18, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

Jim

I’m not talking anything official (with my “MLB first-team”). I’m just saying that if I were a GM and could hand pick my team tomorrow… that’s how I would line it up.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 18, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

flu shot. someone make sure chipper gets a flu shot. iamgine chipper with the flu. uh, uh, uh choo. now, will the flu shot work on chipper? can this shot be administered in the arm without injury? do flu shots improve toe health?

journalist jimmy smith is a modest journalist. jimmy smith once had a performing career in the music industry - and many on this blog might be surprised (or perhaps remember this journalist).

By KC

October 18, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

JIM:

Also… As far as Andruw is concerned… people tend to compare only offensive stats when lining one player up against another. But Andruw is so exceptional in center that you could realistically tack another 20-30 RBI onto his totals if you were to transpose “runs saved” into “runs produced”. That’s why Andruw would be on my team.

By TennesseePaul

October 18, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Davies was awful following his return from the DL

Actually, Davies was just awful. He wasn’t that impressive early in the season. He had a few nice starts, but for the most part he was a thrower and not a pitcher. I don’t know if that stems from over confidence in his stuff or to little confidence in it. Whatever the case he needs to realize the art of pitching. This throwing thing just isn’t panning out.

By Jim

October 18, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

KC

Then why are you calling it my 2006 MLB first team?

If its an all-star team, you CAN select McCann over Mauer if you wish, but you can’t make Soriano your 2b-man, and you HAVE overlooked Berkman. Manny missed the last month of the season and disappeared during the Red Sox most important stretch of the year. Berkman has to be the 3rd choice for NL MVP. You are right to pick the OF-ers by position and Beltran and Andruw are the only 2 CF-ers in the mix this year, but both might be left out if you did like the All-Star balloting and just picked any 3 OF-ers.

If you are a GM forming a team, then you are like Cashman of the the Yankees. Selecting the 9 best players at each position does not necessarily give you the best team. You need role players who will sacrifice themselves to move a runner or to lay down a bunt as well as run-producers. You need to mix in speed with the power. And you need to consider the defense that each player provides at each position. Anyway its all in fun and the one thing you don’t have to do is pay for the players you select.

By Andy

October 18, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

DOB, why are so many of thy braves coaches going to the Royals? I know Dayton Moore is the GM but it seems like coaches who have been the back bone of the orginazation—are all jumping off the ship. Is there something going on that most don’t know about. Like the talent in the minors sucks so bad they are going elsewhere? or something? Why did they drop Blauser? After just one season—give the guy a chance. What is up with all the turbuliance in a generally steady ship?

By The Grinch

October 18, 2006 07:45 PM | Link to this

Journalist Jimmy Smith, I googled you. Here’s what I found: http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2005/02/15/theincrediblejimmy_smith/

By journalist jimmy smith

October 18, 2006 08:19 PM | Link to this

grinch, good guess but wrong jimmy smith. also, that jimmy smith is dead. also, that jimmy smith played a hammond and this one would play a wurlitzer. also, this jimmy smith is not quite so famous. still, grinch may take another shot if so inclined. hint: rainy night in georgia.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 18, 2006 08:22 PM | Link to this

already the new york mets have their own little sign on the wall proclaiming them champions of the eastern division. such signs are nice but …

By The Grinch

October 18, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this

Painter from Newnan? Retired wide reciever from Jaguars? I’ve hit a wall. Another hint, perhaps? Can I use Baby Seal as a lifeline?

By journalist jimmy smith

October 18, 2006 09:59 PM | Link to this

pip. backup pip. when regular pip is sick.

By flbravesgirl

October 18, 2006 11:02 PM | Link to this

journalist jimmy, are any of the regular pips named Wally? If so, when he is sick perhaps you could move into a full-time position. ;-)

By Ron Roberts

October 18, 2006 11:29 PM | Link to this

KC

I am an avid Braves fan, my friend… avid. And yet I can be impartial enough an observer to see things as they tend to pan out to be. Your “take” on many of the discussions that come in these blogs are almost entirely pro-Braves and it makes it difficult sometimes to soack in your arguments rationally, man.

In reality, I think the Joe Mauer v. Brian McCann argument is completely overblown here, to begin with. Is one better than the other? Hell, they’re barely in the majors as it is… can we just agree that they’ve both been wonderful to their teams without trying to anoint one as “the best?”

Can we, as well, be impartial enough to see that the Mets won the division handily, that we weren’t even the next best team in the division and that we therefore can’t be a “consensu” pick to win the division next year without significant upgrades?

Agree, disagree, either way I think we all know where you stand. But you harp and harp and harp, then you harp, and it just doesn’t lend your argument any credence, man.

Listen, we’re on the same team, man… and I’m very encouraged with what Atlanta will field next year, but I fail to see where anybody can make any rational predictions about so many of the unkowns that factor into the question “Who will win the NL East in 2007?” We have no idea how an older Mike Hampton will be, coming off so much down-time and a major injury rehab. We have no idea how Chuck James will be in his sophomore year. We have no idea if we come back with or without Andruw Jones. We have no idea who gets Barry Zito, Jason Schmidt, et al. We have no idea which Adam LaRoche we’ll get next year. We have no idea who our 2nd baseman will be, or if Chipper Jones can play a full season ever again, or who’ll be our left fielder, or lead-off man (or both)…

We know what we do have, and most of that was on the 2006 roster. It wasn’t enough to win the NL East, and if you factor in picking up Wickman, we’d have added, what, maybe 10-15 more wins last year, maybe?

We lost by 18 games.

On another note…

Does it worry anybody else how well the Mets’ rookie pitcher John Maine has pitched? Tell ya what, factor him into their rotation discussion, with a returning Pedro and a few more pieces, and uh, they’re scary-good again 2007.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 18, 2006 11:29 PM | Link to this

flbravesgirl, good observation. famous wally pipp regrets having a headache and asking out of the lineup. not that pip, however.

By NLCHAMPS

October 18, 2006 11:43 PM | Link to this

I told you there would be a game seven!!! No pitching, no problem. Someone has stepped up time and time again. Everyone keeps saying the Mets can’t win because they have no pitching. Well, we’re one game away from the World Series. I’m big time pumped……..LETS GO METS!!!!

By The Grinch

October 19, 2006 12:36 AM | Link to this

Jimmy, I’ve about googled myself out (no, that wasn’t all I did this evening, but I did try several times). I do not see that name listed among the Pips, and there is no info offered as to “fill-ins.” Am I going to have to order the book? You make Wally Pipp sound a lot like, uh, Chipper.

Hey, FLBgirl. I still have not recieved my cake in the mail. Have I fallen out of favor somehow? :-)

By The Grinch

October 19, 2006 01:41 AM | Link to this

NLCHAMPS, congrats so far. Statistically, the odds are on your side now. However, Perez could strike out 10 or give up 10…or both. My, my.

Night, all.

By Head Coach

October 19, 2006 06:05 AM | Link to this

Oliver Perez is pitching game seven ? I’m not holding my breath , lol. Mets nation better get on thier knee’s and pray to the baseball God’s for a miracle. At least you won’t suffer the indignity that the Cardinal’s will at the hands of the Detroit Tiger’s in the World Series.

By Arkansas Hillbilly

October 19, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

I’m jealous, DOB. Sincerely jealous. They had a show with Cross Canadian Ragweed scheduled in Ruston, Louisisana in October but sometime back during the summer it got taken off the schedule. That’s only about an hour away from me so I was pumped up and then deflated ruthlessly. I won’t be online this weekend, so I’ll be expecting a full report on Monday.

By Robert

October 19, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

“Oliver Perez is pitching game seven ?”

You know, that was my first reaction as well. Then I realized, it aint half as bad as letting Bobby Cox manage game 1

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

My hesitation on this state is based on this. The sum of Hits plus walks multiplied by the total number of bases is a meaning less number in and of itself. I’ve read the research, that this formula closely approximates the Runs created by a team. This is shown by looking at the total runs scored by that team and comparing the results of this equation to that figure. But this doesn’t closely approximate an individual’s runs scored. McCann scored 61, but his RC is 98; Mauer scored 81 and his RC is 114. In both cases it overstates the production by around 50%. That isn’t very accurate. So again, I’d say it’s rather meaningless. Is there a better formula? That is what I’m seeking. Apparently no one knows.

Well, it is pretty accurate if you assume that run scored are a result of the factors in the equation. It makes the very reasonable assumption that the factors in run scoring are the same for individuals as they are for a team—getting on base and getting around the bases.

Also, runs created is not the same thing as runs scored. Creating runs for your team is not just scoring runs, it involves getting on-base and advancing around the bases. Runs scored for an individual player depends on players behind him in the lineup and other things. Runs created attempts to isolate the players run contribution. Although you still must take the hitter’s ballpark into account, it’s better than just looking at something like runs or RBI because those are largely dependent on other hitters in the lineup.

As far as this being the best way to measure individual performance, it’s probably the best that I know of. It still doesn’t take into account a hitter’s ballpark, but you can always adjust for that or look at a hitter’s road stats (of course the sample size would get smaller). Also, there are expansion to the runs created formula which are more accurate. But even the simple formula is accurate within 5 percent.

Returning to classical statistics we could look at the SLG. I took the SLG and re-calculated it to include BB and HBP since your arguement against it was that it did not include these. So, I altered the formula to be based on a per plate appeance level and the total number of bases a hitter collects (including the walks and HBP) when he comes to the plate. In this evaluation, McCann is the greater than Mauer. On top of that the formula still makes sense. KC has applied the RC results over comparable amounts of PA/AB and shown that McCann has a slight edge. Now, I’m not saying McCann is by far the better player hands down. To me, it looks very close. So close, the only real desciding factors or personal preference and/or needs. Mauer is a swifter runner than McCann but has less power. Therefore Mauer would bat higher in the order. McCann on the other hand has all the power, but isn’t as fast and would therefore bat lower in the order. So, when building a team, personally I’d have to look at what is needed, a higher order batter or a guy with pop?

I like the measure you’ve come up with and have actually thought about it myself—TB+BB+HBP/PA. I don’t know if there are problems with that formula or it’s just not used just because it’s too complicated or what. I can’t imagine it hasn’t been thought of. One problem might be it doesn’t really tell you how good a hitter is at avoiding outs. For example, in this formula a double (2 TB) would make up for a plate appearance where the hitter made an out. But do additional bases make up for outs? They probably do some, but by how much? Is a homerun and four outs really worth the same as a four singles and one out? In terms of creating runs, it would be better to get four singles and make one out.

And you are right, per PA McCann was the better hitter in ‘06. But also, Mauer played more so he contributed more to his team, which is why I would pick him over McCann for a 2006 MLB First Team. Sure, he played a handful of games as a DH, but not a significant amount; I doubt his stats would look significantly different.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

TennPaul,

Regarding the problems with TB+BB+HBP/PA: the runs created formula tells us that 4 TB per 5 PA is not the same when the hitter makes one out as opposed to four outs. And it logically makes sense. Outs are very important to take into account when evaluating hitters (which is why on-base percentage is so important—out percentage=1-OBP). Outs are baseball’s most precious resource. A hitter that uses up a lot is going to cost his team, even if he has a lot of power. A hitter that hits a homer and makes four outs is costing his team an inning and 1/3. A hitter that hits four singles and makes one out only is costing his team 1/3 of an inning. Power is very important, but avoiding outs is more important.

By KC

October 19, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Ron Roberts:

Good morning. Ron, I understand where you’re coming from, and I know I come across as Braves apologist until my dying breath. To step back and put myself in your shoes, I might myself the same way you do. But if you believe (as you seem to), that I don’t have a foot on the ground… I think you’re mistaken.

You mentioned in a previous post that I was one of the last ones to jump off the “we can pull this one out” wagon this year. Maybe so. Believe me, I fully recognized the flaws of that team, but with Smoltz, Hudson, and James in the rotation, Wickman in the bullpen, and a solid offense… the Braves were in as good a shape as anyone to win the Wild Card (up until they dropped 2 of 3 to the Pirates at home)… especially when I took the caliber of the competition into account. The fact of the matter is… I did believe in the 2006 Braves team. I thought, and still believe, that they were more talented than any of the other teams in the Wild Card race. They just didn’t get it done. They underachieved in my view.

If I come across as positive and excited about the Braves, it’s because I AM! I think they have some terrific young talent, solid veteran talent, good leadership, and just enough payroll to do everything they need to do. Am I always that way? NO. I’m serious man, you should have talked to me a couple years ago. You wouldn’t believe you were talking to the same person. I didn’t believe that team almost as much as I do believe in this one. Jaret Wright and Russ Ortiz as your aces??? Give me a break. That team surprised me, very much as the Mets have this year (getting it done without much starting pitching).

Yes, I often choose to focus on and talk about the positives. Often that’s to present the other point of view in response to many of the viewpoints in this forum tend to focus on the negatives. That’s typical. People often use platforms like these to vent, so it’s always going to lean a little toward the negative. Either way, I respect it when people at least try to prove their case. Shaun’s numbers make my head spin a little, and I generally disagree for his disregard of “traditional” statistics such as RBI, but I respect that he is thoughtful in reaching his conclusions, and attempts to prove his points.

When I see something… I study it, and I come to a conclusion. I try to know what the facts are before talking too much about anything. So when I see people making statements that seem to run contrary to the facts, I have an anal compulsion to address it. Many of the statements made about Mike Hampton for instance, are totally inaccurate. I keep stating that case because people keep making the same false statements. And it bugs the hell out of me when people say Tim Hudson was “only slightly above average in 2004 and 2005”, when in fact he was in the top 10-15% of all MLB starts both seasons. That said… you’ve never heard me defend Tim Hudson’s performance this year, have you?

My point Ron is this… if you disagree with me, that’s okay. That’s more than okay. I enjoy the debate. That’s why I spend more time than I should talking baseball in this forum. But please, disagree with me and tell me why. When you instead simply dismiss my posts as the ravings of a blindingly passionate fan while claiming to be an “impartial observer” you imply that my viewpoints aren’t as well reasoned or as rational as yours, and to be honest, that kind of rubs me the wrong way. You seem to be a thoughtful person Ron, and I enjoy talking with you. My hope is just that you’ll tell me exactly why you disagree, rather than dismissing my viewpoints as diluted. Thanks man.

As for John Maine… while he is young, he’s actually not a rookie. This is his 4th big-league season. Baltimore gave up on him. If he continues to pitch this way, then yes, that is a concern.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Something for all those who thing on-base percentage is overrated

Outs are very important to take into account when evaluating hitters which is why on-base percentage is so important—OutPercentage=1-OBP. Outs are baseball’s most precious resource. A hitter that uses up a lot is going to cost his team, even if he has a lot of power. A hitter that hits a homer and makes four outs is costing his team an inning and 1/3. A hitter that hits four singles and makes one out only is costing his team 1/3 of an inning. That’s 1-1/3 innings in which the team cannot score versus 1/3 of an inning in which the team cannot score.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Sorry, for all of those who think not thing…it’s still early.

By rammerjammer

October 19, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Re: Second base, if/when Giles is dealt. DOB, are the Braves taking a look at Andy Kennedy? I don’t think we’d lose a thing with him, and we avoid throwing Prado into the deep end of the pool before he can swim.

I don’t understand linking RHP Westbrook with “mediocrity.” He was 18th in ERA among AL pitchers with more than 20 starts. That is GOOD, not mediocre. We could benefit from a GOOD, SOLID starter…not a gimpy lefty, a long reliever, or a deer-in-the-headlights slinger.

By KC

October 19, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Shaun:

I acutally read your sentence as you intended it (with the word “think”). Funny… goes to show you that we actually read things in blocks rather than word by word.

By Lew

October 19, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

There is a formula available for run production. It is simple and was good enough during the run of the Big Red Machine. It is runs scored plus RBI minus HR (when you hit a HR you are credited with a run and an RBI). No other formula is needed. You don’t need to factor in date of birth, how many siblings the player has, the name of his wife or girlfriend, nor their respective chest measurments. The number you score plus the number you drive in. Taking away HR’s evens it up for singles hitters. It even deals with the Holy Grail of stats (according to Shaun), OBP (if you score, you had to be on base). It’s ALL that matters and gives a great indication of a players runs produced. No convolution or stats courses necessary.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Lew,

One problem—runs scored and RBI depend on where the hitter is in the lineup. So, one hitter may have more RBI or runs than a superior hitter because he is in a more favorable lineup. With stats like on-base percentage or runs created, you still have to take ballpark into account. But you don’t have to take both ballpark and a hitter’s lineup into account as you would when just looking at runs and RBI minus homeruns.

By The Grinch

October 19, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

KC, you need to avoid those “anal compusions.” :-) I’m sure Hudson was in the top 10-15% of pitchers the last couple of seasons statistically (though what that says about the overall decline in MLB pitching…), but has he ever really instilled much confidence since he’s been here (after the glow of his preceeding reputation faded away)? A-rod has good numbers, but do you really want him up when the game’s on the line over most comparable players? Not that Huddy doesn’t sometimes pull through, but when he does it always like “whew!” We just dodged a bullet. Anyhoo, gotta run; see y’all later.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Lew,

Yes, RBI and runs are going to give you a pretty good indication of who the best hitter are. Good hitters are incidently going to have a high number of RBI and runs simply because of how often they are in the lineup and where they hit in the lineup.

But if you just look at RBI and runs, you are going to overrate some hitters and underrate some. Some truely good hitters aren’t going to drive in or score as many runs because they aren’t surrounded by good hitters or they aren’t in good lineups.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 19, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

seals in the news … seals are not to be trifled with.

By Lew

October 19, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Shaun-All of these caveats you mention are simply part of the game. Every player plays under similar conditions at different ballparks throughout the season. All players are at the mercy of teammates production. All are at the mercy of where they hit in the order. All of these variables are basically divided evenly throughout the course of the season. If the player plays for a terrible team (Alphonso Soriano) then you can take that into account if you want, but even it is not necessary.I mean, Soriano had a great and productive season regardless of the team’s record. If you want to see a person’s run production, you look at how many they scored and how many they knocked in. It gives you an excellent look at what the player produces. All of this reliance on convoluted stats and formulas is nothing but a recent affectation. Baseball survied for decades and was enjoyed by millions before anyone decided we had to have OPS or we were ignorant and incapable of figuring out if a player was productive. All season long you have said that Batting average is not significant. Home Runs are not significant. The Triple Crown is not significant. In fact you have come out and said nothing is significant except OBP, a stat I can’t even recall hearing about until several years ago. During the course of this season, you have denigrated every stat people have relied on for their entire lives. In essence, you have belittled all of baseball. Nothing has been significant in your eyes-not stats that have been relied on for all of baseball history, nor individual accomplishments, such as Ryan Howard’s excellent season. It seems that the only the enjoyment in baseball that you allow yourself is Sabremetrics. Dude, where’s your view of baseball history if all you care about is how often a player reaches base? Being on base is basically meaningless, except as an individual’s stats go, unless he scores. Only then is OBP significant. Runs scored and runs knocked in. It’s really simple. Why do you insist on walking through another neighborhood when all you need to get to your goal is to walk down the street?

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

This is a good example as to why common critcisms of the sabermetrically inclined are a little off base. Most of the criticism is that they come up with stats out of leftfield to prove their points or they bring up too many irrelevant stats.

Actually sabermetricians aren’t as much pro stats as pro truth. Many of the people who are anti-sabermetrics say things like RBI and R tell me who the good hitters are, we don’t need anything else. Who is bringing up an irrelevant stat? Who is attempting to use stats to prove the point that sabermetric stats are BS?

Most sabermetricians think we could filter out many stats commonly used to judge players—stats like runs, RBI, many situational stats—because they simply don’t help us arrive at the truth as much as other ones.

(Not trying to criticize you Lew and I’m not saying this is you. It’s just ironic that many people who criticize sabermetricians are guilty of many of the things they are critical of.)

By Ron Roberts

October 19, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

KC…

You can scroll up and read the many “whys” I noted previously as to “why” folks can be as equally unsure about next year’s Braves as you are “assured” of their pending success.

I don’t “”just”* dismiss your positivity. And there are positives to take note of; but there are as many (if not more) things to be concerned about with the 2007 Braves, as well. I don’t usually see you bringing thoseconcerns up as much as sticking to your guns. That’s all.

I’m not sure, actually, of Maine’s status as a veteran or rookie, actually. I know he pitched two prior seasons in Baltimore, but he was only in 11 games total over those two years, and I don’t remember how they determine what a rookie is; I know you can have played some in prior seasons, but if it were less than a certain number of games, you’d still have “rookie” status. And with pitchers, it might involved games actually on the MLB roster instead of games played. Heck, I dunno.

By NLCHAMPS

October 19, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Game plan for tonight? Count on 2 Olivers. Oliver Perez for the first 3 innings. Darren Oliver takes over for the next 3. Then the short relief specialist come in and close the deal. C’ya in the World Series!!!! Go Mets!!

By KC

October 19, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

GRINCH:

I can’t help it… anal compulsions are who I am!! lol

My point all along is that we shouldn’t lump Hudson’s last two seasons in with this one. A 3.50 ERA is not outstanding by Tim Hudson standards, but it’s still a very good ERA. This year that ERA would have put him in the top 7% of all MLB starters.

Let’s remember that in both 2004 and 2005, Huddy was pitching through a nagging injury all season. What kind of effect did that have on him? Who knows, but if it brought his ERA up even 2/10 of a run… that’s the difference between his ERA was those 2 seasons and his career ERA up to that point.

These days, we call pitchers who consistently post 3.50 ERAs “aces”. Hell… many people are calling pitchers with 3.80 ERAs “aces” (Zito, Glavine, D.Willis, and others).

Was 2006 an isolated incident in Huddy’s career? We’ll just have to wait and see, but I do know that there aren’t many lines to be drawn between this season and his ‘04 & ‘05 efforts.

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Payne: The equation I presented wasn’t an OBP equation. It’s an adjusted SLG percentage based on TPA. If you view the SLG as it classically is defined, it tells you the amount of bases a batter collects with one at bat. Perfect would be 4.000. He’d collect all four bases in one at bat. Your arguement against this was that it did not include the walks, which is why you suggested including a random coefficient in the equation for OPS. It’s a fair point. But to be accurate with your adjustment, it is not best to simply introduce a random constant. Thus, redesign your equation to include what you were seeking. You were seeking the SLG % with BB (and HBP to be complete). So, the new formula tells you how many bases a player collects per plate appearance. It isn’t a measurement of outs. But neither is SLG. It’s a measurement of how close the hitter gets to scoring when he comes to the plate. OBP is your out ratio, if you will.

Runs created is not the same thing as runs scored. Creating runs for your team is not just scoring runs, it involves getting on-base and advancing around the bases. Runs scored for an individual player depends on players behind him in the lineup and other things. Runs created attempts to isolate the players run contribution. Although you still must take the hitter’s ballpark into account, it’s better than just looking at something like runs or RBI because those are largely dependent on other hitters in the lineup.
Well, then there is a slight problem. This formula is justified by team runs scored. If they are not the same thing, then why is it calibrated by Runs Scored? The issue I have with this equation is, it is derived from a team effort and then applied to an individual effort. No runner can score without the aid of his team. Advancing around the bases, without stealing, is only possible through errors, and team hitting abilities. Hitting is the only thing your team has a say in. The errors are a gift from the other team, but cannot be counted on. And again, while the RC formula is accurate when applied to a whole team, it is off by about 50% when applied to an individual player.

As to your question of which is better, 4 singles or 1 homerun? If the most important thing is scoring runs without creating outs, then the home run is better. It scores the most runs and leaves the least probability of making an out and requires the least amount of team effort. 4 singles gets a man on, but still leaves the probability of hitting into outs. At the same time, four singles hasn’t scored a run. Unless they all come in a row, of course. But no hitter, hits behind himself. So you are still left with a team effort.

By Steve

October 19, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Giles for Westbrook might work, assuming those home run and walk rates are accurate. He’d be helped by a bigger park and better defense, plus his salary would probably be lower than Giles.

By KC

October 19, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

GRINCH:

To follow up on my last post… Tim Hudson did inspire confidence in me and I think everyone in the Braves clubhouse last year. I seriously doubt anyone in Oakland felt anything less than great about their chances whenever he took the mound in ’04.

This year… no, not much confidence inspired.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Lew,

First of all I never said OBP is the only stat that matters. I did say it is the most important single stat in terms of run creation. And on-base percentage is not just important because it tell you how many times a player reaches base—it also tells you how often a player avoids outs, which should be the standard for judging offense.

And, yes all stats are subject to outside variables, but some more so than others. For instance, how can you deny that having high on-base guys in front of you in a batting order will pad your RBI total? Yes, things like a hitter’s ballpark may affect his on-base percentage, but RBI will be affected by the same things in addition to where a hitter is in a lineup and who he is hitting behind.

Yes, baseball has survived without certain stats but doesn’t everyone want to arrive closer to the truth? I know you’re just a fan, but many baseball execs and leaders would love to continue to find out more and more about run creation and prevention and contributing to wins. And why not pay attention to that so that we the fans can know more about why and how teams win and lose?

It’s really simple. Why do you insist on walking through another neighborhood when all you need to get to your goal is to walk down the street?

You are the one that is complicating things. Looking at runs and RBI, you have to take into account so many more factors, when run scoring is not that complicated. The teams that score runs are the teams that get on base/avoid outs the best. The teams that prevent runs are the teams that keep runners off base/make outs the best. The teams that win are the teams that score more than they allow. Throwing in a player’s RBI and Runs and batting average, isn’t really telling you anything about winning and losing or how a player contributes to winning and losing.

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

Maybe I’m biased on this, but it seems we could get more for Giles than an average pitcher. Maybe. I suppose the market conditions will really dictate this. But Giles hits over .300 when not leading off and averages about 45 doubles a year. Plus he plays stellar defense. He’s valuable if you need someone who is not going to lead off. We’ll see though. JS knows how to swing a deal.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

I agree. If a hitter gets four singles, there is a chance he may not score, but he has a better shot at scoring multiple runs than someone who hits one homerun. The four-singles hitter has done his part to create multiple runs—whether it happens or not is another story.

And yes, of course baseball is a team game, and you can’t avoid that. But individual measures are necessary at least to front offices and managers. So you do the best you can. Chances are a hitter with 4 singles and one out is going to lead to more runs than a hitter with one homer and 5 outs. He many not be, but the odds are he’s going to be.

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Throwing in a player’s RBI and Runs and batting average, isn’t really telling you anything about … how a player contributes to winning and losing

Come on Payne. That isn’t true at all. How could you look at a guy who scored 100+ runs and knocked in a 140+ RBIs while batting .400 and say you have no idea how he contributed to the wins? Obviously he contributed by scoring runs and knocking them in. And when he put the ball in play, he was safe 40% of the time. He obviously contributed greatly to the wins.

By Lew

October 19, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Shaun-How can you possibly say that I am complicating things? I’ll break this down to the least common denominator for you. The purpose of baseball is to score runs and keep the other team from scoring. This means that runs are the most important aspect of baseball. There is no arguing with this (although I’m sure you will try). Therefore, runs scored and runs batted in ARE the most important stats. OBP is definitely secondary to that. Yes, other factors such as stadium and where you hit in the order can affect this, but are much less important than the scoring of the run itself. I don’t understand how you can dispute this. You can be on base and not score. If you don’t score then being on base is totally irrelevant except to OBP. Being on base may give you an oppurtunity to score, but if you don’t score then of what use was your being on base. You’re talking potentialites, not production. Bottom Line. Have you ever considered being an insurance agent? I think you be at home with actuarial tables.

By KC

October 19, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Ron Roberts:

Okay, fair enough. I don’t see many problems facing the ‘07 Braves right now myself (I know… surprise, surprise right?). I think anyone’s confidence in next year’s team depends largely on your level of confidence in Hampton and Hudson.

If you feel as I do that both are likely to turn in solid seasons next year, then you probably feel really good about the Braves chances. If they both pitch anything like the number-1 starters they can be… or heck, even if they both pitch like number-2 starters, then the rotation becomes a major strength (with Smoltz, James, and Ramirez also in the mix). Even if HoRam does go down again, You’ve got Smoltz, Hudson, Hampton, James as your 1-4 starters. You can then simply call on Davies or Cormier to be the #5 guy for a while. If you feel good about Hudson and Hampton, you feel great about the rotation.

But if you feel both are very “ify”, then you’ve got to be concerned.

I share your concern over Ramirez’s health (though if the rest of the rotation does its job, it wouldn’t impact the Braves greatly if he went down). The Braves also definitely have a couple of needs in the bullpen (a setup man and maybe another solid lefty), but I don’t talk about those much because they don’t concern me. The reason they don’t worry me is that, based on a couple of things JS has said, I think there’s very little chance that he’ll let the team go into next season without having addressed those needs.

The Braves could use a leadoff hitter, but I wouldn’t be upset if they didn’t touch the lineup at all. They scored plenty of runs last year… that wasn’t the problem.

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Payne: Home run hitters also hit singles. Would you rather have a guy who hits only singles or a guy that hits with practically the same average, but more power? You’d want more power. More power puts him closer to scoring with each at bat than a singles guy. Assuming the same batting average. You know the difference between a .340 hitter and a .330 hitter? 1%. That’s it. The .340 hitter gives you a 1% advantage when he makes contact. If the question is, do you want a .340 singles hitter or a .330 power hitter, you’d go for the power hitter. Especially when the difference in power is about 7% to 10% in favor of the .330 hitter. This means you have a 7% to 10% better chance of getting into scoring position from home plate when you make contact. That reduces the probability that the next hitter will knock the baserunner into an out while increasing the probabilty of scoring a run.

By KC

October 19, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

GRINCH, in and earlier post… meant to say “if that brought his ERA down by just 2/10 of a run…”

By Robert

October 19, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

“Outs are very important to take into account when evaluating hitters which is why on-base percentage is so important”

The game isnt about scoring runs - it’s about outs - your team not making them and getting the other team to make them

As long as the other team doesnt score, you cant ever lose

Dont even get me going on today’s 17-14 baseball games.

Perfection is a 1-0 game with the run coming on a leadoff bunt single, a steal, and two scarifices

By Robert

October 19, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

TP

Your team has a batting order of guys who all hit 600 ft home runs 99% of the time and make out the 1%

My team has little skinny guys who all hit bunt singles 100% of the time

Which team wins?

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Robert. Neither. The game never ends because no one is ever making an out.

By Ron Roberts

October 19, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

I don’t think the onus is on the Braves to go out and get a starting pitcher, believe it or not. We have a bevy of options for starters…

1. John Smoltz

2. Chuck James

3. Tim Hudson

4. Mike Hampton

5. Horacio Ramirez

6. Kyle Davies

7. Lance Cormier

8. Oscar Villareal

How many teams have that many options for a starting rotation? Within them, though, are the concerns… such as:

1. Will John Smoltz continue to produce at age 40?

2. Will Mike Hampton be as good or better coming off such a long DL stint and after surgery?

3. Will TIm Hudson ever be what we thought we were getting?

4. Will Chuck James avoid a sophomore slump?

5. Will Horacio Ramirez ever get through a season relatively healthy again?

6. Is Kyle Davies gonna be the highly-touted starter we’ve heard all along he would be? Consistently?

7. Were the fill-in starts by Lance Cormier and Oscar Villareal evidence that they could pan out as 4th or 5th starters, or better yet, much-needed set-up guys?

Here’s the thing…I think the Braves’ pitching, from rotation to bullpen, could be the most stingy, dominant staff in recent history. But with all those questions, it could also be a disaster if all the things we should be concerned about arise. I happen to think we’ll be somewhere between. We can’t be that unlucky, but I slso don’t think we’ll be that fortunate, either. Things will happen to decimate our pitching in some way, shape, form or fashion.

But if the organization keeps the offense intact, or improves on it via a trade of Giles for a LF or 2B replacement who can lead off, the Braves should be in the hunt for a playoff spot.

By rammerjammer

October 19, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

The team with the best pitching wins.

By Robert

October 19, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Ron Roberts - In all honestly, beyond Smoltz and Hudson, how many of those are GOOD options for starting pitching

Hampton is a big question mark. HoRam is crafty but has truly marginal stuff

James is promising but has a half a season of decent work to his credit

Villareal looked good as a reliever. Can he make the transition to a full time starter?

Cormier and Davies dont belong in the big leagues

and going back to the first two

Smoltz is gonna be 40, and Hudson should be good to come back off an injury plagued off year, but it aint for certain

You can never have enough pitching

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

How can you possibly say that I am complicating things? I’ll break this down to the least common denominator for you. The purpose of baseball is to score runs and keep the other team from scoring. This means that runs are the most important aspect of baseball. There is no arguing with this (although I’m sure you will try). Therefore, runs scored and runs batted in ARE the most important stats. OBP is definitely secondary to that. Yes, other factors such as stadium and where you hit in the order can affect this, but are much less important than the scoring of the run itself. I don’t understand how you can dispute this. You can be on base and not score. If you don’t score then being on base is totally irrelevant except to OBP. Being on base may give you an oppurtunity to score, but if you don’t score then of what use was your being on base. You’re talking potentialites, not production. Bottom Line. Have you ever considered being an insurance agent? I think you be at home with actuarial tables.

Yes, run differential is the name of the game. But how do you think you score runs? You score runs by getting on base/avoiding outs (and keep in my homeruns count as on-base in OBP). Can anyone tell me how you score a run without baserunners/homeruns? Doesn’t it follow that the more baserunners (high OBP) the better chance to score?

And yes, runs and RBI are important because of the word “runs;” runs are the name of the game. But they tell you little to nothing about individual performance because they are largely dependent on the other hitters. However stats like on-base percentage are not so dependent on the players around that hitter; it’s up to the individual hitter whether he gets on base/avoids an out or doesn’t.

Okay, well I shouldn’t say runs and RBI tell you nothing. Actually the better hitters in the game will collect the most runs or RBI simply because they are always in the lineup usually in front of or behind other good hitters high in the order. But there are some better hitters who are better who will have less runs and/or RBI simply because they aren’t surrounded by good hitters.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Come on Payne. That isn’t true at all. How could you look at a guy who scored 100+ runs and knocked in a 140+ RBIs while batting .400 and say you have no idea how he contributed to the wins? Obviously he contributed by scoring runs and knocking them in. And when he put the ball in play, he was safe 40% of the time. He obviously contributed greatly to the wins.

Yes, you know he contributed a lot to his team winning, but it’s impossible to know how much just by looking at the triple crown stats. You know he contributed a lot because he was a good power hitter hitting near the top of a good lineup. His RBI and Runs aren’t what make him a good hitter, that’s primarily because of his ability to avoid outs (on-base percentage) and to a slightly lesser extent to hit for power (slugging). High RBI and Runs totals are results of being a good hitter (avoiding outs and hitting for power); High RBI and Runs totals are not equal to being a good hitter.

By Paul

October 19, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Head Coach: You were the same person who said that with the St. Louis ace on the mound the series was over. How did that prediction turn out? Now your saying the Mets better pray? If St. Louis couldnt hit Maine they wont do much better against Perez. Please stop jinxing the cards with your predictions

By Robert

October 19, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

“Therefore, runs scored and runs batted in ARE the most important stats. OBP is definitely secondary to that”

That’s flat out wrong

You’re telling me the guy always gets on base but is never driven in and who never sees runners on base to knock in is then by definition no good

OBP - EVERYTHING on offense follows from that, because OBP tells the story of how often the hitter does his one real job, which is to not make an out

By MGL

October 19, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

From what I have picked up, Mike Hampton has been working extremely hard on rehab. and is already throwing pitches. Not only rebuilding his arm, but he is keeping himself in excellent shape. It appears that he is very committed to coming back in the best possible condition. If he mentally and mechanically stays on track, he could have an awsome year in 2007. He’s a fierce competitor, and also helps himself with the bat - a career .292 OPB. Let’s hope it works out!!

By NLCHAMPS

October 19, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

So Many if’s, maybe’s, should’ve, could’ve. It’ll drive you to drink…….

By Robert

October 19, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

“This means that runs are the most important aspect of baseball.”

OUTS are the most important aspect of baseball

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Home run hitters also hit singles. Would you rather have a guy who hits only singles or a guy that hits with practically the same average, but more power? You’d want more power. More power puts him closer to scoring with each at bat than a singles guy. Assuming the same batting average. You know the difference between a .340 hitter and a .330 hitter? 1%. That’s it. The .340 hitter gives you a 1% advantage when he makes contact. If the question is, do you want a .340 singles hitter or a .330 power hitter, you’d go for the power hitter. Especially when the difference in power is about 7% to 10% in favor of the .330 hitter. This means you have a 7% to 10% better chance of getting into scoring position from home plate when you make contact. That reduces the probability that the next hitter will knock the baserunner into an out while increasing the probabilty of scoring a run.

Yes, all things being equal, you want more power. But if you have a hitter that hits a lot of homeruns but makes a lot of outs in between, you aren’t going to score as much as if you have a guy who avoids outs/gets on base a lot.

*Think about offense in terms of defense. We like it when John Smoltz get three outs in three hitters. If he allows one of those hitters to not get out, the chances of the other team scoring increase obviously increase. If he doesn’t get the other team three up, three down, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will score; it does mean they have a better chance to score. So getting players with high on-base percentages (which is the same thing as low out percentages) is the best way to increase your team’s chances to score.

By Robert

October 19, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

While I agree that Head Coach is clueless, I also think you gotta understand that Maine is a FAR better pitcher than Oliver Perez.

Perez isnt a pitcher at all really, just a heaver

When the ball leaves his hand all he knows is it’s likely to either go out the strike zone or into the gap

By NLCHAMPS

October 19, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Paul, Head coach’s exact words were: “Bye bye Mets, nice knowing you”. This blog is full of fortune tellers. They’ve been horrible all year as far as the Mets. I forgive though……..they’re brave fans for goodness sakes.

By KC

October 19, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

ROBERT:

Why Mike Hampton is a big question mark?

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

However stats like on-base percentage are not so dependent on the players around that hitter; it’s up to the individual hitter whether he gets on base/avoids an out or doesn’t

This isn’t even true. IBB occure due to the hitters around you. A lot of BB occur because of the hitters around you. Bonds’ receives a lot of walks that are unintentional/intentional. So does Pujols. These are PA where the pitcher offers little to nothing, conceeding the base, but still keeping it close enough to see if you really wanna swing at it. 8th hitters receive walks as well due to the batter behind them. Pitchers in a jam, with one out to go walk an 8th hitter to get to the pitcher. Teams wishing to force the oppenant to make an adjustment walk the 8th hitter, to force the manager to either pull his pitcher, or take an almost sure out. Your team affects your at bats every time up there. About the only thing you can completely blame on the hitter and not the team is the strike out looking.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Robert,

Excellent point. A guy could get on base five times in a game but never score. That guy has done his job to create runs for his team as an individual player. As an individual, we should judge him by what he does, not what he depends on his team to do. A player that gets on base 5 times out of 5 PA gives his team a chance to score more runs than a guy that hits a homerun and a single and makes three outs. Whether his team takes advantage of it, is not his fault. When judging that player individually, we shouldn’t punish him for not scoring a run.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

OUTS are the most important aspect of baseball.

I think runs are the most important aspect of baseball, but as an individual all a player can do is increase his team’s chances to score runs—don’t make outs and advance around the bases if you’re a hitter, make outs and keep the other team from advancing if you are a pitcher/fielder. Outs are the most important aspect of judging individual baseball players.

By NLCHAMPS

October 19, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Robert, are you forgettng the complete game shutout that heaver(Perez) through against you (braves)this season? That was against a lineup that was better than St Louis’s.

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

you aren’t going to score as much as if you have a guy who avoids outs/gets on base a lot

This isn’t necassarily true. It relies heavily on his team. If you have Tony Gwynn surrounded by Rapheal Belliard, you don’t beat the team that bats .250 with 30 HR all through the line up. Gwynn can get on base all day, but if no one can knock him in, it’s useless.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

TennesseePaul,

Yes, I agree that your team may affect on-base percentage, but not nearly as much as runs and RBI. And even intentional walks increase a team’s chance to score. Also, shouldn’t players like Bonds and Pujols be awarded for drawing intentional or “unintentional intentional walks.” I mean, they wouldn’t be walked so much if they weren’t extremely good hitters. By drawing intentional walks, Bonds and Pujols did/do their part to increase their teams scoring chances.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

This isn’t necassarily true. It relies heavily on his team. If you have Tony Gwynn surrounded by Rapheal Belliard, you don’t beat the team that bats .250 with 30 HR all through the line up. Gwynn can get on base all day, but if no one can knock him in, it’s useless.

Yes, but we are talking about judging individual players. Tony Gwynn has done his part to increase his team’s scoring chances. Whether his team takes advantage of is irrelevant when judging him alone.

By TennesseePaul

October 19, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

they wouldn’t be walked so much if they weren’t extremely good hitters
Or the hitter behind them is extremely bad. An average hitter, backed by a tremendously terrible hitter will get walked to get to that terrible hitter. We are talking about individual performance, but nearly every single aspect of that individuals performance is affected by the team that surrounds him.

By Bitter Braves Fan

October 19, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Why are Braves fans talking about the Mets still? Talk about what the Braves need to do to be somewhat competitive next season. Some on this blog have said on paper and based on some meaningless stats that the Braves were somehow better than the Mets. That blows my mind! The Braves are sitting at home or are out on a golf course somewhere while the Mets play game 7 of the NLCS and some delusional Brave fans say that they were better than the Mets this past season. STOP IT! STOP IT! Fix the Braves and stop talking about the Mets. The Mets as well as their fans don’t care if you don’t like them or wish the team ill, it just doesn’t matter it is what is and it “aint gonna change.” Not until next season at least. So start the Hot Stove talk for the Braves and get off the Mets you know what.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

TennPaul,

And intentional walks, although they may depend on other hitters, should count for how many runs a player contributes individually. Runs and RBI shouldn’t because it doesn’t weigh a hitter’s contribution evenly. If a hitter gets a hit with no one on base is it fair to punish him because he didn’t get that hit with a couple of teammates in scoring position?

By KC

October 19, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

MGL

You are correct about Mike Hampton. The other encouraging thing to keep in mind (and I’ve said it here many times I know) is that it’s nearly unprecedented these days for a pitcher to show any ill effects from Tommy John surgery after the 18 month (post-surgery) mark, which Hampton will cross in March.

Many of the things that pitchers have to face when returning from TJ surgery after 12 months (tendinitis, soreness, and just the adjustment period), Hampton will be getting out of the way in a winter league.

By Shaun

October 19, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Or the hitter behind them is extremely bad. An average hitter, backed by a tremendously terrible hitter will get walked to get to that terrible hitter. We are talking about individual performance, but nearly every single aspect of that individuals performance is affected by the team that surrounds him.

Yes, but some stats are much more telling than other when it comes to judging individuals. Yes, on-base percentage may be affected by other hitters but not nearly as much as RBI or Runs. Actually, you could make the argument that Bonds would have roughly been worth the same amount of runs if he hadn’t been intentionally walks because he would have gotten hits or regular walks in many of those plate appearances.

Besides that, if we are measuring individual run creation, it doesn’t matter why Bonds was walked—only that he walked—because the walk still increased his team’s chance to score.

By rammerjammer

October 19, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Facts on Braves starting pitching: 1. Best starter will be 40 YEARS OLD. 2. Next best has four months’ experience. 3. Another one hasn’t pitched in two years. 4. And the other one had a 4.86 ERA this season.

And I’m supposed to feel good about this? And then you tell me my fifth starter could be: a) a guy who hasn’t pitched in a year, or, b) a long-reliever with 14 career starts and 4.89 ERA last year, or, c) a kid with an 8.38 ERA last year.

Folks, back away from the Kool-Aid.

You don’t like Westbrook, fine. Look for another 200-IP starter who won’t cost the farm and who is available.

By geauxbraves2000

October 19, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Yadda yadda, blah blah. Okay, there’s my two cents worth. :)

On another note, good luck tonight NLChamps. IMO the Tigers and the Mets were the two best teams this year and they should play each other in the WS.

Geaux Braves!

By berigan

October 19, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Found a list of players who have had Tommy John surgery. More relievers than starters it appears. Hope the best for Hampton, but don’t see how we can expect 200 innings this year…. http://tommy-john-surgery.foosquare.com/

By Carolina Lady

October 19, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Shaun, do you have a day job? Night job?

By KC

October 19, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Rammerjammer and berigan:

In regard to MIKE HAMPTON:

According to the most prominent doctor who performs this surgery, Dr. James Andrews (the guy who perform Smoltz’s surgery, among many others), recovery to the point of being able to pitch again takes 12 months. However, full recovery (meaning unlikely to have any remaining effects) takes 18 months.

I would challenge you to look at the stats of pitchers in recent years who have had Tommy John surgery. Take a look at their stats after the 18 month (post-surgery) mark onward. You will find that Dr. Andrew’s is correct. While it is common for a pitcher to struggle at first when returning after only 12 months, you will find that there is generally a very noticeable contrast in their performance from 18 months on.

Full recovery from TJ surgery now stands at 90% for MLB pitchers. And based on the progress Hampton has already made, it would not appear that he’s the unlucky 1 in 10.

Bottom line… there is very little cause for concern over the health of Mike Hampton. And the fact that he hasn’t pitched in a year (not 2 years as some keep saying), will mean very little. He’s pitching in a winter league and will have a full Spring Training to look forward to.

By KC

October 19, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

Smoltz’s age isn’t an issue yet and everybody knows it. Whenever someone in this forum wants to make a case for the supposed shakiness of the Braves rotation next year, they start with the obvious: Tim Hudson had a bad 2005 season. Mike Hampton’s coming off surgery. Horacio Ramirez is injury prone.

But then just to make their case sound credible they go ahead and throw in “the Braves ace will be 40” and “Chuck James hasn’t proved anything over a full season.

That’s where these arguments start to get silly. Sure, he can’t keep it up forever, but he’s not showing any signs of age yet. John Smoltz finished among the league leaders in ERA, Wins, and Strikeouts. There is “0” cause for trying to spin Smoltz as a question mark.

Trying to paint Chuck James as a question mark is almost as silly. He got everybody out in the minor leagues. Then he came up and performed very well in the Braves bullpen. Then the Braves inserted him in the rotation, and he looked terrific there as well. Especially when you consider that this kid is going to be our 4th or 5th starter this year… it’s silly to try use this guy to support your “shaky rotation” assertions.

By ncscoots

October 19, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

KC, can you remember any pitchers who were lights-out as rookies and took a step back as second-year players? Do the names Damian Moss or even Horacio Ramirez ring a bell? I’m not forecasting that Chuckie will do the same, but you can’t discount the possibility, either. Again, if that were the only “if” about the 2007 rotation, then it wouldn’t be at all worrisome…because the performance of the rotation as a whole could absorb the underperformance of a single pitcher. But you seem to completely discount even the possibility that every member of the as-now-formed 2007 rotation will not be competing for the Cy Young. And, sorry, the Plan B of Cormier/Davies doesn’t exactly make me wipe the sweat off my brow, either. I admire your passion, but I think your glasses are just a wee bit rosey, my friend.

By rammerjammer

October 19, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

KC and others,

If I may quote a DOB article in the AJC Sept. 22: “Schuerholz reiterated Thursday that rebuilding the Braves’ pitching staff to an elite level was a top priority.”

Rebuilding, he said. I don’t think staying the course with what we have is what Schuerholz has in mind.

Re-signing Smoltz and Wickman is not rebuilding. Neither is getting injuries players back. “Rebuilding” means new faces.

“Yo, Jake! Homeboy here…”

By Robert

October 19, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

“Robert, are you forgettng the complete game shutout that heaver(Perez) through against you (braves)this season? That was against a lineup that was better than St Louis’s.”

Oh no, I remember that outing only too well. I remember how impressed I was at how well managed and disciplined the Braves were - shown by how they got shut down by a guy who normally couldnt hit the side of a barn unless he was trying NOT to hit it

Why is Hampton a big question mark?

Because even before surgery he had a K/BB of only 1.5 - he puts a lot of batters on base even when healthy. I think 18 months to full recovery is one thing, but then it takes some time to get back command and muscle memory once you are pitching again.

By Robert

October 19, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Shaun - the fly in the ointment is of course the fact that NOTHING that happens is entirely independent of the team around an individual player

The closest you get is what are called the three true outcomes

The walk

The strike out

and the big fly

By Robert

October 19, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

“Smoltz’s age isn’t an issue yet and everybody knows it. ……That’s where these arguments start to get silly. Sure, he can’t keep it up forever, but he’s not showing any signs of age yet”

I dont think people are saying he WILL be a problem. I hear them saying that you have to be aware that he will be 40 years old

Assuming that a 40 year old is gonna just go out and excel like he has in the past is , well, like whistling past the graveyard

This is the same kind of philosophy as “Let Chipper go for that 7th consecutive 100-rbi season. What’s the harm?” (sounds of baseball hitting wristbone and donkey hee-hawing in the background)

This rotation MIGHT turn out to be real good. But to be blithely unconcerned …. that’s Coxian

By Lew

October 19, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Shaun-One last attempt to show OBP is overrated. I will use Furcal’s performance as an example. From 02-05, Raffy scored 95, 130, 103, 100 runs. Pretty respectable. He did this with OBP’s of .323, .352, .344, .348-relatively LOW OBP’s. Now compare that to the top 25 NL hitters this year. Every one of them (including Furcal) had OBP’s HIGHER than Furcal’s best in that four year period. Yet despite these high OBP’s, 15 of the top 25 hitters scored LESS than 100 runs (Furcal’s worst in that period). In addition to that, those with the highest OBP’s-Cabrera of FL .430, Pujols .431, Berkman .420 (and only 95 runs), and Ryan Howard .425 are all HR hitters. So, not only does OBP NOT guarantee that the run will score (and what about Chase Utley, with an OBP of.379 and 131 runs scored?), it also seems that OBP may actually benefit from hitting Home Runs.

By Robert

October 19, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

NL Champs - I think y’all will be alright, but not because of Oliver Perez.

Best sports anecdote I’ve ever heard concerned Bobby Knight - his team had come back from being down nto win late - after the game he is asked by a reporter what he was thinking during a timeout when they were like down 7 with two minutes to go

Knight said “I looked down and saw who was on the other bench (Dale Brown) and knew we’d be ok”

True story

In this case, if Perez struggles early, just look into the Cardinals dugout and you’ll see LaRussa, and you can relax

Braves playoff foes have been using this technique since 1991

By Lew

October 19, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

Scoots-How about Mark Fidrych, the Bird. Great rookie year, then bye bye.

By ernesto

October 19, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Here here rammerjammer. I don’t know about Westbrook, but everyone saying “one of the best rotations in the NL” is looking at things I don’t see. I see a whole lot of question marks. I like Huddy, but didn’t he have a sub-par year his last yr. in Oakland? He was no longer fitting the MoneyBall bill, no? Chase that with two bad yrs. in the ATL and that’s bitter…oh so, bitter. What’s this nasty stuff everyone’s talking about. That down and away slider no one swings at? I’m not sure how I feel about Huddy turning it around, Hampton returning to dominance, HoRam and Davies working things out, but pointy-nippled optimism sure ain’t it.

By Robert

October 19, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Lew - duplicate bridge dude

The guys who got on base and didnt score - it was their teammates’ fault

Take Furcal and substitute a player with a player with a higher OBP into Furcal’s spot in Furcal’s lineup, and he will score more runs than Furcal did

Comparing what player X with OBP Y on team Z did to player A with OBP B on team C is too many variables

all other things being equal, the guy who gets on abse the most scores most - when it doesnt happen that way, it’s because the other things arent equal

By KC

October 19, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

nscoots:

One of the main reasons I think it’s silly to label James a question mark, is that he will be the Braves’ 4th or 5th starter. Even if James takes a step down and add say… a half run, or even a full run to his ERA, he’d still be above average for a 4th or 5th starter. Take a look at the average ERA’s of 4th and 5th starters in baseball today and tell me I’m wrong.

If we were talking about James as our #2 starter or something… then that would be a different story. But come on, I’m assuming you watched this kid pitch… what do you suppose the chances are of James not being good enough to help hold down the bottom of the rotation are??? Is there a chance he’ll be terrible next year? Yes, of course. Anything’s possible. I’m just talking about what’s likely.

And my suggestion of Cormier/Davies as a backup was in regard to finding a fill in 5th starter. Davies hasn’t inspired me to confidence, but between he, Cormier (3.19 ERA as the Braves 4th starter in September), and even Villareal… I think we can find another 5th starter for a little while if need be. That was my only point there.

“But you seem to completely discount even the possibility that every member of the as-now-formed 2007 rotation will not be competing for the Cy Young”

You’ve got it all wrong… I don’t think they’re all going to compete for one. I think it will be a 5-way tie of Braves starters for the CY next year! =)

Listen dude… Maybe Hudson will have an even worse season. It could be that Hampton will be one of the 1-in-10 that doesn’t fully recover form TJ surgery. HoRam might go on the DL in his very first start again. Age might abruptly blindside Smoltz, suddenly rendering him to the bottom of the rotation. And we might all discover that Chuck James was just really lucky this year. Hell man, I don’t know. I’m just saying what I think the odds are here. That’s all any of us can do. The first pitch of ’07 is still 5-6 months away and anything we talk about is just on paper right now.

When I break it down one piece at a time… Here’s how I see it: I think it’s likely that Hudson will pitch better than he did in ’06. I think it’s very likely that Hampton will have no significant trouble from his surgery 18 months later. I think it’s likely that James will make a very capable 4th or 5th starter next year. And I don’t think it’s likely that Smoltz will suddenly come down with Alzheimer’s this winter.

If our rotation next year included John Thompson and Kyle Davies instead of Mike Hampton, and Tim Hudson… you wouldn’t hear any “rosy” expectations out of me. As a Braves fan, I would hope for great things, but I would not expect much. If you think I’m all about “rosy” forecasts regardless of the scenario… that can only be because you don’t know me.

But if believing in ability of John Smoltz, Tim Hudson, a healthy Mike Hampton, a great looking young left-hander (James), and even HoRam (though I’m not totally confident in his health) makes me an irrational Braves zealot… than so be it. I suspect nearly every team in baseball would trade their rotation for the one Atlanta will have next year.

By KC

October 19, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

rammerjammer:

I’m not so sure that JS doesn’t consider plugging guys like Hampton and Boyer back in to be part of that “rebuilding” process.

Certainly there will be bullpen moves made, and if there’s an opportunity to pick up another top-tier starter, I think JS should and will look into it. But I’m somewhat doubtful that there will be any practical opportunities out there to upgrade this starting rotation. But on paper (of course), this rotation already looks pretty darn good to me.

By KC

October 19, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

nscoots:

Let me clarify that when I hear a player referred to as an “big if” or a “question mark”, to me that means they’re giving that player no better than say… a 65% chance of succeeding. That’s my interpretation of it anyway.

I think the odds of James, Hampton, and even Hudson coming through for Atlanta are much better than that.

By Lew

October 19, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

Robert-There is no way anything will EVER be equal in baseball, so arguing uneveness is somewhat disingenuous. If you get on base an don’t score, then getting on base is meaningless. I would rather have people on my team that score runs. There are plenty of ways to score without a teammate getting on base or even, for that matter, being credited with an RBI. Stolen bases, taking an extra base, scoring on errors or double plays,wild pitches, passed balls or balks. It is a matter of getting into scoring position once you’re on base, not just getting on base. It is not all contingent on your teammates.

By KC

October 19, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

ERNESTO:

“Chase that with two bad yrs. in the ATL”

I’ve said this a million times… yet I feel the need to say it once more:

Tim Hudson finished in the top 15% of all MLB starters last year, and that 3.52 ERA would have placed him in the top 7% this year. That ERA is comparable to the ones posted this year by: John Smoltz, Barry Zito, Tom Glavine, D.Willis, Jason Schmidt, and a few others who others who are considered “aces”.

He would have won 18-plus games last year with even so much as an average bullpen behind him.

So if his first year in Atlanta was “bad”… you’ve got some pretty high standards my friend. This year… yes, it was bad. But last year? No way my friend. (Same thing with his last year in Oakland when he posted a 3.53 ERA).

If he can post an ERA of 3.50 next year… he might win 20 games with a solid offense and what I assume will be a vastly improved bullpen behind him.

By KC

October 19, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Meant to say: “That ERA is comparable or better than…”

By Robert

October 19, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

“If you get on base an don’t score, then getting on base is meaningless”

um - WHAT?

If you get on base and dont score, then your team has wasted a scoring opportunity. You’d rather have guys that score runs.

Tell me how you do that without OBP The only chance to score without first getting on base is the home run (or the 4 base little league style error)

Of course we want to score runs - and to maximize the number of runs scored, you must maximize the number of times each individual player doesnt make an out - in other words, maximize individual and team OBP

Go back over this - Furcal scored X number of runs with his OBP’s, and X was a pretty high number, higher than a lot of other guys

I am TELLING you, that if Furcal’s OBP had been higher, his number of runs scored would have been higher, and that if, instead of Furcal, you had another guy batting leadoff for the Braves who had a higher OBP than Furcal, then, in that year, in that lineup, he wouldve scored more runs than Furcal did

By Robert

October 19, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Heck KC, I’m starting to agree with you. Why, with that rotation of three definite aces (Smoltz, Hudson, and Hampton) a young ace in the making (James) and other near aces just lined up at fifth starter, why, it would be darn near IMpossible to not win the World Series, since pitching wins in the playoffs (usually, most of the time, unless of course you were the Braves in every year but 95)

Anyway - there is no way ANYbody could screw this up - so if the Braves dont win the World Series next year, with this SPEC-TACK-YOO-LAHR rotation of theirs, that anybody would trade for, and with this manager that everyone would love to have

well golly gee, if they dont win next year, what kind of bad luck are we gonna blame then?

By KC

October 19, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

Robert: Are you a coffee drinker? Cause’ may you could use a cup… or three.

By Lew

October 19, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

Robert-You can argue with your circular logic all you want. However, maybe you need to keep this in mind. Of the top ten teams in OBP this season, six didn’t make the playoffs and neither of the World Series teams (no matter who wins the NL) are in the top ten in OBP, probably not in the top 15. So much for OBP. It obviously doesn’t translate to wins.

By BB FAN

October 19, 2006 07:27 PM | Link to this

Robert,

You are actually right to a point on the averages. Before 1969, the picther’s mound was higher. And the numbers prove that. However, once again it does not take into consideration the different eras. Today’s players have 100 times the amount of media coverage and therefore more pressure. There’s more talent in today’s game from all over the world. A lot of things to consider. And an average hitter today has gotten stronger just from better health. So that also could make a difference.

On the steroids thing, there is not any 100% sure way to know who has taken steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. However, we don’t know what guys from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s took either. Former Braves pitcher Tom House has stated numerous times that he saw many guys taking everything from “greenies” to horse steroids in the 60’s and 70’s. Numerous others have admitted to using “greenies” in the 60’s and 70’s.

I know the first steroid was made in the late 30’s, so if they were available, some players used them. I remember reading about the steroid scandal in college football that took place in the 60’s. SO they have been around a lot longer than the last 20 years.

So maybe the numbers from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s are tainted as well. It’s hard to say, really.

By BB FAN

October 19, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this

Shaun,

Baseball is a team sport. So it’s possible to have a productive out. It’s an out that helps the team. A sac fly, sac bunt, just getting a guy to 3rd, a squeeze play, ect. It’s a team sport. Everybody on the team has a job based on their abilities. That’s why it takes chemisrty to win the WS. If not, the nthe Yankees would have had about 4 or 5 more rings these last 7 years.

The Yankees are proving that a team can not win with an all star at every position. It’s just too many egos.

By KC

October 19, 2006 07:35 PM | Link to this

No Robert… I’m starting to believe you, and all the others who say Atlanta’s rotation doesn’t look good right now. Yes, I’ve finally seen the error of my ways. You’re probably right…

John Smoltz is so old, he’ll probably develop Alzheimer’s this winter and forget how to throw his slider.

Mike Hampton’s arm will fall off the first time he picks up a baseball.

Tim Hudson should probably go ahead and turn in that Jiffy Lube application, cause’ he’s done. He’ll never have another good season as long as he lives.

Chuck James… boy was that kid lucky this year and all through the minors. But I’m sure he won’t pan out, and he’ll spend the rest of his life installing windows.

Horacio Ramirez is so injury prone… well, okay… actually I’ve always agreed with that one.

THANK YOU FOR SETTING ME STRAIGHT!!!!!!!

By ncscoots

October 19, 2006 08:06 PM | Link to this

KC, I don’t think there are many folks on the blog who would disagree with you that the SP as now situated has a chance to be very good in 2007. I certainly agree. I just may not be quite as exuberant about it as you :-). I don’t think those guys as a group are doomed to failure, but nor do I feel they are solid enough to act as a firm foundation toward the playoffs. You make good points about all the guys you mention, but the telling stat is this: that you have to defend your opinion on ALL of them. That is, there is little consensus that ANY of the guys are LIKELY to be monster in 2007. Can you see where I’m going? The uncertainty is the fly in the ointment, for me, and that’s the only reason I think trading for another starter would be a good idea. And if all the “ifs” break the right way? Well, then any extra starters could be trade bait (though after last year, I’m not sure that I might not carry 13 pitchers! Expecially considering Hampton might pinch-hit better than most of the bench guys Braves might sign, LOL!).

By ernesto

October 19, 2006 08:27 PM | Link to this

KC, look stats be damned. I know Huddy had some blown by the pen, but the guy hasn’t looked dominant since he’s been here. How many times did you hear, Hudson never loses if you give him 4 runs, only to see him cough up the lead? I can think of a few. I’m not saying he WON’T turn it around, I’m just saying we’ve got to look at the last 3 years of UN-ace like performance and say, well, that might be 2007 Huddy. So if you’re JS, what then?

By TommyB

October 19, 2006 08:32 PM | Link to this

Evenin’ all…

I decided last night that Jose Reyes is way too enamored of a camera being on him. He just always seems to have that look of being aware. Therefore, he’s always playing to the camera.

I don’t care for watching the guy anymore.

By TommyB

October 19, 2006 08:47 PM | Link to this

Hey — Did anybody other than I spot Raffie Belliard in the Tigers dugout last week? I looked it up and he’s a coach for Leyland. Thought you might want to know.

By J-MAN

October 19, 2006 08:58 PM | Link to this

Hey I like the Braves rotation but there are flaws in it. First, Hampton, he hasn’t pitched in basically 2 years and you expect him to throw the rock every 5th day for 35 starts, probably not gonna happen. I say keep him in the bullpen for the first month of the season just to build him up. Second, Horacio Ramirez and Kyle Davies, neither has shown the can stay healthy for more than 2 months at a time and heath over a 162 game schedule is critical for a winning season. Third, Smoltz, now I personally don’t think this will happen but he is 39 and anyone over 35 playing pro sports is always more suspectable to injuries so I also would let him have a skip a start every month or two just to keep him fresh. Now I know your saying J-Man if you have all these people missing starts what should we do and I’ll tell you. Go after another Big free agent pitcher!!! I say Zito now I know this won’t happen but picture it Smoltz, Zito, Hudson, James Hampton/Davies have a six-man rotation. Trade Ramirez and Giles or some of our prospects for either a Lefty in the bullpen or go after Carl Crawford and try to get some young flamethrowers in the minors if we have any value left over. Oh snap out of it!!! They ain’t gonna do that because they are gonna do like they’ve done for the last 5 years and sit on there a$$ while the Mets, Yankees, Cardinals, Angels and White Sox load up. Its sad but true.

By Calvin

October 19, 2006 10:11 PM | Link to this

Very nice play by Chavez. He’s no Andruw but it still was nice.

By nathan

October 19, 2006 11:26 PM | Link to this

Hey METS FANS who come on these blogs to trash talk……………….

How’s it going now?????

New manager….A few million bucks.

Two future HOF pitchers in your rotation…..A few million more bucks.

Having a 700 billion dollar payroll and CHOKING in the playoffs (believe us - we know)…………..PRICELESS!!!!!

Looks like after it was all said and done, the MUTZ will win the same ammount of world series games as the Braves did this year…………..ZERO!!

ha ha ha ha ha aha ha ah aha ha aha aha ha ahhh aha h ha hahh ah ah ha ah aha ah aah

LOSERS!

By el bravo x

October 19, 2006 11:29 PM | Link to this

best sport ever! dob, gotta talk…

By journalist jimmy smith

October 19, 2006 11:44 PM | Link to this

oh, the humanity!

By Calvin

October 19, 2006 11:45 PM | Link to this

gj to the Cards.

By Tom A. Hawk

October 19, 2006 11:46 PM | Link to this

Hell of a pitch by Wainwright. And he’s a lot younger than Wickman.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 19, 2006 11:49 PM | Link to this

adam wainwright! oh, the humanity! scribe will be proud. now, mets …

By Tom A. Hawk

October 19, 2006 11:53 PM | Link to this

The Cardinal celebration isn’t even stated good before nathan’s all over the blog taunting the heartbroken Mets fans. I guess the irony’s lost on him.

Class act, nathan!

By nathan

October 19, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this

I some how have a feeling we won’t be hearing any “trash” from the Mets fans till February.

On to another subject. Before I get ripped, I realize that JD Drew helped us win the year he was here. (He did NOTHING in the playoffs - which means he fit in just fine LOL!), but he was a BIG part of how the Braves kept the “run” going that year. But boy, OH BOY! Wouldn’t have been nice this year (and the years that lie ahead) to have Wainwright on this staff?

Oh, well. Waddya do?

Back to the Karen Carpenters of the NL East. Man alive, for all the HELL we went through this year, it all just seemed to “float” away with the Mets CHOKE JOB!

And yes, before you all get on your “our 85 year old” rotation wasn’t healthy horse. YUP it wasn’t, TRY DEALING WITH IT FOR SIX MONTHS! You’re all lucky you got as far as you did! But I’m sure Omar will spend a billion MORE dollars to sign Zito. Hopefully he’ll suck as bad as Hudson has. Just fess up NY. YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED, YOUR TEAM CHOKED.

I’m sure you get my point! :)

Have a nice off season Mets fans. Man does it feel good to let other fans think “woulda, coulda, shoulda” for the next few months.

By MEB

October 19, 2006 11:56 PM | Link to this

How about them Amazing Cards? I will echo the comment that baseball is indeed the best sport ever!

GO BRAVES!!!

By Phillip

October 19, 2006 11:57 PM | Link to this

Go ahead Mets fans and tell us how great your team is again. Oh well, you won the division and that’s what counts, huh? After all of the years of telling us that it means nothing, I guess it’s all you got. Bums.

By James

October 19, 2006 11:59 PM | Link to this

People say you can’t call Mets losing choking b/c they lost two of their best starters. First of all, one hasn’t been that good since he pitched for the BoSox, while the other hasn’t been good since he pitched for the Yanks, meaning that they are has beens. It’s their fault that they had a s** rotation than us. Also Cards were missing their starting pitcher AND closer, who I would rather have than Pedro and Orlando.

in conclusion CHOKEEEEEE haha

By Lew

October 20, 2006 12:00 AM | Link to this

METS LOSE-METS LOSE- METS LOSE- METS LOSE !!! He screamed, doing his best Skip Cary impersonation.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 20, 2006 12:03 AM | Link to this

now, mets … did you see the hurt on the faces of the fans? that is braves hurt. braves fans know it so well. this journalist can take no satisfaction in seeing the mets lose - but what a job by young wainwright! giving up top prospects sometimes does not work. wainwright will be a star. what of marte? what of others? let’s hope js is working right now to make the 2007 team ready to win the pennant - not the division - the pennant and then the world series.

By nathan

October 20, 2006 12:04 AM | Link to this

Tom A. Hawk

You do realize that this is a BRAVES blog, don’t you?

For SIX FRICKIN MONTHS, we had to listen (read) to the few Mets fans that had nothing better to do with their time than to come on to the Braves blogs and “taunt” us repeatedly. They had theire WS tickets printed in June. Guess what!

I DON’T FEEL SORRY FOR THEM, ONE STINKIN’ BIT!!!!! I think it’s funny! So yes if “waiting in the weeds” for the Mets to CHOKE (have I mentioned yet that they DID CHOKE) so I could come back with a few jabs of my own makes me a class act. Then YES, I’m about as classy as it comes!

:)

By Tom A. Hawk

October 20, 2006 12:05 AM | Link to this

The Mets lose Martinez ans El Duque before the playoffs, yet they win one series and take the Cardinals to the ninth inning of the seventh game (a game they had to resort ot 3-13 Oliver Perez to start) in the other. No matter how you look at it, nathan, that wasn’t a choke.

Lonnie letting a rookie second baseman decoy him out of scoring a World Series-winning run — that could be classified as a choke.

Blowing a 6-0 lead in Game Four in 1996 — that’s definitely a choke.

Having Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz in their primes and only winning one measly title — that’s the ultimate choke.

Learn the difference, nathan. It’s not subtle, so even you should see it.

By nathan

October 20, 2006 12:22 AM | Link to this

Tom A Hawk

How BIG was the Mets payroll?

How BIG was the Yankees payroll?

Ask the BOSS if the Yankees choked. So buy those standards, the Mets CHOKED.

Who hit the homer tonight to win it? Oh yeah the “BIG GUN” Molina. Might as well have been Lyritz or Sprague.

Listen. I’m not saying the Braves didn’t CHOKE for the better part of a decade. THEY DID! Hell, they CHOKED for six months this year. Our rotation with Hudson and Smoltz at the top should’ve BLOWN the Mets rotation out of the water this year. JS choked by not aquiring a closer until it was too late. Bobby choked by running Reitsma and Sosa out there every night. Smoltz choked down the stretch. Giles choked for 5 months. Hudson has CHOKED since he’s been here.

See, your looking for the differences between the two, and I see WAAAAAAAAAY too many similaritiies. Omar overspent to get them to the WS. They failed to get there. Thus they choked. Go ask the Mets players if they think they are the better team (if the answer is yes - THEN THEY CHOKED!)

If you’re too blind to see it, you last name must be Cox.

By Calvin

October 20, 2006 12:35 AM | Link to this

If you remember nathan, JD Drew did win game 4 of the NLDS against Houston with a clutch basehit to score Raphy.

By Cleanuphitter16

October 20, 2006 12:52 AM | Link to this

Ah hahahahaha! That was fun. I’m sure the Mets are thrilled to have paid Beltran $13,571,429 this year to strike out on 3 pitches on the most important at-bat of the season. Ended the season with the bat on his shoulders! Gotta love it. Maybe ESPN will realize Willie Randolph isn’t the next Messiah now. Nice decisions by Willie this game too…leaving in Heilman in the 9th w/ Wagner ready, pinch hitting Floyd in the 9th, leaving in Perez to face Rolen (Chavez saved Willie there BIG TIME.) Macha got fired for less after the A’s lost the ALCS this year.

By Head Coach

October 20, 2006 12:53 AM | Link to this

Tom a.Hawk/Grinch isnt even a Braves fan , Nathan. As we can see he shows his true colors when his team losses. Congratulations Mets nation on a great season. but , unfortunately you must suffer the same fate as we braves fans have seen all to often in the postseason. Now……….. let the slaughter begin. You poor , poor Cardinals are about to get your butts handed to you on a silver platter.

By The Grinch

October 20, 2006 12:58 AM | Link to this

BAAAWWAAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! WHOOOOOOOOO-HOOO! HEE-HEE-HEE-HAW-HAW-HAW!

Hey, NLRUNNERUP, where ya at? :-)

Bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, your best hitter up at the plate looking like a dog who just heard a sound he doesn’t understand as a Braves cast-off gets a called strike three…(cough, gag, CHOKE)

By Don

October 20, 2006 12:59 AM | Link to this

Tom A. Hawk, if you think the Mets pitching injuries beat them in this series, you apparently didn’t watch them hit 2 for 25 with runners in scoring position or watch David Wright hit about .130 with 1 RBI in 7 games or watch Beltran take a first pitch fastball right down the middle with the bases loaded, two runs down and two outs in the ninth, ensuring he’d then see nothing but nasty curveballs. And then he took one of those for strike 3. I guess you didn’t see the entire Mets lineup make American League washouts Jeff Weaver and Suppan look like Koufax and Drysdale. You must not have watched the series at all if you think the Mets pitching injuries beat them in this series. Either that or you’re a complete moron like Nathan and Robert.

By Drummerdad

October 20, 2006 01:01 AM | Link to this

NLCHAMPS, I don’t suppose you’re in here right now, (we certainly can understand any pre-occupation you might have) but I would like to take this moment and have a quiet little chat about an earlier post you made today. You said: Paul, Head coach’s exact words were: “Bye bye Mets, nice knowing you”. This blog is full of fortune tellers. They’ve been horrible all year as far as the Mets. I forgive though……..they’re brave fans for goodness sakes.

Now mr. champs, it would appear that you should change your handle or declare yourself as being your team’s official prophet for 2007.
As for Braves fortune tellers, they are apparently right when it counted. But you should count us among your biggest friends right now because nobody feels your pain more. We understand, and we’re here for you.

By The Grinch

October 20, 2006 01:07 AM | Link to this

Head Coach, you’ve confuded me with two different people in two days now, both of which are about as obviously different in the way they write and their opinions as they are from me. I gave you a pass last time ‘cause I figured you were drunk. Now I can see you’re just stupid, unless you’re trying to p** me off instead. Maybe both. Either way, I’m gonna give you an opportunity not to bring my name up again and I won’t yours. Otherwise, it’s gonna be open season and you won’t like it.

By Head Coach

October 20, 2006 01:21 AM | Link to this

Grinch/Tom A. Hawk , your a poser. Wasnt it nice to see Wainwright making the whole J.D. Drew trade look even worse ? Marquis winning 56 games and helping the Cardinals into the postseason three years in a row now , yea that was a wonderful trade. We get one postseason and the Cards have three so far……… so , lets be sure to trade some pitching this offseason.

By Tom A. Hawk

October 20, 2006 01:24 AM | Link to this

Yeah, right. No credit at all to St. Louis. Suppan wasn’t any good; Jorge Sosa could have dominated those Mets chokers.

By journalist jimmy smith

October 20, 2006 01:32 AM | Link to this

I LOVE little school boys…I want to make sweet love to them, with pie in hand. Oh the humanity! I am one gay mother….see everybody next Spring!! I’m heading to the mountains with the 2 homo boys. Take care all. Wish me some gay luck!! Oh the humanity!! Bye!!!

By Ron Roberts

October 20, 2006 01:38 AM | Link to this

NLCHUMPS

TomAHawk.. if you’re lookin’ to make excuses after months and months (if not years) of Braves fans not being allowed to…

…screw it. Shut up. You lost.

We weren’t allowed to whine about not having Javy Lopez in the playoffs in ‘99, so I don’t wanna hear the “we didn’t have Pedro” crap.

We weren’t allowed to whine about Garry Sheffield not being able ot hardly grip a bat in ‘02, so I don’t wanna hear the “we didnt’ have Pedro” crap.

No Smoltz? No whining, ya said. Same goes for you schmucks.

See ya on the field next year. Better go get Zito and/or Schmidt, ‘cause we don’t have holes in our rotation… we have options. And our offense was actually more lethal than yours.

By Don

October 20, 2006 01:41 AM | Link to this

Take another shot at it Tom A. Hawk. Explain why the Braves are chokers when they lose but the Mets hitters didn’t choke in this series. Your injured pitchers excuse doesn’t wash because the Mets pitching didn’t beat them, their lack of hitting did. Just as the Braves lack of timely hitting beat them in several series. But it’s choking when the Braves do it and not when the Mets do it, is that right?

The Mets just lost to the second worst regular season team ever to go to a World Series. Based on the way Mets hitters swung the bats in this series Jorge Sosa might have dominated them. Jeff Weaver did.

Sorry, your eagerness to label the Braves as chokers and the Mets as non-chokers is making you look like an idiot.

By The Grinch

October 20, 2006 01:44 AM | Link to this

I figured you were too stupid to take that offer. You know, at first I though you were trying to be funny/ironic the first time or two I saw you make a point with flawed logic, followed by someone respectfully disagreeing with you and offering their usually well-thought out reasons, followed by you jumping up and down like a kid who just had their play-station taken away from them and insulting the superior intelligence of whoever dared disagree with you. Then I realized after a bit that you weren’t joking, that you really are that immature, ill-bred and fundamentally stupid and I began to wonder how you could afford an internet connection. I feel sorry for whoever’s paying for it, unless they’re giving it to you in exchange for being able to avoid your company. In that case it’s money well spent. In looking briefly at your collection of posts, I can only hope you’re a teenager, because if you’re an adult and still act this way the streets and children (and probably the sheep) of even North Dakota aren’t safe from your paranoid, uneducated, “I am the only authority on anything that has ever been, only I’m a f-ing moron, now someone change my diaper” temper-tantrums. Do you even look at what you post after you type it? Before I really get ugly, I’m gonna give you one more opportunity to leave me alone. Truthfully, I don’t care one way or the other; you give me enough ammuntition I can insult you for the next six months. I’m not going anywhere. But others on this blog might not appreciate it, nor might you. Everytime I see the word Grinch in any of your posts, I’m gonna get deeper and deeper and uglier and uglier until you figure out to leave me alone. If I don’t see any reference to me, I’ll return the favor and we can all go back to other things. Fair enough? Your call.

By Tom A. Hawk/The Grinch

October 20, 2006 01:54 AM | Link to this

Head Coach, how in hell did you know I’m the Grinch, too? I’ve been so careful in keeping those identities separate. Tom’s an eloquent, baseball-loving regular Joe; Grinch is a drunken, pseudo-intellectual buffoon.

So please tell me, Coach: What gave me away?

You are one perceptive bastard.

By Andy

October 20, 2006 02:00 AM | Link to this

tHATS RIGHT METS FANS—-WHERE ARE YOU? Tom A HAwk—come on—-talk!!!! You met fans…come on. No NO NOOOOO!! Where is the ring—-where—come on all you f####### a####### who come on a braves blog—-talk crap all year—not the one cool guy who actually has something to say—but still. I have a bunch of met fan friends—I’ll give it a week before I tell them I am sorry for your team’s demise—but any other fu#### mets fan that comes here on this board——thank god you guys sucked so bad. GOOD. I know for whatever reason you will be back again—but for now—you will stay away—-thank god.

By David O'Brien

October 20, 2006 02:04 AM | Link to this

Five hits and one run in 15 innings against … Jeff Suppan?

Probably a good thing they’re not facing the Tigers’ aces.

By Tom A. Hawk/The Grinch

October 20, 2006 02:08 AM | Link to this

We (Tom/Grinch) don’t think either the Braves OR the Mets are chokers. We just wanted to point out the irony of the Braves calling ANYBODY chokers when Atlanta has set the standard for postseason futility.

And before you celebrate too much, better think about how you’re going to make up those 17 games you finished behind the choking Mets this year. Of course, New York’s going to buy up more talent this offseason, and fill any holes that develop during the 2007 campaign with still more money, so you all will be ablew to fall back on your tired “paroll” alibi.

We (Tom/Grinch) love when you guys do that.

By The Grinch

October 20, 2006 02:09 AM | Link to this

Howdy, Stinky. Nice to know you haven’t left for good. Even though you’re a coward, you’re at least occasionally amusing. Anyhoo, I see this isn’t going to go very far towards civilized discussion, so I’ll sign off for the evening. Night, all.

By Upset Special

October 20, 2006 02:15 AM | Link to this

Cardinals in 4!!!!

By Calvin

October 20, 2006 02:31 AM | Link to this

I don’t see the Cards beating the Tigers. The Mets got the NLCS to 7 games with the likes of Maine and Oliver Perez. The Tiggers boast the best ERA in all the majors. I say the Tigers win it in 5.

By Don

October 20, 2006 02:35 AM | Link to this

Actually Mr. Hawk, your 12:05 post said the Mets weren’t chokers and the Braves were. In fact you spelled out 3 different Braves chokes. You actually, pathetically, tried to hang this Mets loss on pitching injuries and somehow hope that nobody noticed the complete hitting futility up and down the Mets lineup with men on base.

But you didn’t really mean it, you were just “pointing out the irony”.

Come on Hawk, you’ve dished out the $hit on the Braves. Now be man enough to eat it. Don’t give us the irony crap.

Your Division title is meaningless. Your season was a failure. Your team has acccomplished nothing since 1986.

Which is a worse way to lose the NLCS, walking in the winning run or having your best hitter take strike 3 with the tying run on second base and the winning run on first?

By Tom A. Hawk

October 20, 2006 02:57 AM | Link to this

Allegory for Braves fans, from “The Wild Bunch”:

Pike Bishop: There was a man named Harrigan. Used to have a way of doin’ things. I made him change his ways. A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can’t stand to be wrong.

Dutch Engstrom: Pride.

Pike Bishop: And they can’t forget it… that pride… being wrong. Or learn by it.

Dutch Engstrom: How ‘bout us, Pike? You reckon we learned — bein’ wrong, today?

Pike Bishop: I sure hope to God we did.

By Calvin

October 20, 2006 03:02 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry but the 04 Yankees are the biggest “chokers” in ML history.

By berigan

October 20, 2006 03:49 AM | Link to this

The Mets lost, but I wouldn’t call them chokers at all. Like Calvin said, the 2004 Yankees, now those were chokers. We need to forget those low class Met fans that didn’t want to post on Met boards. I am sure there have been similar Braves fans that taunted Mets fans on their boards. Next year, both the Mets and Braves will be looking up at the Marlins anywho. Carlos Beltran I am sure thought they would waste a pitch with an 0-2 count on him, not for Wainwright toss an unhittable curveball. Glad the braves were able to help the Cards get to the W.S. They should give J.S. a cut of the playoff pie as well.

By Stinky

October 20, 2006 04:41 AM | Link to this

Some day, when I’m awfully low, When the world is cold, I will feel a glow just thinking of all you Mets fans… And the way you look tonight.

By Matt

October 20, 2006 05:50 AM | Link to this

new to the blog fellas. nice to meet you all. big Braves fan. lived in atl until 1992, then moved up to connecticut (just in time for the rise of chipper).

due to the new york/boston/philly metro area, i was surrounded by philly fans in 93, surrounded by yankee fans in 96, 97, 98, and 99, was forced to bear witness to the god awful subway series in 00, and, quite gratuitously, around for the yankees of 04 and the mets of 06.

a few things…

i’ve never had a problem with the mets, but i’ve always hated their fans. i’ve been to shea, and trust me, that team doesn’t deserve a new stadium. keep those holligans in the s—-house they currently inhabit.

i’ve paid my dues listening to the claims of the braves’ supreme playoff ineptitude from all these b*stards, and i usually shrugged them off. but last year, i was being laughed at after the 18 inning mararthon, and right then and there i vowed to humiliate them the next chance i had. vindictive? yes. but i knew it had to be done.

i’m listening to WFAN in new york right now, and hearing these crying bellyachers calling in to the show brings a helluva wide smile to my face. i am going to listen until i can’t stay awake anymore. my how great it feels for the shoe to be on the other foot.

don’t get me wrong, i am not more happy that the muts failed than i am upset that the braves tanked this year, but its about time all their talking this season cannot continue anymore. i couldn’t even understand it cause it was mostly in spanish.

i would have loved to see kenny rogers mow ‘em down in the WS.

someone brought up knoblauch before, and that upset me. i’ll chalk lonnie’s faux paux up to the fact that they were in last place the year before, and none of them really knew how to behave in the WS.

on a final note, is anyone else (sort of) glad “the streak” of division titles is over? the monkey’s off our backs. now we can take a step back and realize that the team we’re currently working with ain’t that bad. they can hit, they can field, and the pitch (at least in the beginning of the game). we’re not gonna go out and stock up the big market free agents, but we will get what we need… some freaking bullpen help. i really believe that a solid core of relievers was all this year’s team needed to believe in itself a little more.

anyway that’s all. enjoy the offseason new york. zito will look great in orange and blue, but keep this pace up, and you’re destined to become what your crosstown rivals are now… a bunch of overaged, overpaid, unmotivated, whining primadonnas.

“YOU GOTTA BEREAVE!!!”

see you on april 1.

By Greg

October 20, 2006 06:24 AM | Link to this

Mets fans. Welcome to the crapshoot. The playoffs are all about luck. Any team can win. All they need is a couple of good nights. Look at the Marlins. They got lucky against the Cubs and then they got hot. The ’93 Braves were by far the best team in baseball, but the Phillies got hot in the playoffs. The playoffs are even more of a crapshoot now that we have the wild card. 14 times in, one championship. It’s not just about choking. It’s about the roll of the dice. A team can do everything right and still lose.

By Paul

October 20, 2006 07:22 AM | Link to this

Congrats to the Cards. I dont think anyone had the Tigers and Cards in the World Series at the start of the season. As a brave fan, I feel your pain Mets fans. I know all too well how it feels when someone else clinches a world series berth on your home field. As a true braves fan I know playoff futility. Hey DOB, how good would Oliver Perez be as the Braves fifth starter? Whats his status for next year? (under contract or free agent)

By Paul

October 20, 2006 07:41 AM | Link to this

Hey MATT, Being a brave fan in the New York metro area isnt easy. I lived outside of Atlanta until 1991 and moved to New Jersey. I am going to listen to Mike and the Mad dog and tape the entire broadcast on the YES Network. Nothing was better than listening to their broadcast after the Detroit series, and now the game 7 from last night.

By Robert(Justice Is The Best)

October 20, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

Funny how none of those Mets’ fans that have infiltrated and deterioted this blog are nowhere to be found right now. I guess crow doesn’t taste all that good.

For anyone to say the Mets didn’t choke is laughable. Yes, the Mets were without Pedro, El Duque, and a ailing Floyd. However, the Cards were without Mulder (their co-ace), Isgringhausen, and while Puljos played he was injured and clearly was not himself.

As bad as the Mets rotation was it was still better than the Cardinals’. Besides, it wasn’t the pitching that let the Mets down it was the hitting. The big bats went ice cold. Delgado, Beltran, Wright, Lo Duca, and Reyes all had good averages in the NLCS but when it counted most none of them could come through.

Not to mention their “great” manager had as much to do with losing this series as anyone. Why is Wagner not in the game in the 9th? Their the home team. It wasn’t like they had to save them for the bottom of an upcoming inning. You have to have your closer in the game at that point. Also, for all the “smallball” bashers, last night was the perfect example of why teams who don’t do it well don’t win. There was no excuse for not bunting the runners over in the 9th when they have 1st & 2nd w/0 out. They had Reyes and Lo Duca coming up in the lineup and would have had the tying run at 2nd. That was bad managing.

Unlike the Yankees, I don’t feel sorry for the Mets. They were so proud to end the Braves streak and were going to go in the playoffs and win it all unlike the Braves. Well, in the end they did the same thing the Braves have always done. They choked! And their manager made some of the stupidest mistakes in the history of the NLCS. Congratulations, Mets.

I bet Cox would have brought in Wickman in the 9th.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 08:00 AM | Link to this

“the fly in the ointment is of course the fact that NOTHING that happens is entirely independent of the team around an individual player

The closest you get is what are called the three true outcomes

The walk

The strike out

and the big fly”

This is true to a great extent. Sabermetricians would agree, which is why there are Defensive Independent Pitching Stats. They have found that a great measure of pitching performance is looking at those three things. Using an ERA based on HR, BB and K is actually a better predictor of actual ERA than actual ERA from the previous season.

Actually, a hitter can largely control which pitches he swings at and how hard he hits the ball. On-base percentage and slugging percentage, while not perfect, give us the best idea how good a hitter is at those two aspects of hitting.

By matt

October 20, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Crapshoot? Please….the Braves were unlucky 13 or 14 times (whatever it was) because it’s a crapshoot?!? You have to rise to the occasion in the playoffs! The game doesn’t change, the stage just gets bigger! Too bad for you New York fans! HA! Not only did one of your store bought teams not make it to the WS but both of your All-Star stacked teams didn’t. Everyone was screaming subway series! HA! I love it! I guess it’s true what they say: Money can’t buy happiness…..or apparently a championship!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

By Robert

October 20, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

“I bet Cox would have brought in Wickman in the 9th.”

Randolph lost it in 7. Cox couldve done it in 5, max.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

One last attempt to show OBP is overrated. I will use Furcal’s performance as an example. From 02-05, Raffy scored 95, 130, 103, 100 runs. Pretty respectable. He did this with OBP’s of .323, .352, .344, .348-relatively LOW OBP’s. Now compare that to the top 25 NL hitters this year. Every one of them (including Furcal) had OBP’s HIGHER than Furcal’s best in that four year period. Yet despite these high OBP’s, 15 of the top 25 hitters scored LESS than 100 runs (Furcal’s worst in that period). In addition to that, those with the highest OBP’s-Cabrera of FL .430, Pujols .431, Berkman .420 (and only 95 runs), and Ryan Howard .425 are all HR hitters. So, not only does OBP NOT guarantee that the run will score (and what about Chase Utley, with an OBP of.379 and 131 runs scored?), it also seems that OBP may actually benefit from hitting Home Runs.

Actually this just proves my point—that runs don’t necessarily tell us much about the skills of an individual hitter. If a hitter is hitting at the top of a lineup regularly in front of good hitters, he’s going to score a lot of runs.

Runs are more of a team-oriented stat because in many cases it takes several hitters to score a run. On-base percentage, slugging percentage and batting average could be affected by the hitters around you but not nearly to the extent of R and RBI.

And, yes, OBP benefits from HR—OBP benefits from anything that is not an out, which is exactly why it’s the most important single stat (notice I DID NOT say the only one that matters, but the most important single stat). Again, outs are a baseball team’s most precious recource. On-base percentage tells us how good a team is at avoiding outs for as long as possible. OBP against tells us how good a team is at getting outs quickly.

Yes, you can make up for deficiencies in OBP with a high slugging percentage to a certain extent, but your team isn’t going to score a lot of runs with a low on-base percentage.

By Tom A. Hawk

October 20, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

You’ll have to do a soliloquy today, Shaun. No one’s listening. And they’re all so happy about the Mets’ demise, you can spew your stats all day and no one will be testy enough to satisfy your deep, sick need for confrontation.

So go eat some oatmeal without salt.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Baseball is a team sport. So it’s possible to have a productive out. It’s an out that helps the team. A sac fly, sac bunt, just getting a guy to 3rd, a squeeze play, ect. It’s a team sport. Everybody on the team has a job based on their abilities. That’s why it takes chemisrty to win the WS. If not, the nthe Yankees would have had about 4 or 5 more rings these last 7 years.

The Yankees are proving that a team can not win with an all star at every position. It’s just too many egos.

Well, a productive out takes a baserunner, doesn’t it? And wouldn’t it be better for a hitter to get a hit and drive in a run or take a walk and let the next hitter drive them in?

I know a sacrifice is the best option in some situations (when the pitcher is up or in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth, runner on 2B), but I would argue the out is not what is productive—it’s the baserunner.

I sure hope you’re kidding about the Yankees. They would have more rings over the last 7 years if they were better at run prevention. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Yankees’ playoff failures coincide with their drop in the fewest runs allowed rankings. Run prevention and good fortune is what matters most in the playoffs.

By Rodger

October 20, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

First, a moment of congratulations-the Mets had a terrific year, and looked poised to have many more. As we found here, once you know you can win, it becomes easier to do. And the Mets have some damn good players.

That said, NLCHAMPS, I told you months ago you were jumping the gun. Now you have to go to NLEASTCHAMPS or NLDSCHAMPS, or better yet, just go troll the Mets boards.

SEE YA!

By Matthew

October 20, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Someone mentioned a Rafael Belliard sighting. I found this link on the Tigers’ page. Thought the fans would like to see how our former SS is doing.

[http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/coachstaffbio.jsp?c_id=det&coachorstaffid=110841]

Congrats to the Cards and Tigers. I look forward to a WS full of history, and a Tiggers’ win in six.

Have a great weekend, everybody!

By Lew

October 20, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Shaun-For Crying out loud-Cool it on the stats for one flipping day and give the Mets grief, Dude.

By mike

October 20, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

This just in. . .

Carlos Beltran is STILL standing at the plate, bat on his shoulders, looking like an idiot.

By mike

October 20, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

When the tv cameras pan the crowd, and it happens a lot during postseason baseball, every stadium except SHEA has nice looking women. What is it about that place? Now we won’t have to look at ugly women and what appears to be a dancefloor at a gay bar in the stands.

By BB FAN

October 20, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Shaun,

My point about the Yankees is that you need a team, not an all star at every position. They tried to do that with the picthers as well. But it failed. Because Steinbrenner went out and bought the best players statistically at every position. He did not take the little things into consideration.

Even though Randy Johnson was dominant in 2004 with the D-Backs, he was 40 years old and in the NL and there was no pressure like he has in NY. Wright and Pavano were dominant in 2004 with Atlanta and Florida as well but did not have the pressure of picthing in NY.

Same for A-Rod and Sheffield. Sheffield has never been great in the post season.Aand in his last 4 or 5 postseasons, he has really sucked. A-Rod is not a NY kind of guy. He takes the boos personally and it affects his play. Which is not out the ordinary as a human being.

Steinbrenner saw all the homers and high average and slugging % for Giambi and gave him 85 million dollars. Every number you could imagine for Giambi was good…except he can’t play defense.

For some guys, it’s a matter of where they play. A guy that’s happy and has less pressure usually plays better.

And defense is a big part of winning baseball games. A guy could have all your great stats but if he sucks defensively, then he will hurt the team. If a guy has only solid offensive numbers, but is great defensively, he will help the team.

By Bravo Nam

October 20, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

I’m back after three weeks stalking through the wilds of Vietnam.

DOB Noticed one of your comments almost two weeks back about Badfinger. Glad you had another listen. “Day by Day”, still a classic. Another two songs that are just as good, but no one has heard of: “Name of the Game” and “Carry On Til Tomorrow”.

Robert I fell off my chair when you finally changed from Cox bashing to another topic and showed you knew a little about baseball. Alas…it wasn’t to be. You just can’t leave it alone. Every single opportunity you get you have to revert back to Cox bashing. These days doing it with more subtlety. Just can’t kick the habit, can ya? Your criticism of Cox has become so extended, bitter and twisted that one can’t help but wonder if there is a personal connection between you two. Anyway, talk about your favourite donkey all you want, but the only one around here who resembles an a* is you, little fella (oh, and your good buddy SJA).

Mets Fans Commisserations on the tough loss- the Braves have had some bad luck in the past, but I thought it was a real courageous performance from the Mutts doing what they did after losing ED and Martinez. Don’t like the Mets, but no gloating from here- 13 out of 14 years of ultimate failure teaches one humility.

By rammerjammer

October 20, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

I’m not a Mets fan - trust me - but having the best record over 162 games used to mean something.
It meant you earned a trip to the World Series, which was supposed to be your reward for six months of excellence.

Now it just earns you a trip to play ANOTHER team not nearly as good as yours, and then YET ANOTHER team not nearly as good as yours. The six-month season is reduced to a two-week sprint.

It’s like telling Tiger Woods, “Hey, Tiger, instead of playing FOUR rounds to win the U.S. Open, we’ll just play the back nine once. You against this other guy. Good luck!!”

The six months of dominance earns you nothing but two weeks of games against other teams that have no business being in the postseason.

Again, I’m no Mets fan, but does anyone really believe the CARDINALS are the best team in the National League?? They had six months to prove it, and didn’t come close. But they get a two-week reprieve, and now they’re in.

I hope the Tigers crush them like bugs.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

BB FAN,

You’re right, if the Yankees had spent their money wisely on pitching, they would have won. But I don’t think you can blame ARod or Giambi. Sure ARod struggled this year, but his overall post-season numbers aren’t bad at all, even his numbers with the Yankees.

Run prevention—pitching and defense—are what matters in the playoffs. The Yankees spent their money on everyday superstars and mediocre, old pitchers.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

rammerjammer,

I see your point, but often times the best team doesn’t win in the regular season either. In 2005 the Indians were the best team in the AL according to their run differential. The White Sox were the fourth-best team in the AL according to run differential. And with any playoff system, there are always going to be inferior teams winning it all.

I agree, it probably would be fun to see a pennant race rather than playoffs. But with playoffs, more teams have a shot at winning it all, which I guess is what baseball prefers. There are advantages and disadvantages to a playoff system.

By MGL

October 20, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

rammerjammer - You have a point, however it is the same one that we have had to think about many times in Braves post-season. It’s like a school year when daily quizzes only count for a small amount, it’s the finals that determine the grade. Fact is, the Mets got outplayed in seven games in almost every meaningful measurement. ERA, AVE, OBP, SLG. They just did not deserve the best grade.

By Carolina Lady

October 20, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

216 crow pies shipped to Shea Stadium. I am certainly glad to have that freezer space empty again! :-))

By Jim

October 20, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

I don’t know if the Mets had a donkey in their dugout last night, but pinch-hitting Floyd with runners on 1st and 2nd and 0 outs has to rank as big a managerial blunder as leaving an obviously spent Pedro in to pitch to Matsui in ‘03. With an accomplished bunter like Glavine on the bench, he should have opted for for a 70% or better chance of having 2nd and 3rd with one out and Reyes — who brings the threat of a bunt or an infield hit with him to the plate— and LoDuca — a good clutch hitter that doesn’t strike out very often — coming up next.

He would also be faulted for leaving O. Perez in one pitch too long if it weren’t for one of the greatest catches I’ve ever seen.

Robert, Willie Randolf made more mistakes in one game than Cox has made in 14 years of playoff ball. (I’m still waiting for you to tell us the mistakes that Cox made that cost us in all of those years.)

The most common thread between this year’s Mets and most of those Brave teams is the lack of a bench. In the year that the Braves won, they had major contributions from Devereaux and Polonia. In most other years the lack of a reliable pinch-hitter (or one that couldn’t be negated by a pitching change) (along with a weaker bullpen) cost them.

By Arkansas Hillbilly

October 20, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Anybody know how the Tigers/Cards Probable Pitching rotations are gonna line up for the series?

By Carlos Amato

October 20, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Talk about a 83-win team getting to the WS. It’s as low as it gets…

By rammerjammer

October 20, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Shaun,

Thanks, but it was just a rant. Run differential is irrelevant to me. I’m talking old school…wins and losses…nothing more.

I’m just tired of seeing a mediocre, forgettable team get hot for a week and play in the World Series.

By TommyB

October 20, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Howdy CLady,

Dumb question probably, but how did you arrive at the number “216?”

Also, please share your recipe for all our dear Mets fans who inhabit this blog and may need some DIY help.

By The Grinch

October 20, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Morning, all! Matt, welcome to the blog.

Mike, I mentioned that during the wild card; the chicks at Shea all seem to be 40+ pounds overweight and have mustaches. I’d like to have a framed poster of the “Delgado” face.

Tom, your 8:48AM post was classic.

Mets fans: congradulations! Now you’re up to two little N.L. East banners flying in your stadium! Talk shome s%&T!

By rammerjammer

October 20, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

I think Randolph made the right move.

If he bunts the runners over, that’s second and third with one out. Reyes, the next batter, would have been intentionally walked to set up a double play.

LoDuca, the next batter, is a catcher and a perfect DP candidate.

Plus, you don’t give up outs in the ninth inning of the last game of the season.

Now I would’ve brought Wagner in to start the 9th, but that’s another story.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

How about the old format plus a wild card team? The wild card team plays the other division winner in a three-game series at the division winner’s home park with no off days. The winner of that series plays the team with the best record in the LCS.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

rammerjammer,

I agree. The biggest mistake Randolph made was leaving his best reliever in the bullpen in a tie game in the 9th in the most important game of your career.

By Carolina Lady

October 20, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Hey, Tommy! That’s how many pies I could make with the number of crows I had. No need for mindnumbing number-crunching-for-the-sake-of-crunching-numbers here! :-))))

By Jim

October 20, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

rammer,

You don’t walk the winning on base, especially someone as fast as Reyes. The DP was more of a possibility with a limping Floyd. You don’t bunt when you are LaRoche and the player you are taking the bat out of his hands is McCann to leave the game up to Langerhans and Orr. But you DO bunt in the situation last night.

By Jim

October 20, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

rammer,

You don’t walk the winning on base, especially someone as fast as Reyes. The DP was more of a possibility with a limping Floyd. You don’t bunt when you are LaRoche and the player you are taking the bat out of his hands is McCann to leave the game up to Langerhans and Orr. But you DO bunt in the situation last night.

By Patrick

October 20, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

DOB

Did you hear or read about Glavine’s post game comments. He did not say that he would re-sign with New York but that he would talk to his family and would make a decision based on what’s best for everyone involed

I guess you can take that with a grain of salt but it is interesting none-the-less

By journalist jimmy smith

October 20, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

216 crows and counting. now, string … lots of string on the blog since last night. the division “champion” does not get a pennant. the division champion has his own little sign made for the stadium wall. there is no “champion” in finishing ahead of others in a division. champion comes from winning a pennant. journalist has always said so. the division champion signs are a corruption of baseball. sure, it is a good accomplishment to finish atop a division 14 seasons in a row - but that only provides an opportunity to face leaders of other divisions and/or a wild card. gotta win out to make it meaningful. dodgers didn’t win out. mets didn’t win out. cards win the pennant. dodgers finish third. mets finish second. cards are champions. one way to look at it.

By Carolina Lady

October 20, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Hey, Tommy! (Tried to respond earlier but it never appeared). 216 ‘cause I had enough crows to make that many pies! Am very glad to now have freezer space open! :-)))))

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

With the game tied going into the 9th inning, in the Mets’ biggest game since 2000 and the biggest game of Willie Randolph’s career as a manager, he let his fourth-best reliever (Aaron Heilman) stay in the game while his best reliever (Billy Wagner) watched from the bullpen.

I guess you could say he was waiting on a better spot to use Wagner, but when’s a better spot than in the top of the 9th inning in the seventh game of the League Championship Series? Was he waiting for Pujols? A “better spot” to use Wagner never came. Willie Randolph failed to give his team their best shot at winning.

By rammerjammer

October 20, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Shaun ol’ buddy, ain’t no way MLB is gonna reduce the participants.

The more playoff teams, the more games on TV, more advertising revenue, more opportunities for networks to promote their programming, more and more money gets made, and everyone goes home happier.

Shoot, they’re probably thinking “how can we get MORE teams in the playoffs!” LOL!

By The Grinch

October 20, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

The wild card (at least in the 5-game format) is the root of all evil. Go away! Gotta go to Athens again; later, all.

By Robert

October 20, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

“Talk about a 83-win team getting to the WS. It’s as low as it gets”

Wrong. If they play hard, it’s not low. Low as it gets is when a team qualifies for the World Series and then doesnt show up (think the Braves in 96 and 99)

“Robert, Willie Randolf made more mistakes in one game than Cox has made in 14 years of playoff ball. “

Hmm - Randolph I think made a mistake leaving Perez in, but got away with it. Having Perez bat for himself his last time up wasted an at-bat - Two “mistakes” that one could point to, in hindsight - Cox makes two mistakes every time he inhales.

“Anyway, talk about your favourite donkey all you want”

At least we’ve made progress in that now you admit he is a donkey.

Look, people. Watching Randolph match “wits” with LaRussa was akin to watching retards mating - somewhat amusing but no real educational value - It reminded me a LOT of watching Cox sparring with Valentine. Some team with a bad manager had to win that series.

If LaRussa had to manage Detroit and Leyland got the Cards, we’d have an interesting series

I’m also curious why exactly folks are so happy or proud that an ex-Brave got the last out. Revelling in the fact that our organization let a guy go when it looks like he might be able to pitch after all?

Beltran’s last at-bat was awful - If it wasnt for the Mets uniform, I couldve sworn it was Chipper or Andru. The last pitch was a beaut -

Oh, and Bravo Nam - please dont call me “little fella” in the forum. Save the pillow talk for, well, you know, snookums

By Robert

October 20, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

“I fell off my chair when you finally changed from Cox bashing to another topic “

Pull on the little rope attached to the light switch thingie. The nurse will come, put your diaper back on, and put you back in your chair

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

I’m also curious why exactly folks are so happy or proud that an ex-Brave got the last out. Revelling in the fact that our organization let a guy go when it looks like he might be able to pitch after all?

Well, if the Braves hadn’t traded Wainwright, they wouldn’t have gotten Drew and would not have made the playoffs in ‘04.

By TommyB

October 20, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

CLady,

I see now. So when was (or were) the Crow Hunt (or Hunts)?

I can certainly understand if you don’t want to divulge secret family recipes so I won’t bug you.

Can you at least tell us all a good afternoon naptime story that involves one of the Crow Hunts? I bet there are plenty of us all ready to crawl on our mats and let our eyes grow big reading it.

‘Scuse me while I go grab a blanket.

By Robert

October 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Biggest mistake, I think, occured in the 6th, when the Mets had the bases loaded with one out after the error and intentional walk

Right then, you squeeze at the guy who just got robbed of a dinger and who just threw ther ball into the cheap seats. Go right straight back at Rolen. THAT was where the game was lost

All this celebration because the Mets lost. “The monkey is off our back” (are you KIDDING?)

This says a LOT about what Braves fans realize deep down inside.

Y’all do realize what you are laughing at and mocking right? A team that you think choked the way the Braves have (only they havent done it year after year after year after, you get the idea)

When a team that finsihed 18 games ahead of us loses, that does not make us look better

When a pitcher we gave up on turns in a clutch playoff performance, it does not make our organization look better

I thought the in-game interview with Randolph was quite interesting. Yeah, the guy did some stuff that wasnt by the book, but he was able to verbalize a clear, rational explanation for what he was doing.

He wasnt standing there chewing his cud and saying how well “so-and-so-ey” pitched while giving up nine runs on one bad pitch

Now, if the Cardinals proceed to get dominated (which seems to be the near concensus), then do we celebrate again, when it’s shown how weak the league was where we couldnt finish .500?

Pinch hitting Floyd was a mistake as opposed to having Glavine bunt? TWO runs down, in the last at-bat of a do or die game? All for what? So that the next guy gets walked intentionally

By geauxbraves2000

October 20, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

The reason the Mets didn’t score in the 9th, IMO, was a lack of small ball. That was a terrible decision to bring Floyd in when Randolph did. The runners needed to be advanced and you have one of the best bunters in the business in Glavine. Floyd can’t run. a ground ball is a sure double play. Bunt the runners over and let Reyes and LoDuca try to drive them in. It could’ve been a different inning and a different outcome.

That being said, congrats to the Cardinals and their fans.

Geaux Braves!!

By Robert

October 20, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

“Well, if the Braves hadn’t traded Wainwright, they wouldn’t have gotten Drew and would not have made the playoffs in ‘04.”

So, in other words, we gave the Cardinals the opportunity to go to the World Series in exchange for getting to extend our 2004 thru October 4th

That missed squeeze opportunity - Delgado is like 6ft3 and 230 (the statisticians are kind) - IF Rolen makes the play, Molina might wake up from his coma in time to time to watch WS Game 4.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

So, in other words, we gave the Cardinals the opportunity to go to the World Series in exchange for getting to extend our 2004 thru October 4th

Let’s see, Drew was probably the team MVP in ‘04. Without him the Braves don’t even reach the playoffs. They traded a young pitcher, and most young pitchers don’t turn out. Wainwright is not the primary reason the Cardinals are going to the World Series.

You know the old adage—you have to give something to get something. The Braves traded a minor league pitcher for an MVP candidate and a shot at the World Series. They fell short and, in hindsight, you want to say it was a bad move? You are impossible.

By Bravo Nam

October 20, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Along with our bullpen, the bench has indeed been our achilles heel come finals. That’s why I’m hoping and praying that the Braves will bring back Ward…as I’ve said for a while now, the Braves must construct this team with an eye for October as well.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

The reason the Mets didn’t score in the 9th, IMO, was a lack of small ball. That was a terrible decision to bring Floyd in when Randolph did. The runners needed to be advanced and you have one of the best bunters in the business in Glavine. Floyd can’t run. a ground ball is a sure double play. Bunt the runners over and let Reyes and LoDuca try to drive them in. It could’ve been a different inning and a different outcome.

If you sacrifice in that situation you have one out and you’re still down by two runs. Both Reyes and LoDuca have around a 64 percent chance of making an out. When you have three outs left in your season, wasting one is not a good idea.

By Robert

October 20, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

“Let’s see, Drew was probably the team MVP in ‘04. Without him the Braves don’t even reach the playoffs. “

Who cares if they lose in the first round vs not maiing the playoffs at all ? The front office does, but the fans shoudlnt

Division titles are not what you play for

You gave up a decent pitcher to extend the season by one series that was doomed to failure before it began

“The Braves traded a minor league pitcher for an MVP candidate and a shot at the World Series. They fell short and, in hindsight, you want to say it was a bad move? You are impossible”

They traded for an MVP candidate. They got to the playoffs. They had no shot at the World Series from the get go. (Do I have to point out why?)

By Lew

October 20, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Now Children-In the spirit of sportsmanship, let us notr get on each other’s cases. Save it for degrading the Mets! Robert, I agree with you on one thing-that last pitch to Beltran was beautiful. Buckled his knees and left him looking incontinent.

By BB FAN

October 20, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Robert,

“Wrong. If they play hard, it’s not low. Low as it gets is when a team qualifies for the World Series and then doesnt show up (think the Braves in 96 and 99)”

How the hell can you say the Braves didn’t show up in 1996 and 1999???

1996- Braves won first two games 12-1 and 4-0. They lost game three 5-2. The Yanks scored three in the 8th inning. They lost game four 8-6 in 10 innings. They were ahead 6-3 going to the 8th inning when Leyritz hit “the” homer. The Braves lost game five 1-0 in a pitcher’s duel between Pettitte and Smoltz. And they lost game six 3-2. Another game right down to the wire.

1999 - Braves lost game one 4-1. Were leading 1-0 going to 8th. Yanks scored 4 in the 8th. Still a close game. Game 2, they did get their butts kicked 7-2. No Question. But they were leading 5-1 in game three before losing 6-5 in 10 innings. Game four was only a 3-1 game going into the 9th, and they ended up losing 4-1. Not a blow out though. The Braves were in each game except game 2. And the Yankees acctually did have a great team in 99 including great starting pitching and a great bullpen. The Braves were missing Javy Lopez and Andres Galarraga. John Smoltz was hurting for the post season and ended up having Tommy John surgery in the off season and missed all of 2000.

I would not say the Braves never showed up for those two World Series’ though. They were probably favored in 1996 but the Yankees did have a great team. And the Yankees were heavily favored in 1999.

Again, both Series showed the Braves did not have a great bullpen. They were either very young guys, very old guys or washed up veteren starters turned relievers.

By NLCHAMPS

October 20, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Well boys and girls, the Mets season ended last night and I’m sure that leaves many of you with a smile. Anyway we accomplished some of our goals (knocking the braves off) but not the ultimate one. This will hurt for a while but I’m am confident in three things. 1. The Mets will address their starting pitching, 2. They will acquire a right handed power hitting corner outfielder, 3. they will get to the World Series in 2007. I look forward to playing the braves & reminding them often they no longer are the dominant team in the NL East. You’ve seen for yourself that the Mets have some young pitchers with potential and they have the resources to fill in all their needs. Til spring 2007 I bid you all health and a farewell……LETS GO METS!!

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Robert,

How were the Braves supposed to know they wouldn’t advance in the playoffs in 2004? They gave up a decent pitcher for an MVP candidate that they thought would greatly increase their chance to win a World Series.

But, if a team doesn’t win in the post-season, it’s because of their manager, right?

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Again, both Series showed the Braves did not have a great bullpen. They were either very young guys, very old guys or washed up veteren starters turned relievers.

Actually, have you looked at the numbers? The Braves bullpen actually pitched better than their starters in their post-season appearances. Everyone just remembers a couple of homeruns the bullpen gave up and blames them for the Braves’ failures.

By TennesseePaul

October 20, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Cards played one helluva game last night and Wainwright has an amazing curve ball. I don’t see the Mets fans on here, and that’s nice. It’s like having the garbage taken out.

I am dissappoint to see Robert back on the horse he road in on. But I’m a little confused. He came in with such affirmation that the Braves, during the 14 year run, were the absolute best team that ever took the field and should have won every time. (How can you blame him? I love the Braves very much as well. Though I’m dissapointed Robert hasn’t learned how to spell Andruw Jones’ name after all these years.) Oh wait, he clarified his statements to be, they should have won 3 to 6, meaning 2 to 5 more than they did win. He reasoned that any body is better than Cox. Well, toss another caveat in there: Watching Randolph match “wits” with LaRussa was akin to watching retards mating. No one is good enough apparently. But at least he took a pot shot at the Mets.

Here’s to hoping the Tigers win. I like the team full of no-names. It should be a fun series to watch.

By TennesseePaul

October 20, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Who cares if they lose in the first round vs not maiing the playoffs at all ? The front office does, but the fans shoudlnt

Yes, because this season was so much more fun to watch.

By rammerjammer

October 20, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Since neither the Tigers nor the Cards were expected to make it, neither has the pressure of expectations to weigh them down. It should be a fun, loose series.

As much as I’m an NL-lifer, I’m pulling for the Tigers. Don’t want no barely-above-500 team calling itself the very best.

By Robert

October 20, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

“How were the Braves supposed to know they wouldn’t advance in the playoffs in 2004?”

Shaun - Robert Joseph _ _ _

“How the hell can you say the Braves didn’t show up in 1996 and 1999???”

I said they didnt show up in the World Series in ‘96 and ‘99. I should have clarified that to exclude the first two games and seven innings of the 96 series . After that - 8 losses in a row. Hello?

Randolph and LaRussa are not good, but both are light years ahead of you know who

I dont want to stay on the Cox topic either. I just found it INcredible that Braves fans could laugh at or mock ANY team’s playoff performance - The Braves, who make the Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, and Indianapolis Colts look like playoff powerhouses

By Robert

October 20, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

1999 - Braves lost game one 4-1. Were leading 1-0 going to 8th. Yanks scored 4 in the 8th. Still a close game.

That was the game. The final straw. When Maddux was trotted out there to pitch the eighth, I darn near put out the tv with a beer can - That was THE game that convinced me once and absolutely for all that Bobby Cox is the worst baseball manager on the planet - Scott Brosius was already 2 for 2 off Maddux. Leadoff hit - Game over 5 minutes later

Dude, I refused to watch the Braves for a year and a half after that series. That was supposed to be the battle to decide the team of the 90’s. The Yankees were good, the Braves looked good. If the Yankees were heavily favored, it was because of, well

That Series would have been 2-2 after 4 games had a competant hum

By Robert

October 20, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

1999 - Braves lost game one 4-1. Were leading 1-0 going to 8th. Yanks scored 4 in the 8th. Still a close game.

That was the game. The final straw. When Maddux was trotted out there to pitch the eighth, I darn near put out the tv with a beer can - That was THE game that convinced me once and absolutely for all that Bobby Cox is the worst baseball manager on the planet - Scott Brosius was already 2 for 2 off Maddux. Leadoff hit - Game over 5 minutes later

Dude, I refused to watch the Braves for a year and a half after that series. That was supposed to be the battle to decide the team of the 90’s. The Yankees were good, the Braves looked good. If the Yankees were heavily favored, it was because of, well

That Series would have been 2-2 after 4 games had a competant hum

By rammerjammer

October 20, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Can you imagine watching a baseball game with Robert? Oh, the cacophony!

By Robert

October 20, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

“Yes, because this season was so much more fun to watch.”

This season, while it was happening, was not fun to watch. However, 14 years of knowing that you were doomed - despite which you’d get hopeful based on the regular season - 14 years of being crushed by stupidity - wasnt fun either

This season, there was at least the HOPE that with the allmighty streak over with at last, that the rose colored glasses would come off in the front office and that maybe, just maybe, Eeyore would be sent packing

But they are already talking about how certain it is that he’ll want to be back and be welcomed back after ‘07

Jesus wept

By David O'Brien

October 20, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Shaun, yes, of course it’s the manager’s fault if a team doesn’t win it all. Which means that La Russa (1-for-12 and counting) must stink, though not quite as much as Cox (1-for-14). Right?

And since Torre can’t win with double the payroll of most other big spenders, five years in a row, he stinks, too. So Torre, Cox and La Russa, who generally finish as the top three of best-manager surveys of players and front-office types, are actually all bad managers. Got it? OK, cool.

By ernesto

October 20, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Hey Robert,

Just to save you time, why not just type out…

“Statement A” and we’ll all know you mean Bobby Cox sucks and is an idiot and a donkey, etc.

Just think how much more time that will give you to come up with a statement B.

By David O'Brien

October 20, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

How about this: Two Athens, GA., bands playing Detroit on the same night tonight, within a mile of each other. The Drive-By Truckers at Majestic Theatre (I’m there, baby) and Widespread Panic at the State Theatre.

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Robert

By dingleberry

October 20, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Awright, who pushed Robert’s “Bobby Button?” Shame on you. We just got him redirected, and NOW look at him.

sigh…he’ll be like this for hours…

By Robert

October 20, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Shaun

By Shaun

October 20, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Robert

By Robert

October 20, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Shaun

By Robert

October 20, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

“Which means that La Russa (1-for-12 and counting) must stink, though not quite as much as Cox (1-for-14). Right?”

BINGO!

LaRussa vs Cox would be an “awesome” World Series. They’d have to change the network’s music to Dueling Banjos for the duration of the World Series

Though I’d say “not NEARLY as much as Cox” as opposed to “not quite as much as Cox”

There’s dopey and then there’s dopey

Ask Rolen what he thinks of LaRussa. Or can we not go by what player’s say when they dont like the manager, but count it as gospel when they do like the manager

It’s all moot

If 2 for 26 is proof of competancy, then sign us all up to manage big league teams

Look, I merely stated my opinion that Cox wouldve lost in 5 what it took dipstick Randolph 7 to lose, and here we are back at the same old debate

If Cox managed the Mets, the Phillies might be on their way to play Detroit

By Introductions please...

October 20, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Dave, meet Robert. Robert, meet Dave.
Dave, meet Shaun.
Shaun, meet Dave.
Robert, meet Shaun.
Shaun, meet Robert.

Dave likes music. Shaun likes numbers. Robert likes no one.

Now run along…

By Matthew

October 20, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

How long does Robert usually throw one of these tantrums? I’ll check back in a few days.

By ernesto

October 20, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

See into Robert’s world - every year every team except for 1 totally sucks and is a complete failure, and every year every manager except 1 is a clueless jackass. Except in ‘95 when they were all clueless jackasses.

That about cover it Robert?

By Lew

October 20, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

You know, after we finished ripping the Mets today, this whole conversation got really boring and more than a little repetitive. Even more boring than Shaun’s stats. I went and listened to Tora Tora (no Robert, not Torre Torre), one of the most overlooked rock bands in the south in the late 80’s and early 90’s. It brightened this gloomy, gray day in Vermont considerably. Y’all should give it a shot. Try it. You just might like it. Robert, I guarantee BC wouldn’t like Tora Tora. Does this motivate you at all?

By Lew

October 20, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

One more thing-Robert, if you remember, Rolen didn’t like Larry Bowa, either- that’s the reason he’s with St.Louis. Seems to me he has authority issues. It says much more about him then the state of managerial affairs in the National League.

By rammerjammer

October 20, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Can’t believe I’m taking Robert’s bait, but here goes.

In my opinion - sorry, no stats to back it up - the manager earns his keep over the long, long regular season. Clearly, only a few active managers (Torre, Cox, LaRussa come to mind) have had consistent success through the years.

The playoffs are a whole ‘nother animal…less about “strategy” and more about player performance.

The manager’s job has been to keep 25 egos pulling together, figure out the best playing combinations and deal with deficits (weak bullpens, no bench, etc.) during the season.

In the post-season, he gets to fiddle a bit more with the machinery but it’s really a players’ game to win or lose.

Randolph didn’t lose last night, Heilman did. Maybe Beltran did. LaRussa didn’t win it, Molina and Suppan and Wainwright did.

The manager puts his team in position to perform, but players are human, too. Even though I think Randolph should’ve had Wagner in there, there’s no guarantee that Wagner would’ve fared any better. And if he uses him in the 9th, what about the 10th, 11th, etc.?

OK, Robert, grab that Falstaff and heave it…

By TennesseePaul

October 20, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

For fear of lighting a fire under Payne, I will mention this.
I believe the formula I posted yesterday would make more sense within the OPS calculation than simply OBP plus SLG. Here is why. It’s simple really. The denominators are the same in each fraction allowing one to add the two together without fear of one being more advantaged than the other. I’m going to go through all the big guys while on my vacation next week and see how it pans out. It seemed to work pretty well in the McCann/Mauer comparison. It left them really close with a slight edge to Mauer.
OBP = (H + BB + HBP)/TPA
paSLG = (TB + BB + HBP)/TPA
Player OBP paSLG paOPS
McCann .388 .604 .992
Mauer .429 .566 .995
Pretty frickin close and mathematically it’s correct. But whatever.

I just picked up the first Drive-by-Truckers album. At least I think it’s the first. It’s the earliest one I could find at the store. The double disc Southern Rock Opera. I’ll give it a listen and see. I’m curious.

By Arkansas Hillbilly

October 20, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Remember DOB, I want a full DBT report Monday morning. I’m talkin’ set list, encores, the works. Seriously though enjoy the show, and cherish the opportunity. Some of us rabid Arkansas DBT fans may never get the chance to see a live show.

Remember when they used to think that we were tough?

God forbid we call their bluff.

By Carolina Lady

October 20, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Hey, Matthew! How is your beautiful family?! Robert and Shaun post non-stop for days on end - and still have yet to say anything of interest. We can only hope that they’ll have to stop for sleep now and then. :-)))

By Lew

October 20, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

TenPaul-Dude-Repeat after me-“I am a rational human and feel no need to go over to the darkside.” Please TP, you are one of the sensible ones. Don’t start speaking in quadratic equations or formulas. Please. Please.

By TennesseePaul

October 20, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Just thought of this. the difference between AB and TPA. One is the results of putting the ball in play. The other is an overall result of showing up to the plate. So, if the paOPS is anything worth looking at, so should the APS (same denominator).

Player AVG SLG APS
McCann .333 .572 .905
Mauer .347 .507 .854
Francoeur .260 .449 .708
Chipper .324 .596 .920
This is what happens when they put the ball in play (or at least, take the bat off their shoulders and swing) as opposed to what happens when they step up to the plate. McCann is supperior to Mauer in this stat. Francoeur blows hard in it.

By Lew

October 20, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly-Don’t feel too bad. What do you think the chances of them playing in Vermont are? TenPaul-Check out Decoration Day., also. I particularly like the song Sinkhole. Hell, it talks about banana pudding. It can’t be too bad.

By BravesFanNJ

October 20, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

DOB,

I just heard on the New York sports station ( I’m sure you know the one) that if Glavine turns down the Met’s offer next year that now has to be 14 million, they still have to pay him 7 million anyway. So they were suggesting he can come back to Atlanta at a very reduced rate (they suggested between 5 and 7 million) and that would still allow Glavine to be making 12-14 million next year, and would allow Atlanta to bring him back to win 300. I know the two guys during drive time think they know more than they really do, but they seemed to feel it was at least 50/50 that he’d be back in Atlanta next year with the numbers being so low that the Braves would have to pay out. have you heard any of this?

By Robert

October 20, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

“The manager puts his team in position to perform”

Teams with loaded rosters like the Yankees and Braves and usually the Cardinals do not need to be put into a position to perform during the regular season

Over time, the talent margin does the trick

EVERY team needs to be put in position to perform in the playoffs. The playoffs are ALL ABOUT strategy

Some managers do this well. Others are 1 for 12, or 1 for 14

No, I do not think that every manager except one stinks every year. But I likewise dont think that winning 90 games with a team full of stars and future HOFers makes one a good manager

Rammerjammer - I am almost surprised the neighbors didnt call the cops during Game 1 of the 99 World Series. I didnt watch a game for a year and a half. Now I watch, but I have so much contempt for Cox I figure he aint worth spilling beer over, much less busting the tv or having a seizure

Do you guys remember back about ‘93-‘96 when Maddux was at his peak when he would set pitchers up three four pitches in advance and then strike em out looking with the cutter or swinging on the dead fish changeup and then walk off the mound with that little smirk on his face?

In the 99 World Series, Torre and all the Yankees had that little smirk the whole Series.They knew they were playing playoff chumps.

I can just picture Torre and Cox sitting in a bar somewhere in the off-season.Torre is wearing jeans, a fishing hat, and his Yankees jacket. Cox is wearing a middle ages style Harlequin outfit with a fake red rubber nose and floppy shoes ine sizes too big

Torre - (smirking, and in his best patronizing voice) - “Dang Bozo, that World Series was a CLOSE one. If I dont watch out, one of these days - pointing finger at Bobby and laughing - yer gonna GET meeeeee!

Bobby Cox - “One bad pitch Joey. But I tell ya, Wohley’s been throwin the ball real good lately”

By Robert

October 20, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

” Robert and Shaun post non-stop for days on end - and still have yet to say anything of interest. We can only hope that they’ll have to stop for sleep now and then. :-)))”

Nah, it aint worth a reply

By TennesseePaul

October 20, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Lew: I know I know. But I just can’t sit here and let a formula created for team evaulation be used for player evaluation. It makes no sense. I love stats, but I’m not about to make the same misstakes/misshapes that Payne makes. Besides, the two formulas I posted are really simple and logical.
Forgive me, but math is what I do for a living.

By Robert

October 20, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

What pushed my “Bobby button” was the audacity of Braves fans to be ridiculing the Mets for what happened last night

Last time I got off the topic by bringing up the Mauer vs McCann thing - which seemed to stimulate a good bit of discussion (tho Carolina Lady wasnt interested)

So, here’s another point for the sabermetrics guys to ponder

Justin Verlander - the young Tigers phenom. Why is it that a guy who throw THAT hard (hi 90’s to 100) has such a relatively pedestrian K rate (6 every 9 innings) -

CL - bring me a glass of tea sweetie

By Robert

October 20, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

“Not a blow out though. The Braves were in each game except game 2 (in the ‘99 World Series)”

Yup, they in fact were. Until that critical moment in each when Bozo took one last long chew of his cud, pooped into the little baggie attached to his backside,peed in Mazzone’s general direction and made the one critical mistake that was all a team like the Yankees needed to end it -

Three out of four “close” games and yet the series was a total wipeout

By TennesseePaul

October 20, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Lew: I just found a formula that is accurate to within 2% and actually makes sense for creating runs while simultaneously holding it’s accuracy for both team and player potential. I’m calling it run potential. RP, if you will. HA!
Now all I have to do is get Averages with RISP for all these sets and see if my theory holds.
Listen, I’m not trying to say anyone is wrong, I’m just saying intellegent people do it my way, and not so intellegent people don’t. I’m not using stats to prove I’m right. I’m using them to show the truth about the intellegence of baseball people. It’s what intellegent people do.
Kidding of course.

By Robert

October 20, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

so whats the secret formula?

By David

October 20, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

Shaun Payne,not only are you consistently wrong with virtually every post but you are also misguided.

By mike

October 20, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

Robert, and anyone else who doesn’t get it:

The ONLY reason… I repeat, the ONLY reason Braves fans are mocking the Mets is because of the crap Mets fans have spewed on here for years.

Nobody needs to point out the “irony”. Braves fans know how disappointing it is. I guarantee that we wouldn’t be rubbing it in if it weren’t for the idiots who point out all season how the Braves “choke”, and those who like to point out that the braves have only one ONE WS during the run.
For those “not-so-intelligent” Mets fans who are still addicted to this site, that’s ONE more than you during that period.

By Lew

October 20, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

I still contend that Batting Average, Home Runs, RBI, Wins, Losses and ERA are all we will ever need. Hell I’m still trying to get the local newspaper to carry that much. When did we ever get into this alphabet soup of stats. I thought game winning RBI was more than we needed to know. Then they threw in RISP, WHIP, OBP, OPS, FBI, CIA, LBJ, JFK-whatever. See ball, hit ball, catch ball throw ball, run like hell. What more do we need?

By nathan

October 20, 2006 07:50 PM | Link to this

I beleive that I was the first last night (almost too early - game wasn’t over yet) to RIP the Mets for CHOKING.

But I’m quiet certain had I not posted that up there, somebody else would have shortly thereafter. What’s my point, you may ask?

No point really. Just clarifying that MY definition of CHOKING is as follows:

If a team has all of the tools to get it done (win the WS or Superbowl or NBL finals - pick your sport of choice), and they fail to do so, is that choking? No, that just means they failed to get it done.

Now on the other hand, if ALL of the “so-called” experts (ESPN, TSN, SI….bla, bla, bla, bla) are picking that team to win the Championship before the season starts, and they almost do it, but fail to dominate a far less superior team (Mets vs. Cardinals - should not have gone more than 5 games, even without Pedro and Hernandez - I mean with that lineup C’MON!!!!), that ladies and gentleman is by my (possibly misguided) opinion…….CHOKING

DOB, I appreciate your sarcasm when rattling off Cox, LaRussa and Torre’s stats and the fact that they “must be chokers” comment. But even you have to question that there seems to be somthing “missing” about the way Cox and LaRussa autopilot their teams to victory over a 162 game schedule, but manage to somehow make bad “moves” in the playoffs. Cox hasn’t made a correct “strategy” decision since the 1995 WS squeeze play in game one. Hmmmm, wouldn’t you know that it was against one of the only other not so good at finishing the job teams in MLB history.

Listen, I’m not saying Cox is an idiot (at least not today), what he’s done the last few years with the roster turnover is remarkable. But those teams in the 90’s when Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz (not to mention Neagle) were in their prime was probably not that hard of a team to “manage” on a nightly basis. But they sure found a way to not get the job done come October, didn’t they.

Even you in all of your wisdom have to admit that some of the blame has to fall on Bobby for his “relaxed”, causual, Ho-Hum attitude that works miracles during the season but lulls not only the fans, but his players to sleep in October.

You’ll have to excuse me. I’ve stayed away (from posting - not reading) these blogs since the season ended, but now I feel it is neccessary to type a month’s worth of text into one post. LOL!

Like always I have a way of making a short story long, so back to my point:

While the Cardinals should be commended for their series victory.

LIKE IT OR NOT METS FANS………YOUR TEAM CHOKED!!

By Robert(Justice Is The Best)

October 20, 2006 08:04 PM | Link to this

Here’s a question. Is what Grady Little did leaving Pedro game 7 of the 2003 ALCS worse than what Randolph did last night by first not bringing in Wagner in the 9th and by not bunting Valentin and Chavez over when they had 1st and 2nd w/O out? Wasn’t the whole reason for getting Wagner to have him for moments like last night?

By TennesseePaul

October 20, 2006 09:03 PM | Link to this

Scary. Before I go, I thought I’d post one last note on the analysis.
OK, so the RP shows what the hitter himself had the potential to score. Think of it this way. A run is equal to 4 bases. Very much like, a HR is 1 R and 4 TB. So, a hitter has the RP based on the total number of bases he creates for himself. How the RP measures up to actual runs scored is a direct reflection on the rest of the team hitting around him. If the guys hitting behind Batter A have a terrible average with Runners on, or in Scoring position then Batter A will fall short of his Run Potential. If they excell in it, then Batter A will exceed his RP.
That is to say, if a batter gets a lot of singles, his RP will be low. But, if the guy batting behind him has a lot of pop, then his RP will exceed expectations. Nothing new there. But it’s freaky how well this worked out. 1.7% accuracy across the whole NL. For each team the RP correlated directly with the averages with RISP and Runners On Base. Teams with the worst average in both these departments fell short of the potential. Teams with a solid average in both matched or exceeded. I tested on Chipper last year and this year. With Andruw stepping up this year with runners on, Chipper exceeded. Last year when Andruw sucked with runners on Chipper came up short.

What’s all this say? Only that the game is a team effort and that each players results will be affected by the team he plays on and the hitters surrounding him in the order. But it’s pretty scary how perfectly it matched up on all levels. Mauer was spot on. McCann came up short. McCann batted lower in the order as well. But, Mauer and McCann’s RP was pretty close considering. Mauer has the edge though.

Alright guys. It’s been a great time. I’m off to vacation. A much needed and long desired vacation. Have fun everyone. See you when I get back. I wish I could say I’ll check in, but if I do, I’d be back on a computer and it wouldn’t be much of a vacation. So… until next time.

GO BRAVES

By The Grinch

October 20, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

Robert(JIB), they were both monumentally bad moves, but the Grady Little one was worse somehow. It was more depressing as well(I liked Pedro before he went to the Mets).

Lew, I agree. The way I judge if it was a good game or not is if I catch myself saying “Man, that was a good game” afterward. Or, “Damn, he’s a good player” or “Wow, what a play.” I think that’s considerably more important to the appreciation of a play, player, game than adjusted OBP times the RP minus the VORP of the size of the catcher’s mitt. Just my opinion, though to be sure stats have their place. Just not at the expense of the spirit of it all.

By MrC

October 20, 2006 09:17 PM | Link to this

Robert, if not Cox, who? I think a managers role is over rated anyway from Cox, Torre, Leyland, etc. Might be worth 5-10 games a year. Playing the game between the lines is mostly what wins and loses.

By Robert(Justice Is The Best)

October 20, 2006 10:25 PM | Link to this

Grinch, I think Little’s mistake is only seen as worse because it was the Red Sox against the Yanks. But, if you look at it Little decided to go with his “ace” over a bullpen that was questionable at best while Randolph decided to go with a guy who was used to only going one inning instead of going with his closer.

MrC, I have to disagree a bit about the manager. I think last night’s game shows how much a manager can at times affect a game. Simply put LaRussa outmanaged Randolph. LaRussa recognized that Molina was hot and moved him up in the lineup while also realizing Rolen was struggling and moving him down. He also recognized that Suppan was baffling the Mets hitters and left him in the game probably two more innings than most managers would have. The fact is the Mets high powered offense choked and that lost the series but Randolph lost that game last night.

By KC

October 20, 2006 10:26 PM | Link to this

ERNESTO: “look stats be damned. I know Huddy had some blown by the pen, but the guy hasn’t looked dominant since he’s been here.”

Ernesto… You can’t disregard a starting pitcher’s ERA. You just can’t. A pitcher’s job is to keep the other team from scoring…period, right? You wouldn’t disagree with that would you?

ERA is nothing more than a measurement of how many earned runs a pitcher allowed per 9 innings pitched. That’s it. For a starting pitcher, there is no truer sign of the effectiveness of a pitcher. Saying “stats be damned” in this case is kind of like looking at a thermometer that reads 97 degrees and saying “numbers be damned… it’s cold outside”.

Again, no one’s arguing with you about this season. Hudson stunk this year. But while 2004, 2005 may have been a slight disappointment by Tim Hudson standards (given that he was coming off to sub-3.00 ERA seasons in ’02 & ’03), he still turned in an excellent ERA of 3.50 in both of those seasons.

When it came to keeping the other team from scoring, Hudson was in the top 15% of all MLB starters. You can’t ignore that. You can’t spin that. 2006 was a pretty sorry season, but it was the first bad season of his career. Any attempt to state otherwise, just doesn’t hold up.

By ssiscribe

October 20, 2006 10:47 PM | Link to this

All I got is I know everybody down on the SSI is fired up as can be for Wainwright. He’s a great guy, one everybody down there roots for, and from talking to folks last night and today, he’s the toast of the town.

I wanted to come on here last night and talk about one of the greatest games I’ve ever watched and Wainwright and the Mets losing and all that. But after watching the ninth inning, and watching a guy I have the pleasure of knowing break off Beltran like that, I was physically and emotionally overwhelmed.

It’s been a long time since a baseball game has totally wiped me out like that, but today was a blur. I love the Braves, but I was rooting like hell for AW and the Cards last night, and I’ll be doing it again for the next few days.

The Scribe abides, and now, The Scribe sleeps. Go Cards!

—30—

By Tom A. Hawk

October 20, 2006 11:17 PM | Link to this

Wagner pitched very poorly in this series, which more than justifies Randolph’s reluctance to use him in the seventh game. The Mets lost the series in Game 2 when they let a big lead slip away, and who got shelled for the loss in that game?

Blame Randolph for not bunting in the ninth if you want to, but other relievers had been more reliable than Wagner in this series. The players flat didn’t get the job done.

No matter how good a manager you are, it’s hard to guide a team to a win that gets four hits and one run. Even Bobby Cox couldn’t have done it.

By Tom A. Hawk

October 20, 2006 11:22 PM | Link to this

DOB, in the name of all that is holy, we are approaching post number 666 on this blog!

Post a new one, even if it’s only a Curtright effort. These folks want to taunt the Mets without the impediment of waiting on a bogged-down blog!

By Robert(Justice Is The Best)

October 20, 2006 11:31 PM | Link to this

I agree that Wagner wasn’t pitching very well in the series, however, my problem with Randolph is that he didn’t say that in the post game press conference. I firmly believe that part of the reason Wagner wasn’t in the game because Randolph didn’t have the confidence in him. But, Randolph said that he didn’t bring Wagner in because he wanted to wait and use him in the 10th. That makes no sense. Now, if you take Randolph’s words at face value than you have to believe he did have faith in Wagner, which makes his move of not bringing him in in the 9th a stupid move. All I know is this. If that had been Cox, the people on this blog would be exploding with anger and all sorts of four letter words about him.

By MrC

October 21, 2006 12:03 AM | Link to this

Robert, we can differ on opinions regarding a manager causing wins or losses but…..I will say that the Mets scored a single run last night. You don’t win too many games doing that and all the moves you have mentioned by Randolph were on the pitching side. The offense lost the 7th game and not any moves by Randolph. I personnaly think using Cliff Floyd to bat was a good move. A bunt would have just walked the next person and been in the same scenerio. Cliff got pitches to hit and did not perform.

Having said all that, lets argue about who really is the best manager in the league(s) today. Of course, you have managers that are good over the season and those in short playoff series. But if not Cox….Who?

By MrC

October 21, 2006 12:08 AM | Link to this

The Mets lost because they scored a single run. Not because of anything that Randolph did regarding pitchers. Some could argue that he could have bunted in the 9th instead of Floyd but I actually thought that was the right move. If the bunt was successful (and no bets on that) the next batter would have been walked to load the bases. This way Floyd got a free swing and he certainly got pitches to hit but didn’t perform. Having said all that….lets shift the focus to who is the best manager? If not, Cox then who?

By The Grinch

October 21, 2006 01:11 AM | Link to this

KC, every time you bring up that you can’t understand why anyone would think Huddy’s not one of the greatest pitchers ever because of the fact that his stats have placed him in the top 15% of NL pitchers since he’s been here(which I have no doubt of; you, Shaun and 10Paul can use stats to tell without a doubt that the color red looks blue and not red), but I just gotta say this: I’ve watched that guy pitch 7 good innings a few times it seems like since he’s been here, but much more often I’ve seen him duck and hide after giving up 4 or 5 in 3 and 2/3’s or 4 in 5 and slink off to the dugout like he knows he ought to be somewhere else. He has put up good career numbers, yes, and when he’s on I’m mighty happy with the Braves chances. But when he’s off, which is a good deal more often than he’s on, I don’t give a &%*$ what your numbers say. I can honestly say if he was pitching slow pitch softball against my two little female cousins, I wouldn’t be any more surprised that they took him deep than if he struck them out. And I promise I don’t feel anywhere close to the same way about Hampton, who’s numbers aren’t much better(if at all). There are big dogs and little ones, and numbers can only hide so much. Y’all got to get out and watch the games sometimes. You’ll be surprised how different things look.

By The Grinch

October 21, 2006 01:31 AM | Link to this

I fully expect Hampton and Huddy to have similar records and numbers next year(though probably slightly better from Hampton), because Mike’s got to get used to pitching again after an 18 month layoff, and his fist couple or few starts might be rough. He’s also only marginally better than Huddy in terms of talent, and four years older. The big diff. is when Mike’s on the mound, he’s thinking “this f-er’s done” first, and “I hope this regains my rep since I couldn’t help being hurt” second, while Huddy’s thinking “Man, that new leather couch sure feels good at home when I’m not pitching…Oops,” with “My numbers are still good enough that I still get paid, right?” second. It’s just the way that it is, and I’ll put my money where my mouth is for anyone who doubts it. Hope they both go 18-0; but Hampton’s twice the pitcher huddy will ever be, tools be damned.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 01:48 AM | Link to this

Nathan, of COURSE I believe Cox must shoulder some of the blame for the Braves’ postseason failures. I’ve never said anything but that; as I’ve said here and every radio interview when I’m ever asked the question: I believe Cox’s approach and demeanor makes him as good as any manager in the modern era over 162 games, and some of the same things that make him so great over 162 work against him and his team in the postseason. I’ve said that all along.

They have an even-keel _ is that spelled right_ approach that serves them perfectly over 162 games, but the Braves aren’t able to turn up the intensity in the postseason like some other teams do under more fiery managers or managers who try to light a fire under their players’ butts in the playoffs. I’ve also said all along that, since covering Leyland in 1997-98 with Marlins, I’ve thought he was the best manager in the game when regular season and postseason are combined, because of his unique skills and personal touch with so many players. I said this even after he went to Colorado and burned out in a horrible season there.

Strictly as a regular-season manager, I’d take Cox over any. But the postseason is a bit trickier. Not any others I’d clearly point to and say I’d rather have them in the postseason than Cox, but Leyland, having watched him work up close in that ‘97 postseason, I’d have to pick first.

My only problem is the silly, baseless, contrarian point of view expressed her ad nauseum by someone _ not you _ who simply will not acknowledge that maybe, maybe, the overwhelming majority of people who think Cox is a great manager aren’t idiots for thinking so. That’s all.

And I think players must shoulder more blame for most of the Braves’ postseason failures than Cox. Just look at the putrid batting averages of so many key Braves hitters in so many postseasons, and the huge ERAs of so many in various postseasons. Sorry, but it’s too easy to say the manager is responsible for that. The players in question would scoff in your face if you suggested that Cox was somehow responsible for their individual failures in the playoffs.

OK, just so you guys know, I’ll post a blog in morning. I’m exhausted and just got back from amazing 2-1/2 hour Drive-By Truckers show here in Detroit. I’ve gotta get some sleep and I’ll post something in the morning.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 02:00 AM | Link to this

Shaun, just noticed your defense of A-Rod’s postseason numbers with Yankees. Are you going to count his numbers before the Yankees’ unpredented choke job in the 2004 World Series, or since, or do you just count them all together and not differentiate recent seasons from three years ago and before?

Beginning with Game 5 of that 2004 World Series vs. Boston, here’s what a couple of very highly paid Yankees sluggers ahve done:

Alex Rodriguez: 12 games, 4-for-41 (.098), one double, no homers, no RBIs, 8 walks, 12 strikeouts, 2 errors, .424 OPS.

Gary Sheffield: 11 games, 8-for-45 (.178), zero extra-base hits, 3 RBIs, 4 walks, 11 strikeouts, 2 errors, .423 OPS.

So I’m clear: They’re not to blame for the Yankees’ repeated postseason failures since the Mother of All Collapses?

My god, man. Who, exactly, is then?

By Tom A. Hawk

October 21, 2006 02:27 AM | Link to this

You must really be tired, Dave. You’ve got the Yankees playing the Red Sox in the world series.

Tomorrow will be soon enough on that new blog!

And please don’t egg Shaun on. Arguing with him only gets you the same thing every time: Another heaping serving of oatmeal without salt.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 02:41 AM | Link to this

“LaRussa vs Cox would be an “awesome” World Series. They’d have to change the network’s music to Dueling Banjos for the duration of the World Series…”

Just scrolling up and found this priceless nugget from the most joyless regular that we have these days (and if you really expect us to believe there’s not something personal with you and cox, that he didn’t sign an autograph for you or something….

Let me get this straight: Now La Russa, the guy with the law degree and the degree in industrial management, not to mention the founder and chairperson of one of the coolest, most decent organizations going _ Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation _ is just another rube who’s beneath you, someone you can lump into your tired, lazy Dueling Banjos stereotype? Oh, OK. Sure.

We’ll wait for you to list the credentials you have that would make that anything more that an outrageous, preposterous characterization from someone I’m guessing _ just running with a hunch here _ doesn’t quite have the interesting and impressive background that La Russa has.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 02:46 AM | Link to this

ALCS, dammit. ALCS. And yes, I’m absolutely on fumes here.

My only regret is that, unlike most who’ll understand that was a typo and that I didn’t actually believe the Red Sox played the Yanks in the World Series, it’ll probably be used by one guy here as ammo in place of anything actually relating to the questions and points I made.

Anyway … yes, Game 5 of the ALCS, which of course was the unprecedented collapse after being up 3-0. The World Series that year was the afterthought, after the Red Sox passed the real test in the ALCS.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 02:52 AM | Link to this

God, can’t believe I wrote World Series….now I wish I hadn’t even bothered coming online. But Tom A., thanks for at least bringing it to my attention. I can only imagine what would’ve been posted here in the morning from countless gotcha-types acting as though I really believed the Yankees and Red Sox played the first AL vs. AL World Series….

By The Grinch

October 21, 2006 03:06 AM | Link to this

DOB, you’re all right for a white boy. Get a good nap under your belt and face the morning anew. In the immortal words of Shawn Mullins(I think; some 90’s weenie anyway) “EV-ah-REE-thing’s gonna be AL-right…” Etc. Speaking of Shauns, don’t let him haunt you; whatever you’re thinking is probably right.

By The Grinch

October 21, 2006 03:10 AM | Link to this

Take it sleazy, Dave.

Night, all.

By Bravo Nam

October 21, 2006 06:56 AM | Link to this

On Oct 20 at 3.06pm, when talking about the 1999 playoffs series, Robert wrote: “Dude, I refused to watch the Braves for a year and a half after that series.”

Speaks volumes about your character little fella. Loyal to the core, aren’t ya?

By Robert

October 21, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

“My only problem is the silly, baseless, contrarian point of view expressed her ad nauseum by someone _ not you _ who simply will not acknowledge that maybe, maybe, the overwhelming majority of people who think Cox is a great manager aren’t idiots for thinking so. That’s all.”

DOB - When the history books start listing the World Champions as the team that wins the regular season each year, then y’all will have an arguement for Cox

“Let me get this straight: Now La Russa, the guy with the law degree and the degree in industrial management, not to mention the founder and chairperson of one of the coolest, most decent organizations going _ Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation _ is just another rube who’s beneath you, someone you can lump into your tired, lazy Dueling Banjos stereotype? Oh, OK. Sure.”

I’m sure Tony is a great guy. And I bet that in person, away from baseball, Cox is a great guy too. I’d love to go fishing with those two, or maybe go have a beer, or heck let’s go save some puppies. Explain to me how a law degree or a commitment to animal rescue helps one to formulate proper strategy for a baseball game

I love what nathan said - “Cox hasn’t made a correct “strategy” decision since the 1995 WS squeeze play in game one. ”

(Tho, based on the rest of the evidence, I’d wonder whether Cox really made that call)

I’ve said several times what it was that Cox did that was “personal” Game 1 of the 99 World Series sealed the deal for all time.

FYI - Who is the only man who can blowe a 3 games to none lead over Bobby Cox

A - Tony LaRussa 1996 NL Division Series

By Metropolitan Man

October 21, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

As for the rest of the rotation, the Mets need to work out Glavine’s option and keep Orlando Hernandez on a one-year pact. The strong work in Games 6 and 7 by John Maine and Oliver Perez should add encouragement that they can be at least bottom-of-the-rotation pieces. The Mets then would have Dave Williams in long relief/spot starter, Martinez as a potential midseason gift returning from shoulder surgery, and the talented trio of Bannister, Humber and Pelfrey stashed at Triple-A. The missing piece for 2007 and moving forward would be someone such as Willis/Bedard/Peavy.

By Jim

October 21, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

If Robert is in the Cardinal dugout, faced with 2nd and 3rd and 1 out in the 9th, he walks the winning run and the fastest man in the league to set up a possible double play and bring up LoDuca, a good contact hitter and a patient hitter. The Mets also have Beltran and Delgado on deck and in the hole. He has just increased the pressure on a rookie pitcher recently promoted to closer who was showing some nerves with some pretty wild pitches. I don’t know how many DPs LoDuca has hit into this year, but will assume it is less than 20 in over 500 ABs. That is a less than 4% chance of getting the DP. He is a patient hitter whose chance of walking is closer to 10% (which he did), and his chance of getting a hit is 30%. If I am a Met fan I will take that situation over an injured Floyd hitting with 0 outs or Reyes batting with a base open and the winning run still in the batter’s box. Robert is also faulting Randolph for not bringing in Wagner, although his two previous appearances were awful, which was the by-the-book decision to make, yet lambasting Cox for bringing in Reitsma against the Astros, even though it was Reitsma’s “role” to pitch in that situation. Let us hope the Braves never get so desperate that they hire Robert and put a real donkey in their dugout.

By Robert

October 21, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

“Robert is also faulting Randolph for not bringing in Wagner, although his two previous appearances were awful, which was the by-the-book decision to make”

I never said ANYTHING about the decision to stay with Heilman. I think he stuck with Oliver Perez too long, and got real lucky to get away with it. I wouldve tried the squeeze with the bases loaded and one out in the sixth with Rolen having just been robbed of a dinger and then having just made a throwing error. I probably would have pinch hit for Perez the last time he hit - figuring that letting a pitcher lead off an inning was wasting a prcious out

All of these are in game decision that could be questioned but were not either outright dumb or negligent

Cox has a history of outright dumb moves and moreover he is negligent in that his teams arent ready to compete in the playoffs.

The REASON that so many Braves hitters and pitchers have failed in the postseason is that Cox doesnt get them in the right frame of mind to succeed in the playoffs. Whether he likes it or not, there IS a sense of urgency.

This doesnt mean he needs to throw fits (altho currently the temper tantrum leading to his ejection is his best managerial move).

Baseball remembers its champions as the teams that won the World Series. This is not my doing - it’s the way the game and it’s lore have evolved. It seems that most people have admitted that Cox has poor success in playoff situations and has to shoulder some blame - or how did Dave put it that what makes him succeed in the regular season leads him to fail in the playoffs -

HOW can a manager whose style LENDS ITSELF TO FAILURE in the forum that decides who the champions are be considered a good manager?

ONE additional World Series title wouldve been worth all 13 of the Division titles without a series, and 1113 more on top of that

If your style precludes you from playoff success, then the regular season is meaninglkess, because even if you win it, you cant succeed in the playoffs.\

Now, I can see why franchises think differently. Franchises are generating revenue.

I am not in the BUSINESS of baseball. I am a fan. I seek World Series flags for my team

By the time it got to the Houston playoff series last year, Reitsma should have had no role, other than pitching batting practice

Defend Cox all you want - So far, ONE person has taken my bet (Tom A Hawk for a sixer of diet mountain dew)

Here it is again - I wager a six pack of beverage of choice that no Atlanta Braves team will EVER again win a World Series title in a year in which they were managed for the full regular season by Robert Joseph Cox

By KC

October 21, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

GRINCH:

According to you, Hudson would rather be fishing than pitching, so I guess he was just pretty darned lucky over the first 7 years of his career considering he didn’t really give a damn whether he won or lost. This guy was the 2nd winningest pitcher in all of baseball over the previous 8 years heading into this season. When he’s having a bad game, he hides his emotions (as every pitcher should). You don’t want hitters to think you’re rattled.

“every time you bring up that you can’t understand why anyone would think Huddy’s not one of the greatest pitchers ever because of the fact that his stats have placed him in the top 15% of NL pitchers since he’s been here”

Grinchy, you’re twisting my words. First of all, he’s not been one of the best pitchers since he’s been here. His 2006 season blew that out of the water. He was still one of the best pitchers in baseball in 2004 & 2005, even though he and everyone else knew he was capable of more than what he produced over those two seasons.

“Shaun and 10Paul can use stats to tell without a doubt that the color red looks blue and not red”

Forgive me for my reliance on obscure statistics like ERA. Are you honestly lumping ERA in with sub-metrics??? It’s not like I’m saying if you take Hudson’s innings pitched, divide it by hits allowed on Sunday day games, and then multiply it by appearances, plus walks & HBP, and then divide that by strikeouts… he wasn’t that bad.

Dude you and I both know that the lower your ERA, the fewer runs you allowed. Period. That’s a pitcher’s job… keep the other team from scoring. And prior to this season, he did his job better than 85% of all MLB pitchers. You can sit hear and tell me all you want “well I watched the game and I don’t care what his ERA was… he wasn’t any good”. I’ll tell you what, I won’t even argue with you on it anymore Grinch. If you want to continue your mission to disprove the old “numbers don’t lie” credo… be my guest.

Besides, the past is the past. However you want to look at Huddy’s first year in Atlanta… you’ll still be buyin’ the beverages next September. =)

By Jim

October 21, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

In ‘96, the Braves won the last three games of the division series by routs. I think the Cards scored only 1 or 2 runs in the three games combined. But Robert says it was LaRussa’s managing that cost the Cards that series! Let it go, Robert. It’s players that usually win or lose games.

By KC

October 21, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

BTW GRINCH… “Y’all got to get out and watch the games sometimes” I hardly ever miss a game dude.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Robert, you wrote: “Explain to me how a law degree or a commitment to animal rescue helps one to formulate proper strategy for a baseball game.”

OK, right after you explain to me this obsession of yours with Dueling Banjos when the backwoods Southern characterization has nothing whatsoever to do with La Russa, who is as erudite and intellectuel as any pro sports coach/manager this side of Phil Jackson, or Cox, who was raised near Fresno, Calif., played his major league ball (albeit briefly) with the Yankees, and has probably spent a lot more time around “big city folks” as you have.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Robert, you write: “Here it is again - I wager a six pack of beverage of choice that no Atlanta Braves team will EVER again win a World Series title in a year in which they were managed for the full regular season by Robert Joseph Cox.”

Wow, really going out on a limb there, given that Jim Leyland, the current popular choice for best manager in baseball, has won a total of one World Series championship, and La Russa, another who shows up at the top of managerial rankings and surveys, has won one World Series and none since 1989.

In fact, it’s a very safe bet to wager far more than a six pack against any manager in baseball winning a World Series, other than the two currently playing for one, since their odds are obviously much higher now that it’s down to a two-team proposition.

By Miss Manners

October 21, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Atlanta Braves Man in Black Robert & Shaun Blog.

By Tom A. Hawk

October 21, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Now, wait a minute, there, Robert. The bet for the Dew is that the manager who succeeds Cox (in about 2015 or ‘16, I’m guessing; you’ve got a lot of years left for sniveling and ranting) will improve on his record by at least 10 games.

And I thought Joe Torre was the only manager clueless enough to blow a three games-to-none postseason lead. I believe it was three games to one in ‘96 when LaRussa instructed his pitchers to get out there and give up double digits the rest of the way.

By Metropolitan Man

October 21, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

We did accomplish something,” he said. “We won a division that was owned by the Atlanta Braves. We’re proud of what we did. We’re disappointed we’re not in the World Series — that was everyone’s goal — but we are going to get there.
Carlos Beltran.

By Tom A. Hawk

October 21, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

By the way, Dave, the total posts on this blog are getting uncomforably close to Hank Aaron’s home run record.

Will we see the Yanks and Red Sox doing battle in the World Series before we see a new blog?

By Robert

October 21, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

DOB - Sorry if the Dueling Banjoes metaphor offended you. It was meant to convey an image of incompetence, as far as baseball managerial ability - as in, the antics of LaRussa and Cox can be fun to watch but are not likely to be positively productive

Maybe “Spy vs Spy” would be better?

I know a LOT of folks who are erudite, intelligent, AND come from the big city, who are not very good at baseball strategy (but who would probably be better than Cox and equal to LaRussa)

Heck, gimme me the backwoodest, most inbredest mofo in the universe if he can manage

We differ in our basic philosophy.

You think that a guy who can keep peace and quiet, who knows what to keep private and when to go public, and who gets a talented team guide itself thru the long season and thereby earns a shot at the crapshoot is a good manager

I think that a guy who cant get the ultimate prize when he has great team after great team - well, it doesnt matter if he gets them to the playoffs if he cant cash on the opportunity

Cox supporters either avoid this arguement by claiming that “Oh yeah some blame, BUT” or they try and belittle the talent level of the Braves teams - “They werent so good” or “The pitching wasnt so dominant”

Of these, the second, is, for what it matters, by fdar the most inuslting to intelligence

All I can do is to go back and ask you - Who does baseball remember as it’s champions? The regular season winner, or the winner of the Fall Classic? Were the Yankees or the Brooklyn Dodgers the team of the 1950’s?

Note that I do NOT think that EVERY manager who doesnt win World Serieses is a maroon. I also do NOT think it fair to Monday morning QB second guess EVERY ingame decision a manager makes

Now, on the other hand, there ARE some decisions that are just inexcusable.

For example - The Chipper thing when he got hurt. Letting him play after considering the risk was ok. NOT BEING AWARE of the risk “What could happen?” was INEXCUSABLE - maROONic to the max

Obviosuly (or it should have been so) when I say that “Cox makes two mistakes every time he inhales” that is in jest - sarcasm, but

His overall philosophy spells doom for the playoffs, and is thus seriosuly flawed, even if it results in huge regular season successes

His in game “strategy” is marked by an uinusally high incidence of inexcusable outright STUPID mistakes - as opposed to sewcond guessables whose outcomes depend on player performance - I am talking about that you dont put players in certain positions - you dont set up chances where the results of player performance, tho never perfetcly predictable, are overwhelmingly stacked against you because of your decision

Game five of that 1996 NL Champ series was 14-0 Bravos - that made it 3-2 and coming off the rout, set up the end

Tell me, no matter how poorly every player may have performed, no matter if the opposing pitcher was Nolan Ryan on a Don Larsen day - how prepared was a team to play that gets beat 14-0?

By Tom A. Hawk

October 21, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

You sure it wasn’t Carlos Delgado said that? Because as far as I know, Andruw Jones is the only player ever got his team to a World Series by leaving the bat on his shoulder.

It’s good Kenny Rogers now has some better postseason memories to tell his grandchildren about. The winter of ‘99 had to be a long one for him. He and Beltran need to get together and talk.

By Calvin

October 21, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Jim, In ‘96, the Braves won game game 5 and 7 in routs. Game six was close to something like 5-3 or something like that with Greg Maddux on the mound.

By Metropolitan Man

October 21, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Omar Minaya didn’t rest long. Less than 24 hours after the Cardinals eliminated the Mets in Game 7 of the NLCS, the GM was phoning his counterparts in other organizations yesterday, trying to formulate his team’s next edition. “I’m already in ‘move-on mode’ of getting ready for ‘07,” Minaya said.

One of Minaya’s first orders of business will be extending manager Willie Randolph’s contract. Randolph, a Manager of the Year candidate, has one season left on a three-year, $1.8 million deal he signed in November 2004.

“I think it’s fair to say we would like to be able to sit down with him and hopefully address his contract this winter rather than have him manage under the last year of his contract,” Minaya said

By Robert

October 21, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

My bad - you’re right Tom A Hawk

Back to managing

Remember the 1985 NCAA final? Villanova Georgetown?

If those teams play a regular season, Gtown ends up with an amazing won-loss record. They were the better team - It didnt take a brilliant manager (John Thomson was a great coach by the way)

But John Thomson wasnt a great coach because the early 80’s teams with Ewing and Floyd and company won a lot of games.

But in a short series, or ONE game, where every mistake is magnified, where a brilliant strategy can work, where there is no second chance tomorrow, THEN my friends, managerial ability can shine thru

Now, every guy who has been in more than one big game has been outmanaged by the other guy at one time or another. The loser is not always an idiot manager

But a guy who is 1 for 8 with the best team, and 1 for 14 overall - that guy cant manage - whether he cant get his players prepared or whether he makes the wrong calls from the dugout or whether the wrong jockey is riding him - he cant manage - case frickin closed

Why is it that we never hear of how much the Braves shut down the other team’s key players? (even when they only had one or two as opposed to our plethora)

Why do the Braves so much as get an October sniff of Kevin Brown or Roger Clemens and roll over dead?

Cuz they can coast on talent thru the regular season, and then, when suddenly an opponent appears who isnt weak and is executing in a pressure situation - when they can not coast - who makes it close late and tight, they do not know what to do - they are unprepared - UNPREPARED - poorly managed - even if they won the regular season by 47 games 231 years running

By Metropolitan Man

October 21, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

What Minaya is doin is making sure he rewards his people who restored METS pride. So hopefully we wont have to worry about a 2006 METS player coming back 2-5 years later, developed and knocking us out of the playoffs. Take note Atl mangement, pay them BEFORE they leave and bite you in the rear.

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Folks, I wrote a new blog, but have to wait until someone gets the e-mail and posts it. My laptop’s been fried on this trip and I’m using another login, not my one. Long story short, I don’t have the download capability for that particular function, sending stuff to the blog myself like I usually do. Since it’s Saturday, nobody’s in office yet. So I sent the e-mail, and when someone gets it they’ll post, I’m sure.

Anyway … I’m getting lots of conflicting stuff about Glavine. Talked to some Mets people and they really don’t know how much of a bidding war this could turn into. Braves people are being very, very tightlipped, as usual. But I do know they’re interested in bringing Tom back next season. Told you a while back that it wouldn’t surprise me.

By Robert

October 21, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

“Jim Leyland, the current popular choice for best manager in baseball”

Hmm - That sez a LOT

Cuz you see, until just now I was always being told how Cox was widely considered the best manager in baseball (best manager EVER according to more than a few

Now, when I said something negative about LaRussa, and suggested that Torre shouldve been canned, then THEY were the widely considered the best managers in baseball

Now all of a sudden, it’s Leyland

How many best managers are there? Seems you can name anybody if it’s done to counter one of my posts

See - My opinion on who is the best manager doesnt revolve around who happens to win a lot of games in any particualr year, or who happens to have an awesome team around him in a particular year

Leyland is a GREAT manager, but no better or worse than he was when he was when he was one miracle pinch hit away from beating Cox 14 years ago with a far outmatched team

Torre is a great manager, who may have lost some of his edge to some complacency or stagnancy

Cox is no worse now after the current 79 win year than he has already been two decades

Whoever has a team in the WS next year will then likely be the “popular” choice as best manager

The Dueling Banjos thing - the inbred kid that sat up on the recliner in Deliverence - he plays Bobby Cox in the Braves movie

By David O'Brien

October 21, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Good one Robert. Wish I had nothing to do but read your posts all day. I said Leyland because the “best manager” label changes with the wind, according to who’s hot. You know that. Don’t act like you don’t know what I mean.

My personal list doesn’t change with the season. I’ve got Leyland and Cox at the top, and have since covering both of them and being around them for the entire 9-month period of a spring training to playoffs, and talking to countless people about their opinions on the subject during those periods.

I haven’t been around Torre on a daily basis, or Bochy, but plenty swear by them. I don’t have enough observation to really make an informed opinion.

Unlike you, I’m not capable of watching games on television and determining who’s the best manager. You’re comfortable disregarding the opinions of all others in the game and paid observers of the game; I’m not. That’s all. No big deal. Just a difference of opinion.

And Tom, quit counting the posts. Who gives a damn? If it takes another 10 seconds for it to allow you to post, is it really that great an inconvenience. I filed a new blog; it’s not posted yet. Sorry. Gotta get to the ballpark.

By Robert

October 21, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

“Leyland because the “best manager” label changes with the wind, according to who’s hot. You know that. Don’t act like you don’t know what I mean.”

DOB - you always ask how I can ignore that near concensus everyone’s opinion. Then you admit that the popular opinion doesnt mean much and changes with the wind. And you find a way to criticize me while you have just answered your own question to me

I KNOW DARN WELL how popular opinion arises (and is perpetuated) and what it really means - That’s been a part of my point, it’s why I dont give a rat’s you-know-what if 7, 17, 70, or 70 million of those who form “popular opinion” think BC is a great manager

So then , dont use the popular choice line to say why Cox should be considered best, if you know that that it changes with the wind and really doesnt mean much (which is what Ive been TRYING to get you to do or at least acknowledge all along)

I dont claim to be able to know or determine who is the BEST manager based on watching a few games on television

I think an analysis of what guys have done with different teams around them along with watching a lot of baseball can put one in a positon where you can have a decent opinion on who the better managers are

On the other hand, it aint rocket science to figure out who cant manage

It IS a difference of opinion. I dont care if the guy can turn lead into gold in the regular season if his presence precludes playoff success

You think the long regular season proves the manager’s ultimate worth. And you seem to view the playoffs as a bonus crapshoot.

I would contend that you have been successfully indoctrinated (conciously or not) into Cox-think, much to the pleasure of the Braves front office

We ARE however, making progress. You have spoken out against one of the main points you used against me, and yesterday one of my biggest critics admitted Cox is a donkey.

It’s been 15 years of incompetence - another few months to get the light bulbs to flash on is worth the effort

By MEB

October 24, 2006 10:46 PM | Link to this

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_heyman/10/23/scoop.rogers/index.html