Jump to content

Do we overrate our pitching prospects' chances of success?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Braves BP top ERA's other than closer:

91: 2.58, 2.88, 3.00

92: 2.55, 3.22, 3.42

93: 1.63, 2.06, 2.31, 2.86

94: 3.33, 3.45, 3.55

95: 2.79, 3.09, 3.65

96: 2.75, 2.97, 3.22

97: 2.39, 2.54, 3.75

98: 2.13, 2.75, 3.92, plus a good starter (probably Millwood)

99: 2.37, 2.82, 2.98, 3.35, 3.42

00: 2.50, 3.47, 3.61

01: 2.76, 2.81, 3.02, 3.36, 3.43, 3.48

02: .95, 1.81, 1.99, 2.63, 2.97, 3.48

03: 3.51, 3.86

04: 2.57, 2.75, 2.84

I'm not saying this shows the whole picture, and some of these guys only threw about 40 innings, and I don't know who was healthy for the post-season, but I think it supports my point quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well, "luck" is basically just short-hand for that which can't be controlled, no? Your example and those you're responding to are talking about the same stuff.

That's why I said it may be semantics. And there is a distinction between saying the architects of the team were lucky and the team itself was lucky. Some people may not see that and get upset when people say it's about luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It usually is with you. :D

Rshack...Yes, Atlanta lacked things but still, they obviously put together a championship level team year in and year out....just as Oakland did.

Ah, the :D to make a joke out of statement you believe to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of saying its luck, i'd refer to it as things that largely cannot be planned for.

You don't know when your hitters are gonna be on hot streaks, when your bullpen is gonna be on a HR binge, when you 2B is gonna get hurt. You build the best team possible, but a lot of things that go a long way towards determining who will win the WS is stuff that you can't plan for in December and January when you're building your roster or even July when you're augmenting it for the stretch run.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It usually is with you. :D

Rshack...Yes, Atlanta lacked things but still, they obviously put together a championship level team year in and year out....just as Oakland did.

We agree that Schuerholz did an amazing job. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But for all their sustained and consistent success, they have a surprising shortage of rings. Do you think that was just about luck and had nothing to do with how Schuerholz built the team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of saying its luck, i'd refer to it as things that largely cannot be planned for.

You don't know when your hitters are gonna be on hot streaks, when your bullpen is gonna be on a HR binge, when you 2B is gonna get hurt. You build the best team possible, but a lot of things that go a long way towards determining who will win the WS is stuff that you can't plan for in December and January when you're building your roster or even July when you're augmenting it for the stretch run.

Clearly, I agree. Plagiarist. ;)

Well, "luck" is basically just short-hand for that which can't be controlled, no? Your example and those you're responding to are talking about the same stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree that Schuerholz did an amazing job. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But for all their sustained and consistent success, they have a surprising shortage of rings. Do you think that was just about luck and had nothing to do with how Schuerholz built the team?

I think its a combo of things...I am not sure I find too many flaws in the Braves roster..except maybe closer.

But they had some closers have some huge years and then falter in the playoffs...That happens...i am not sure that can be pinned on anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its a combo of things...I am not sure I find too many flaws in the Braves roster..except maybe closer.

But they had some closers have some huge years and then falter in the playoffs...That happens...i am not sure that can be pinned on anyone.

But they never had a reliever to bridge the gap between starter and closer!! Oh wait, I just showed that they had plenty of good relievers other than the closer.:scratchchinhmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree that Schuerholz did an amazing job. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But for all their sustained and consistent success, they have a surprising shortage of rings. Do you think that was just about luck and had nothing to do with how Schuerholz built the team?

Those Braves teams needed to add a premium bat to win more titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree that Schuerholz did an amazing job. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But for all their sustained and consistent success, they have a surprising shortage of rings. Do you think that was just about luck and had nothing to do with how Schuerholz built the team?

Is it really a surprising shortage of rings? If every team were exactly equal on the first day of the playoffs, they'd have a 12.5% chance of winning the World Series. If you make the playoffs every year you'd win the whole thing once every eight years. The Braves won one World Series in 14 playoff appearances. Just by luck they should have one 1.75 World Series - so one or two.

I think they underperformed very slightly, and that has very little to do with John Schuerholz' team building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really a surprising shortage of rings? If every team were exactly equal on the first day of the playoffs, they'd have a 12.5% chance of winning the World Series. If you make the playoffs every year you'd win the whole thing once every eight years. The Braves won one World Series in 14 playoff appearances. Just by luck they should have one 1.75 World Series - so one or two.

I think they underperformed very slightly, and that has very little to do with John Schuerholz' team building.

Well, according to this, the MFY's have been remarkably "lucky" in the postseason over decades.... yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, according to this, the MFY's have been remarkably "lucky" in the postseason over decades.... yes?

Well obviously they had much better odds in many of their post-season appearances. They are often the best team as well, so that helps. I'm not one to say each team has an equal chance going into the post-season, I don't think anyone else is either.

But I would say the Braves should have won more than one title since they were often among the best 2 or 3 teams in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first off, I wasn't aiming anything at you in particular. It's just a normal thing around here to act like a short postseason series is just luck. The fact that you didn't use the phrase "pure luck" doesn't change that.

The A's managed to eke into the postseason because they were in a weak division, then they'd get bounced in the first round like clockwork. The Braves relied on SP's and a closer, with not much in between. So, Cox would stay with a SP longer than he should, trying to get to the closer because the BP was full of temp journeymen. Given the rotation he had, that works fine over the long haul. If the postseason series were the best 11 out of 21, I bet the Braves would have a bunch of rings. But they're not 11 of 21, so the Braves don't. You don't need just 1 good BP guy, you need three of them, and the BP is the one place Schuerholz scrimped. IMO, it was his only shortcoming. By and large, he was a brilliant GM. Too bad that Baltimore boy had his great success someplace else other than Baltimore.

So now that I've shown how this isn't correct, what else are you going to come up with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add in Matt Riley, Rocky Coppinger, Jimmy Haynes, and Arthur Rhodes. Those guys were just as highly rated as Tillman and Arrieta (a notch below Matusz). All those guys has issues:

Riley - Head

Coppinger - Weight

Haynes - really not that good as advertised.

Rhodes - no real 3rd pitch to be a starter

Let me note, I am not advocating trading them in this post, but saying we overvalue our prospects, as all fans do. We are like parents, we only see the good in our "children".

On a note, can some compare Jimmy Haynes to Tillman back in the day? I remember Haynes had a killer curve like Tillman. Also Rhodes vs Arrieta, both had electric stuff, but Arrieta is similar that both had command issues and not a 3rd pitch. Are those decent comps?

Haynes vs Tillman

Rhodes vs Arrieta

You forgot about the biggest (in more ways than one) prospect or talent of all that didn't pan out - Sidney Ponson. I believe Sir Sid at one time was labled as a "can't miss prospect."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • emmett16 is right. Uppercut swings produce a lot of groundouts because the bat is not on the same plane as the ball for very long. The best swing stays on the same plane as the ball for a longer time. This will produce contact that creates backspin on the ball which makes it carry. That Ted Williams book is one of the best hitting books ever written.
    • I have to admit. I'm an addict. I'm an addict not of booze or drugs. I'm an addict for baseball .... It's still THE game for me and I love almost any team sport. But for me, when it's great, it's still the greatest game of them all. I hate to say it, but when my team wins ...it's like a hit of crack or coke and I have never and will never try those drugs. This one is a better high anyway. It's an adrenaline rush for me. It comes from my heart and soul. Like the other night in Anaheim I sat transfixed on the game. I dont need to look at the silly shell games on a scoreboard, nor hear what the players favorite singer is.. or eat a lot of junk, but I DO have to have my bag of peanuts. The Orioles were clinging to a one run lead, when, with the bases loaded, Mike Trout stepped up to the plate...a single and the game is tied...an extra base hit and the Orioles lose. Our pitcher Craig Kimbrel had to throw a strike to one of the all time greats, and somehow, someway, Trout looked at a third strike and the Orioles won. I lept into the air as if I had a million dollars on the game. I never bet on sports, but this was a better high than winning any bet anyway. Because it is pure and it comes from my deep place of caring when the 'Birds' win. Today in Anaheim, another nail biter, the game was in the ninth with two out and a runner on first. Suddenly the runner broke for second and catcher James McCann threw a strike to second base. Gunnar Henderson covering, made the tag and the ump called the runner out. And the game ended that way. Bang Bang. Personally I thought it was a blown call, but after review the call was upheld and the Orioles won another nail biter. I dont watch many other games, but every night I hit the crack pipe" of baseball. It's my addiction. I also love watching fantastic performers. Mookie Betts is an electric ballplayer . can do anything at the plate and in the field. The Orioles' Henderson is a must see ballplayer like Betts is. On Wednesday he hit a home run, a double, a single, drove in 3 runs got hit by a pitch , stole a base and made two game saving plays in the field. Baseball is a team sport but it's also watching the brilliant, mesmerizing individual performances. It's watching the best players in the world do what I think is the most difficult thing in sports , hit a baseball, throw a baseball, and field a baseball. It's hard to do. Anyway,it's still just April and it's a long, long season. Bryant Gumble once had a great line about the difference between football and baseball. He said "Baseball, is a never ending romance, but football is a one night stand." Yep, I'm an addict, a baseball junkie, and I make no apologies for it. I'll never go to rehab for my baseball addiction. I don't NEED to be cured. And I never will be. Jim Bouton said it best in "Ball Four" his great book. "In all the years you grip a baseball...you suddenly remember, it's really the other way around" Exactly.
    • Especially when you factor in the DL Hall trade too.  Suarez and Wells get bumped to the pen only if Bradish and Means are effective starters a decent part of the season.  Would the O's promote Povich or McDermott to pitch relief?  My guess is not anytime soon, but I dunno. A trade would for one or two arms would be best, but trading for good relief pitching is only harder now because so many teams can make the playoffs.  
    • But O'Hearn's numbers are inflated because he never bats against lefties, plus he's trash in the outfield.  If Santander's hitting does not improve this season of course you don't give him a QO, but that's unlikely.  He'll probably pick it up as the weather heats up.  Plus Tony plays at least a decent RF and can play first base too.   Like others have said, should the O's offer Santander a QO?  Maybe -- it depends on how he performs and how Kjerstad and Stowers perform.  
    • Wait, since when is money no object? It remains to be seen what the budget constraints are going to be with the new ownership, but if Santander is projected to put up 3.0 WAR for $20 million and his replacement (Kjerstad/Cowser/Stowers...) can put up 2.5 WAR for less than a million then that will be factored in.  The goal will never be about being better than the other 29 teams in a payroll vacuum.
    • I think you have a good understanding and I assume you’ve read Ted Williams Science of Hitting.  It’s all about lining up planes of pitch and bat.  Historically with sinkers and low strikes a higher attack angle played and was more in alignment with pitch plane.  In today’s game of spin and high zone fastball an uppercut swing gives you minimal chance and results in top spin grounders and swing & miss. 
    • I'll bow to your expertise even if it seems unlikely to my laymen understanding. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...