Offense or Pitching? Which would you prefer?
Let's face it - the Braves can't seem to have both at the same time. Obviously, this year is a year of inept offense, but some good starting pitching. Previous years, we've been privy to some Braves teams that were capable of generating a good bit of runs, but had pitching staffs that either couldn't start, or couldn't close.
FOX really loves to drive home the notion that Pitching. Wins. Championships.
But the rules of baseball state that one team must have more runs than the other team in order to be declared the winner of that particular game. And the Braves haven't been very good at scoring any runs, despite how well the pitchers might be pitching.
So instead of mulling about how much the Braves stink right now, throwing in the towel, or being yet another Negative Nancy (believe me, I'm quite not enthused about the Braves right now either), I'm going to write about some numbers, and ask the subject lined question. What is your preference - better offense, or better pitching? Because right now, the Braves can't have the cake and expect to eat it too.
It's objective, but I'm going to throw out some numbers from the last four (wow, has it really been that long?) years, and see if that helps sway anyone reading in one direction or another.
2005 - the last year the Braves made the playoffs
Record: 90-72
Runs Scored: 769
Runs Allowed: 674
Leaned towards: Offensive season.
A career year by Andruw Jones and his 51 homers and 128 RBI was the big story, but 13 members of the Atlanta Braves contributed with at least 20 RBI. Eight of them had at least 40 RBI (Estrada had 39). The pitching was wildly inconsistent all year long, but surprise emergences of guys like Horacio Ramirez and Jorge Sosa, both of whom contributed 10+ wins helped the Braves make their last playoff appearance before being exposed. The Braves scored 95 more runs than they had allowed, but at 674 runs allowed, they did a pretty good job of keeping the opponents off the board too. Makes sense that they'd win a division with this kind of output.
2006 - end of an era
Record: 79-83
Runs Scored: 849
Runs Allowed: 805
Leaned towards: Offensive season.
Andruw Jones had another superb season, anchoring the offense with 41 homers and 129 RBI, but Jeff Francoeur, despite his then-considered-paltry .742 OPS helped carry the offense with 29 homers and 103 RBI of his own. Adam LaRoche and Brian McCann exploded with 32 and 24 homers respectively while each driving in 90+ RBI. 10 Braves had at least 20 RBI (Todd Pratt, 19), and eight Braves cracked the 30+ RBI mark with Betemit and Langerhans just falling short with 29 and 28 a piece. Anyone remember that ridiculous stretch where the Braves hung like 75 runs on the Padres, Cardinals and Phillies? The Braves were scoring a lot and often, but the problem was that the pitching was allowing almost as many. Aside from Smoltz and the surprising Chuck James, the starting pitching was wildly inconsistent (even Huddy), and the bullpen was a disaster.
2007 - at least we finished above .500
Record: 84-78
Runs Scored: 810
Runs Allowed: 733
Leaned towards: Offensive season.
This was such a promising season. The Braves were still scoring a lot of runs, but the pitching was once again, poor beyond Smoltz and Hudson. Early on, the Braves were winning a lot of games by blowouts, but the problem was that they were getting blown out just as frequently. At the end of the year the Braves' record in blowout games (5+ run margin) was 24-20. Also keep in fact that 56 of the 87 run differential in scored/allowed was all Mark Teixeira. It was clear that if the Braves couldn't acquire starting pitching, they were going to go for a bigger gun to try and outslug their opponents. Unfortunately, this is a prime example of where their fine offense was knocked flat on its butt by the pitching that wins championships. And despite their pleasing above .500 season, it wasn't enough.
2008 - worst since '90
Record: 72-90
Runs Scored: 753
Runs Allowed: 768
Leaned towards: Pitching season, by default.
Barely, only because the Braves' pitching staff was demolished by injury far worse than it was in 2006, but the offense was outright pathetic. Losing Tim Hudson was devastating, and the whole Smoltz debacle was an awful way to see him limp through 2008. But the offense could not come through in any key situations, also evidenced by the abysmal 11-30 record in one-run games. Also this squad could never get the edge in any extra-inning scenario, evidenced by their 3-10 record in extra-inning games.
2009 - shouldn't we be better than this?
Current record: 30-34
Runs Scored: 268 (On pace for: 677)
Runs Allowed: 293 (On pace for: 741)
Currently leaned towards: Pitching season.
So prior to this season, the Braves went full head-on to put a big band-aid over the gaping gushing wound that was starting pitching, by acquiring Derek Lowe and Kenshin Kawakami, and making a trade for Javier Vazquez. That's fine and dandy, and combined with Jair Jurrjens and phenom Tommy Hanson, the starting rotation looks to be in decent shape. The offense, on the other hand is the new wound that is bleeding the team to death, as way too much stock was put into the faith that Jeff Francoeur would find out how to play good baseball again, Garret Anderson would be close to the median that he set in all those years out in Anaheim, and Jordan Schafer would be greatness out of the box. Neither of those hopes came to fruition, and the Braves are struggling to win ball games, because they can't score any runs to support the pitchers whom have pretty much been holding their end of the bargain and keeping the team close and most of the time going at least six innings.
If the Atlanta Braves continue playing like they are now, then a .460 winning% is all that should be expected, at best. The scary thing is that I do believe that pitching does win championships, and it's always evidenced when watching MLB playoffs, when a Carpenter, a Shields, a Francis or a Beckett just goes out there and makes potent offenses look like, well, the 2009 Braves. But if that's the case, then why do the last few seasons of non-playoff-caliber Braves baseball look so much better than what we're enduring now?
I think the reason why I'm so not enjoying this season is because when your team is down, then you have to hope that they can come back. Whereas when your team scores 8 runs a game, having to hope that they can just hold onto it, which seems safer, I'm guessing. To think that I'm thinking back to 2006, when the Braves would at least be in the lead when going into the 9th inning, even despite seeing guys like Chris Reitsma trotting out to go for the close, it just felt a lot more comforting knowing that we were in the lead.
0 recs |
38 comments
Comments
pitching and defense
by Heyward is the next crime dog on Jun 18, 2009 1:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This
Pitching = stellar
Defense = poor, our defense hasn’t been good coupled by bad base running.
by Sparhawk on Jun 18, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching
it can keep you in games, or take you out of them much easier than offense can.
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 2:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps what this says
Is that pitching AND just enough offense wins championships. The only other thing I would say is that I think I’ll be pretty surprised if this year’s pitching staff only does 27 total runs better than the all-AAA pitching staff of last year.
The other thing you could examine is the Washington Nationals. They basically have the opposite problem that we do — a plentiful offense with a ghastly pitching staff. I think the team as a whole has more blown saves than actual saves, which probably explains their 17-46 record, which is already 6 games below their Pythag-prediction. So on that basis, it seems pitching + anemic offense >> offense + anemic pitching, using a 2 team sample size.
I’ll go with a good pitching staff over a good offense, if for the sole reason that I think it is much easier to turn a poor-to-mediocre offense through trades and acquisitions into a decent one than it is to do the same with pitching.
by fphjr01 on Jun 18, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And it's also cheaper to do that on the FA market.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just out of curiosity
what would the numbers look like if you went with just Starting Pitchers and did not include the BP?
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's kind of flawed
Due to the fact that every year’s had some guys who did both, so for simplicity sake I just counted all split duty pitchers as SP’s.
SP’s runs allowed:
2005 – 448
2006 – 535
2007 – 459
2008 – 505
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jun 18, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and what are we on pace for this year?
(sorry for asking all of this math stuff…)
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
484
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching.
Although I don’t see why they are mutually exclusive. I’d rather have balance, which is what all good championship teams have. Take, for example, our offseason. I can say with certainty that if we sign one less pitcher and get Adam Dunn, we are leading this division. Instead, we focused on pitching at the expense of the offense, and we’re paying the price right now.
by soup du jour on Jun 18, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
hind-sight
it’s always 20/20. If we had known that we wouldn’t be able to pull off a trade, or that KK would not be worth $8M or that FYF’s new stance only led to fewer Ks and not more production…
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While all true, most of the people on the blog here were calling for his acquisition, so I think you’re giving the FO too much leeway in calling it ‘hindsight’. But the Dunn thing has been debated ad nauseum here so I’ll just say that I’ll somewhat agree with you and MichaelProcton that cost was definitely a factor, and that we don’t have all of the information available to us as fans (Dunn hates baseball, etc. :) ).
by soup du jour on Jun 18, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was one of the ones who was against us getting him
(at least, to use in the 4 hole – He is an ideal 3-hole hitter)
But, he was way too expensive, and the org thought that they could get a comparable bat (at least, they led us to believe that they could) via trade.
and yes, Dunn hates baseball and walks kill rallies.
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel obligated to add this
that I was completely wrong in not wanting Dunn. I wish oh so much that we had gotten him now – even with his horrid D and his hate of baseball and all of his selfish walks.
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And there's also the fact that Dunn's cost went down late only after he realized nobody wanted him.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
They shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, but the Braves have been a team where it’s more or less been feast or famine. It’s been discussed a little bit, but a key component of most successful teams is the rise, or stepping-up of one or more players who end up playing key roles in the success of a team’s season.
2005 had the luxury of all the Baby Braves stepping in and all playing at much higher levels than what was expected, and in addition, they got some unexpected winning production from Ho-Ram and Jorge Sosa. But aside from that, they were widely built to be a more offensive team than one built on pitching.
Moving forward, I would love to see the Braves make moves not so head-first based on need, but based on availability. Instead of getting Lowe/Kawakami/Glavine/Vazquez/Anderson I would rather have seen something like Lowe/Dunn/Vazquez, so yeah, I agree with you there too.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jun 18, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a fan, I also simply ENJOY a 3-2 or a 2-0 ballgame more than a 7-6 game. They’re more fun to watch IMO and they keep me into the game more.
As for the future, I think that you hit it on the head: the Braves, right now, seem to have the ‘next wave’ of young hitters coming up in Schafer, Freeman, and Heyward, while our young pitching, while talented, all seem to have their flaws (like all young pitching does). So yes, I’ll agree that I would like to see the Braves focus on pitching more because they have potential stars coming up in the field and, if all things go well, will not have to sink resources into the lineup because our big hitters are already in the organization (they’ll just need time).
by soup du jour on Jun 18, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I disagree...
But I think you’re in the minority there.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with him
but, I am used to being in the minority too…
(like when I said that Hanson still had control issues a few weeks ago before we called him up…and when I didn’t want A Dunn)
:)
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on...
He obviously settled in once he got his feel back following the delay. That’s a tough situation for any pitcher to be in, much less one making his third career start.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i am not talking about just today
i am talking about all of his starts. He didnt have the control in ST and he doesnt have it now. He doesnt need it as much in AAA as he isnt pitching to as good of hitters.
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if that's fair...
They were looking for both, and went with what they thought would be the most cost-effective options.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
The FO went with Pitching because it does wins more than a overwelming offense. But to be fair the FO was leaning on the so called “Baby Braves” to carry the load offensive this year with KJ/Mac/Frenchy and two out three have been huge FAILS this year so far. So when you say the braves went cheap on the offense and blame it on KK and his 8M in which we could of used on a “Dunn Type” offensive player is being monday morning quarterback. They took a chance on the young guys and they have mostly fall short of expectations which give this team a glaring weakness in producing 4-5 runs a night.
Great Pitching always will beat Great Hitting nine out of ten times to win ballgames. The Braves MO has always been to have Great Pitching with Great Defense with timely hitting. This is no differance this year but we have failed with Great Defense and timely hitting. This team relied on the Baby Braves for to save money and spend the cash on SP which IMO is and always will be the key to any team that can win games day in and day out. Timely hitting is the problem and this team doesn’t have that right now, Till this changes we will be sub .500 team and will keep seeing the braves pick in the top 10 in the draft every year.
by Hanson-Ace on Jun 18, 2009 5:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pitching vs. Hitting
I’ll take pitching every time. Even if you look at the Braves teams of the 90’s, they weren’t offensive monster teams but they always seemed to win because of good pitching.
by beeswax on Jun 18, 2009 6:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I want both good pitching and good hitting..........
I feel we have good starting pitching. We just need more offense to back them up and give them the wins they deserve. They have to be as frustrated as we are……
by HEYJUDE on Jun 18, 2009 6:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
lol...
“I want both good pitching and good hitting”
Person 1: Cake or death?
Person 2: Uhhh…cake please.
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 18, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just answered honestly,,,,,,It takes both to have a good team.
I could not choose one over the other….
by HEYJUDE on Jun 18, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The eternal question....
…and one that I’ve thought about a lot. I’ve always loved good pitching; I probably enjoy a pitching duel more than a slugfest. I suppose I believe the “good pitching beats good hitting” maxim, but sometimes I see things like the Phillies this year, who are six games ahead of us but have good hitting and poor pitching, and it makes me wonder. I guess what it comes down to is this — it just seems more likely that your hitters could get hot and perform above expectations for an extended period than your pitchers, so it’s more important to have better pitching.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
by sddbaker on Jun 18, 2009 9:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Phillies are a good example of the ‘great offense, adequate pitching’. Cole Hamels could start 2 games in a short series for them, and their bullpen was frickin lights out last year. I’ll say this: I wouldn’t sacrifice pitching over offense, but the ‘great offense, adequate pitching’ build works, especially if you have a headliner at the top.
by soup du jour on Jun 18, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So would "great pitching, adequate offensive, if you have a guy that will hit 40 homeruns. But which would be better? I think it’s the same question as the OP.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
by sddbaker on Jun 18, 2009 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, which is why I say you’ve gotta have some sort of balance.
by soup du jour on Jun 19, 2009 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fuck a short series.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Offense or Pitching?"
Haithcock.
Oh, Bobby.
by sdp on Jun 18, 2009 10:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I gotta give it to ya RoyHobbs, you put a lot into your posts man. They make the “we should trade player A for player B because player A isnt as good as player B”. keep up the good work.
PITCHING
AB: Jeff Francoeur
Pitching: Any pitcher in MLB
Runners: Escobar at 3rd, Chipper at 2nd, McCann at 1st.
Pitch 1: In play, out(s)
by mvhsbball on Jun 19, 2009 2:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They make those other posts...what?
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 19, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
I thought the same thing.
“Hello pot, I’m Kettle”
"Actually, Justin was right."
by bigjoe on May 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
by justincredubil02 on Jun 19, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think when it really comes down to this season, the Braves hitters are so terrible, that when our starters give up 3 runs or less its still an uphill climb. Crap I would sacrifice a bit of pitching just to have a semi-decent offense. Our record would be at least 7-8 games better than it currently is. Thats my two cents.
"A Tar Heel Born and a Tar Heel bred, and when i die ill be a Tar Heel dead."
by mad_dog_maddux on Jun 19, 2009 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great pitching neutralizes great hitting, yes (there’s an article up at BP that shows this), but does good pitching neutralize good hitting? I’m not sure.
I’d personally prefer a team of good pitchers and average hitters who were excellent defensively.
by 17843 on Jun 20, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













