On pitching
One of the things that most impressed me about the Braves' run of titles from 1991 through 2005, was the ability of former pitching coach Leo Mazzone to get quality starts out of seemingly washed-up or ineffective pitchers. Take away the magical run through, say, the late 1990s where Atlanta trotted out the most intimidating three starting pitchers in (possibly) Major League Baseball history in Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz, and what you've got is a remarkable run pieced together by one or two 'aces' and three or four journeymen.
Consider John Thomson. Here's a guy who never compiled a winning season or ERA lower than 4.00 (including a frightening 8.04 ERA and 1-10 record in 1999) prior to joining the Braves in 2004. He comes to Atlanta, promptly goes 14-8 with a 3.72 ERA and helps guide the Braves to yet another divisional title.
And there's tons more examples. Jaret Wright. Albie Lopez. Paul Byrd. Damian Moss. Pete Smith (twice). To a lesser extent, Steve Avery (who opened with three magical seasons in the early 1990s, but then never lived up to his long-term potential).
All of this points to excellent coaching by Mazzone, who was able to get enough quality starts out of rather ineffective pitchers during the regular season and turn the ball over to, at the very least, one 'ace' pitcher to carry them through the postseason.
And pitching is ultimately what's at the core of Atlanta's recent 5-21 slide (as an aside, Hillary marveled at the fact that it is pretty friggin' difficult to lose 21 games in a month ... 'you've only got, like, 30 days in a month!'). The deft touch of Mazzone is obviously missed, among the starters where Smoltz is the only one turning out consistently solid performances.
But also among the bullpen. For all of the Braves' woes, they've actually been hitting the ball pretty well and playing good defense. And, for the most part, despite some of the weaknesses of Thomson and Jorge Sosa coming to light, Atlanta is getting enough decent starts to post a .500 record or better.
The worst bullpen in the Majors is killing them. Smoltz has seen six leads vanish after he departs (including his previous two starts against the Red Sox and the Yankees) because the hodge-podge of relievers is flat-out unable to hold on to the win.
Which got me thinking about the value of a closer (obviously) and also a set-up man. Remember how dominant that first Yankees team to win a title in the 1990s was? It was partially because they were trotting out Mariano Riveria in the seventh and eighth innings, and then bringing in John Whetteland to shut the door. The same goes for the Anaheim Angels a few years back with Francisco Rodriguez and Troy Percivel.
If you look back, the one year Atlanta won the World Series, in 1995 (arguably the best team, with the 1993 squad being a close second), the team was so effective because of its dominant bullpen. The Braves would open up a lead, bring in Alejandro Pena in the seventh or eighth innings, and then turn to Mark Wohlers to close it out.
But, what has been a long problem of not just the Braves, but of practically all teams, has been the ability to keep those closers performing at such a high level. The list of closers who 'lost it' in Atlanta are too numerous to mention - Wohlers, Greg McMichael, John Rocker, Dan Kolb, etc.
When I look at the difference between the Red Sox in 2003 versus 2004, I see the primary one being the emergence of Keith Foulke as a shut-down closer. Sure, adding Curt Schilling was pivotal, but the inability of Boston to close out a win the previous year - particularly in the American League Championship Series against the Yankees - prompting Theo Epstein to hunt down a marquee closer. He got one, and Boston got its first championship in 86 years.
Last year, Foulke struggled with control and injuries, and no one stepped up. The Red Sox faltered down the stretch and couldn't hold a lead against the eventual world champion White Sox in the American League Division Series. This year, Jonathan Papelpon has emerged as, possibly, the next Riveria, while Mike Timlin is re-settling into the set-up role he flourished in back in 2004. As a result, Boston is sitting in first place in the American League East.
Consider John Thomson. Here's a guy who never compiled a winning season or ERA lower than 4.00 (including a frightening 8.04 ERA and 1-10 record in 1999) prior to joining the Braves in 2004. He comes to Atlanta, promptly goes 14-8 with a 3.72 ERA and helps guide the Braves to yet another divisional title.
And there's tons more examples. Jaret Wright. Albie Lopez. Paul Byrd. Damian Moss. Pete Smith (twice). To a lesser extent, Steve Avery (who opened with three magical seasons in the early 1990s, but then never lived up to his long-term potential).
All of this points to excellent coaching by Mazzone, who was able to get enough quality starts out of rather ineffective pitchers during the regular season and turn the ball over to, at the very least, one 'ace' pitcher to carry them through the postseason.
And pitching is ultimately what's at the core of Atlanta's recent 5-21 slide (as an aside, Hillary marveled at the fact that it is pretty friggin' difficult to lose 21 games in a month ... 'you've only got, like, 30 days in a month!'). The deft touch of Mazzone is obviously missed, among the starters where Smoltz is the only one turning out consistently solid performances.
But also among the bullpen. For all of the Braves' woes, they've actually been hitting the ball pretty well and playing good defense. And, for the most part, despite some of the weaknesses of Thomson and Jorge Sosa coming to light, Atlanta is getting enough decent starts to post a .500 record or better.
The worst bullpen in the Majors is killing them. Smoltz has seen six leads vanish after he departs (including his previous two starts against the Red Sox and the Yankees) because the hodge-podge of relievers is flat-out unable to hold on to the win.
Which got me thinking about the value of a closer (obviously) and also a set-up man. Remember how dominant that first Yankees team to win a title in the 1990s was? It was partially because they were trotting out Mariano Riveria in the seventh and eighth innings, and then bringing in John Whetteland to shut the door. The same goes for the Anaheim Angels a few years back with Francisco Rodriguez and Troy Percivel.
If you look back, the one year Atlanta won the World Series, in 1995 (arguably the best team, with the 1993 squad being a close second), the team was so effective because of its dominant bullpen. The Braves would open up a lead, bring in Alejandro Pena in the seventh or eighth innings, and then turn to Mark Wohlers to close it out.
But, what has been a long problem of not just the Braves, but of practically all teams, has been the ability to keep those closers performing at such a high level. The list of closers who 'lost it' in Atlanta are too numerous to mention - Wohlers, Greg McMichael, John Rocker, Dan Kolb, etc.
When I look at the difference between the Red Sox in 2003 versus 2004, I see the primary one being the emergence of Keith Foulke as a shut-down closer. Sure, adding Curt Schilling was pivotal, but the inability of Boston to close out a win the previous year - particularly in the American League Championship Series against the Yankees - prompting Theo Epstein to hunt down a marquee closer. He got one, and Boston got its first championship in 86 years.
Last year, Foulke struggled with control and injuries, and no one stepped up. The Red Sox faltered down the stretch and couldn't hold a lead against the eventual world champion White Sox in the American League Division Series. This year, Jonathan Papelpon has emerged as, possibly, the next Riveria, while Mike Timlin is re-settling into the set-up role he flourished in back in 2004. As a result, Boston is sitting in first place in the American League East.
posted by Jmac at 6:54 AM
10 Comments:
To be fair, it's not just Atlanta who's had a problem keeping a consistent closer. It's a baseball-wide problem. You don't get a lot of Riveras.
Well, right.
The Mets, for instance, had a revolving door at closer as well.
Outside of Riveria, K-Rod and Trevor Hoffman ... it's hard to think of any closers who have been lights out for longer than five years. I mean Foulke put together some good years, and Smoltz was damn impressive during his brief stint ... but it's hard to find a reliable, day-in and day-out closer.
You forgot my favorite Mazzone turn around story, John Burkett. That guy was on the verge of being washed up and Mazzone turned him into an All-Star in 2001. Here's hoping that Mazzone continues to work his magic with my O's....it's already rubbing off on Bedard and Benson who are on pace for GASP....16 to 20 win seasons?!
As for closers I was going to warn you about calling Papelbon the next anyone but Hillary nabbed that point already. Closers are a fickle bunch and few can be trusted for more than a handful of years...just ask Wohlers, Koch, Foulke, Olson, Graves, Guardado, Alfonseca, Urbina, Davis, Thigpen, etc, etc, etc
TIM
Now, now ... Bobby Thigpen put together a good couple of years. Gregg Olson, though ... man, I forgot about that guy. He just imploded for no reason whatsoever.
You know, with Wohlers and Rocker, for instance, they simply lost control of their pitches. Olson still had good control, but folks just began to hit him. It was weird.
Rocker blew out his elbow on top of being a head case. The rest of those you mentioned were never "lights out" guys. They all had flashes of brilliance, but their careers were mostly mired in inconsistency.
The reason you don't get many Riveras is because coming up from the minors, a pitcher wants more to be the next Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, or John Smoltz than the next Lee Smith.
I don't know ... Thigpen saved 57 games one year, while Olson was ridiculous for about three or so years. They were pretty much lights-out, just not for a sustainable amount of time.
I don't know ... Thigpen saved 57 games one year, while Olson was ridiculous for about three or so years. They were pretty much lights-out, just not for a sustainable amount of time.
Olson's best year was 1990 when Thigpen set the record with 57. The closer of that era that all of these guys should be compared to, however, is Dennis Eckersley, who was the definition of "lights-out" for a decade as a closer. Olson had about five solid years and the same with Thigpen.
Regardless, I agree with what you say about how important those two roles (set-up guy and closer) are to a championship caliber team.
I believe it was over at sabernomics.com last summer where someone crunched a bunch of numbers and "proved" that Mazzone is good for about a .6 drop in ERA for your starting pitchers. Simply unbelievable. It's even easier to say now, but I was saying it back in December, too: this year's Bravos were doomed the day Mazzone left for Baltimore. Doomed, I tell ya.
As for Olsen's collapse, didn't he come pitch for Atlanta? No wait, that was Mark Davis, the friggin 1989 Cy Young Winner with San Diego (I think) who was part of the huge free agent class the Braves brought in in 1990. You know, Davis, Jim Presly (3base from the Mariners), and, of course, legendary Nick Esasky from the BoSox (and the Reds before that). Esasky got vertigo after like 7 games and never played major leage ball again. Presly just sucked (though looking him up at mlb.com just now I realize his stats were never very impressive anyway, though in the late '80s 20 home runs was real power), and was done with his career in 1991. And, of course, Davis was everything you would expect from a relief pitcher on the Braves.
I still remember being at the grocery store in March of 1990 and seeing John Smoltz on the cover of a baseball preview magazine. I eagerly opened it and found the preview of the Braves--they were picked FOURTH in the NL West! Unbelievable! A team a few teams might actually have to respect. I made my mom buy me that magazine, and I got ready for the Braves to turn it around. Instead, they were the far-and-away worst team in the National League, again, finished dead last in the NL for the fourth time in five years, and just all-around sucked.
Something about this year makes me remember the 80s. Ick, what a month.
Gregg Olsen played for the Braves as well, at some point in the mid- to late-1990s. He had been released by Baltimore because he was either recovering from an injury or had simply lost his stuff.
He did, however, have some nasty breaking pitches. He wasn't a power pitcher, but threw a disgusting curve. I think he lost some of the movement on it over time, and that killed him. Plus, when your 'go-to' pitch is a curve ... it's really only a matter of time, isn't it?
Re: Esasky ... I was torn about him because I liked him as a player and was looking forward to seeing him more regularly, but hated to see him leave Boston ... but figured if he has to go to any team, the Braves is pretty cool. I was convinced he was going to turn them around (teaming up with Lonnie Smith of course).
BTW ... Lonnie Smith finished 1991 as the lead-off hitter for the Braves. Is there anything weirder than that?
Post a Comment
<< Home