The 29 Most Important Braves During the Streak: The Brain Trust

by gondeee on Jan 25, 2007 8:49 AM EST in Top Braves During the Streak

Who was more important to the success of the Atlanta Braves during their 14 consecutive division titles? Was is the master of the one-sided trade, John Schuerholz? Was it the pitching coach, Leo Mazzone, who could take just about any thrower off the scrap heap and make him an All-Star pitcher? Or was it the skipper, Bobby Cox, whom players all around baseball long to play for?

Schuerholz
He engineered the first big acquisitions that radically altered the face of the team before the 1991 season - signing Terry Pendleton, Rafael Belliard, Sid Bream, and Deion Sanders. He always seemed to be able to add the right guy at the trading deadline, be it Alejandro Pena or Fred McGriff or Denny Neagle. Schuerholz kept the team fresh with young talent and veterans in their prime in the midst of the salary explosion, initially riding the wave with a free spending owner and then existing in the world of the constrained budget.

Mazzone
Is it just a coincidence that the streak ended the year Mazzone decided to leave? John Burkett, Chris Hammond, Darren Holmes, Jaret Wright and others all owe Mazzone for revitalizing their careers or remaking them as pitchers. Many people have tried to determine how much of an effect Leo actually has on pitchers, but there is still no way to accurately measure the Mazzone Factor, other than to say that the year he left was the worst year our pitching staff has had since before he arrived..

Cox
Considered one of the top three best managers in the game today, and one of the top ten best of all time, he is the guy who creates the environment for all of these talented players to find success. He fights for his players, not with his players like some managers. He never says anything bad about current or former players - always finding a way to take any bad situation and put a positive spin on it. That's why they play so hard for him, because they know he's behind them one hundred percent. When he was the General Manager prior to 1991, Cox was the one who brought us guys like John Smoltz via trade and drafted the likes of Steve Avery and Tom Glavine.

So who was more important? I think a case can be made for all three and that without any one of them the Braves run of success may not have been as long or successful.

Poll

Which one of these men were more important to the Braves winning 14 consecutive division titles?

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rotoautority predictions

sorry to be beating a dead horse, but i just needed to add one more thing. if our starting rotation averages a 4.53 era, that would only be appx. 3 runs after 6 innings. with our offense and what looks to be a "shut down" bullpen, i believe that is not a bad position to be in. i could see a lot of 4-3 or 5-3 wins for us this year.

by ryan c on Jan 25, 2007 10:30 AM EST 0 recs

The Mike Hampton Example.

At first glance, the overall projection of a 4.53 ERA for our rotation (ranked 13th in the NL) seemed terribly inflated. Once he broke it down into individual performances, it was Hampton's figure (5.26 ERA) that jumped out at me as the most out of place.

He projects him with these peripheral stats:
4.5 K/9, 10.0 H/9, 4.0 BB/9, 0.90 HR/9 and 162 IP
He's actually posted the following with ATL:
4.7 K/9, 9.5 H/9, 3.4 BB/9, 0.71 HR/9 and 144 IP

I maintain my belief that Hampton is still being unfairly punished for his horrendous stint in Colorado and/or baselessly limited due to the fact that he's returning from injury. It's also possible that he's simply being subjectively punished for an undeserved reputation as a lesser pitcher than what his stats as a Brave bear out.

Once again, using his yearly averages since coming over to Atlanta (while disregarding last year as part of the denominator because he did not throw a single pitch) and adjusting for some general rules for projecting pitchers, here's what I expect from Mike Hampton in 2007:

24 GS, 8-4, 144 IP, 75 K, 54 BB, 153 H, 11 HR, 1.43 WHIP, 4.27 ERA

As you can see, I present a far rosier picture and, though my approach may be overly simplistic, I happen to think that it's fair and objective. Those numbers make him a legitimate #2 in the NL (would have ranked 25th in ERA and 27th in WHIP, putting him on par with solid pitchers like Pettitte, Penny and the Pirates top 3).

In the end, I'm sure that similar adjustments can/should be made to these popular projections and that, if so done, they would provide a more realistic and appropriate job of predicting our starters' collective performance next year. I'll do the rest later and share them with you all to see what you think.

by ejruiz on Jan 25, 2007 4:02 PM EST up 0 recs

John Smoltz Projection.

34 GS, 15-8, 231 IP, 190 K, 54 BB, 216 H, 21 HR, 1.17 WHIP, 3.27 ERA

Again, these are his yearly averages (since returning to the rotation) and they look awfully good. Both of his years as a starter since being a shutdown closer have been rather similar, so I think this is a safe projection. Rotoauthority is in the ballpark, but once again he guessed high with John's ERA in 2007 at 3.57. This might be chalked up to the popular belief that older pitchers are bound to slow down despite no statistical indication of such a regression. Young arms (such as Chuck James) also face the same unfair challenge.

by ejruiz on Jan 25, 2007 5:36 PM EST up 0 recs

Tim Hudson's Turn.

Disclaimer: This will be my first diviation from mere averages, as I'm expecting better things out of Tim Hudson in 2007. I'll still be using his stats as a Brave as the foundation of this projection, but I'll be inching his negatives down and his postives up by 10%. I'll likely be doing the opposite for Chuck James since it appears to be a common belief that he'll regress somewhat nest season. Anyway, here goes:

32 GS, 15-10, 205 IP, 141 K, 65 BB, 193 H, 20 HR, 1.26 WHIP, 3.82 ERA

The WHIP seems a bit low (more like the pre-2004 Huddy) but everything else seems rather in line with a 32 GS season from this guy. This would make him the #2 in our staff, behind Smoltz and ahead of Hampton, at least as far as projected performance is concerned.

by ejruiz on Jan 25, 2007 5:50 PM EST up 0 recs

Chuck James' "Regression".

It appears as though most non-Braves baseball fans have agreed upon the "fact" that Chuck James is due to regress in 2007 and, while I'm not sold on that, I'm willing to give it a shot for the sake of fairness and impartiality. And so, I'll give him a negative 10% spike along the lines that I gave Hudson a positive 10% bump. Before I do that, however, I will isolate his stats as a starter and give him a 66% increase across the board in order to more accurately simulate a full season in the rotation. This is what I ended up with:

30 GS, 16-8, 181 IP, 127 K, 77 BB, 174 H, 33 HR, 1.39 WHIP, 4.28 ERA

Wow! Despite the negative bump, he's on par with Hampton in ERA and narrowly edges him in WHIP. Moreover, he beats RotoAuthority's projected ERA of 4.76 by almost half a run.

By the way, I forgot to compare my Hudson projection to RotoAuthority's, so here goes: I have him at 3.82, 0.30 better than his. So far, every single prediction of mine, based solely on their performances as Braves thus far (while balancing a 10% improvement for Hudson with a 10% regression for James) is more positive than Roto's. I wonder why this is...

by ejruiz on Jan 25, 2007 6:09 PM EST up 0 recs

Last And Least.

I've certainly been disappointed with Kyle Davies "developement", but I still think he's a servicable #5 starter in the NL. Let's see if his stats agree:

28 GS, 9-11, 139 IP, 108 K, 71 BB, 172 H, 20 HR, 1.75 WHIP, 6.15 ERA

Those are, in fact, his total stats as a starter at the MLB level. There are those who think he'll turn things around, but I have little reason to believe so at this point. Interestingly enough, this time RotoAuthority is the optimistic one, projecting a 5.33 ERA for the young man in 2007. I don't think my projection of his work in 2007 will negate the gains that others made, but it'll hurt.

by ejruiz on Jan 25, 2007 6:17 PM EST up 0 recs

Actually

You're wrong on the reason for the negative projections. He is not being punished for his Colorado performance -- which is too far in the past to matter and is corrected for in translations anyway.

What he IS being punished for is being a 34-year-old pitcher coming off of surgery who hasn't thrown a ball in anger in a year-and-a-half. What he is being punished for are the modest peripherals that belie his 3.50 ERA in 2005.

Remember that Smoltz struggled when coming back from surgery. Most pitchers, especially a finesse pitcher like Hampton, are going to struggle to get back their touch and their control. Hampton doesn't have a nasty fastball to fall back on. And it may be a while before he gets his change-up or breaking ball back to normal.

by mhsiegel14 on Jan 25, 2007 11:22 PM EST up 0 recs

Good Points.

You make some very good points, but he's been a 4.27 ERA pitcher through 432 IP in Atlanta despite those modest peripherals. I think that it'll take him some time to knock the rust off, but I think he'll be very good once he gets that done. He's a fierce competitor and an underrated talent as a pitcher. I honestly see him being closer to 4.27 than the 5.26 that RotoAuthority predicts him at. In fact, I think he'll be closer to 4 than 5 period. Now I'm just going with my gut over evidence (pitchers struggle after surgery and long layoffs) but I can live with that. ;)

by ejruiz on Jan 25, 2007 11:45 PM EST up 0 recs

The Braintrust.

I was sad to see Mazzone leave and even more sad to see the effect that his departure had on our pitching staff, but both sides dealt with it the right way and I wish him all the luck in the world with Baltimore (the Orioles could surprise some people with the arms they've amassed).

It's also troubling to think that we may not have many years left in the Schuerholz/Cox era. In my humble and honest opinion, they are the best at their respective jobs in baseball today and they have been for quite some time. They've demonstrated an ability to win at both ends of the spending spectrum and they've done it with class and style. I hope they stay on until the end of the decade at least, because I see one more revolution of young talent on the horizon. If they can hang in their until all of those pieces are in place and point them in the right direction, I have faith that Atlanta will remain successful even after they exit.

Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz have been deemed Atlanta's Big Three by many over the years, but it's been Cox, Schuerholz and Mazzone that provided the unseen foundation for this dynasty. Maybe someday all six will be in the Hall of Fame together (hopefully joined by Chipper and Andruw, if they can add to their resumes somewhat) and this era of Braves dominance can be perserved and remembered forever.

by ejruiz on Jan 25, 2007 3:45 PM EST 0 recs

You know

I voted for JS here but i think i am reconsidering now because i just remembered that Cox was the gm that drafted the heart of the first part of this dynasty. He drafted Glavine, Justice, Klesko, Lopez, Chipper, Gant, and probably a few others and he traded for Smoltz. Not counting all the years he helped hold the pieces together and got the most out of seemingly washed up or injured players im going to have to change my vote to Bobby Cox.

.....Matt

by yondaime4 on Jan 25, 2007 6:40 PM EST 0 recs

I think you should add

Ted Turner

by themurph on Jan 25, 2007 7:57 PM EST 0 recs

Ted

Well, once Ted took his hands off the team, it was a lot better. He deserved a lot of credit for keeping the team in Atlanta when it looked like they might leave and for being willing to shell out for top level talent.

But, all the sucess happened once Ted stopped interfering -- or perhaps yo don't remember the Butler-Barker trade. Probably one of the best things that happened to the franchise was when Cox put him in his place and told him to pay the bills, sit in the owner's box and clap and let the baseball people make the decisions.

by mhsiegel14 on Jan 25, 2007 11:26 PM EST up 0 recs

Future

Cox will certaintly be in the HOF one day. His ability to keep this team focused and winning and constantly exceeding expectaitons has been remarkable.

Schuerholz may join him. He built a champion in Kansas City and then built a dynasty in Atlanta. Thinks of all the trades he's made and how few of them have come back to bite us. Jermaine Dye, Jason Schmidt, Brett Boone. That's about it.

Mazzone will be an interesting case. If he buiild another dynastic pitching staff in Baltimore, he might be able to get in. But any pitching coach is going to have a tought fight. And Mazzone would probably say his mentor Johnny Sain should go in first.

it will be interesting to see what the Braves do when Cox retires. I predict Pendleton will take over as manager. And maybe with Greg Maddux as his pitching coach.

by mhsiegel14 on Jan 25, 2007 11:29 PM EST 0 recs