The Hot Button: Can Bobby Cox handle a pitching staff?
You know, I don’t just write these little posts. I listen to what you folks have to say about them. And in the wake of the Mets’ eight-run inning against Derek Lowe on Tuesday — not to be confused with the Braves’ eight-run inning against Bobby Parnell on Wednesday — the matter of Bobby Cox and his pitchers arose yet again.
I would suggest a check of the Braves’ team ERA over the fullness of time stands as powerful evidence that Cox does indeed know how to wrangle pitchers. From 1991 through 2002, the Braves finished first, second or third in the National League in ERA every blessed season. The only way that happens is if a staff stays healthy. The only way a staff stays healthy is if the guy in charge doesn’t overwork his men.
I know, I know. Cox had Leo Mazzone rockin’ beside him back then, and it was only after the 2002 season that the Hall of Fame rotation came unstuck — Glavine left for the Mets and Millwood was traded to Philly — and the Braves’ pitching hasn’t been quite the same since. So some of you will say: “See? That shows Cox had little to do with it. Things just managed themselves.”
In my time around big-league baseball teams, I’ve never seen any team manage itself. And I’ve seen Hall of Fame managers — Sparky Anderson in Cincinnati, say — preside over a staff that tended prime young pitchers (Don Gullett, Wayne Simpson) come down with arm trouble. The Braves fared obscenely well with the health of their starters for an obscenely long time, and that cannot have been an accident. Not for 12 consecutive seasons.
Mazzone left after 2005, and the Braves finished 10th among NL teams in ERA in 2006 and 12th last season, when all the old guys got hurt. Last season, I would submit, was a function of age, not managerial neglect. As Roger McDowell, Mazzone’s successor, has said: “There are only so many pitches in an arm.”
Given the proper arms, McDowell has held up his end. The Braves were third in the NL in ERA in 2007 and are third again now. They have a nice new rotation that has yet to see any of its members placed on the disabled list, and that’s ultimately the test of a rotation and its oversight. As Jim Leyland has often said: “It’s not necessarily the best staff that wins but the healthiest.”
And now you’re saying: “Typical — Bradley defends Cox. What’s next? A post about the sun rising in the East?” And I say …
For all his strengths, the man has taken to overtaxing his bullpen.
I wish I understood how a staff tied for the big-league lead in quality starts — a pitcher works at least six innings while yielding three or fewer runs — can also have three relievers rank in the top five among big-leaguers in appearances. (Peter Moylan has pitched in 65 games, Eric O’Flaherty and Mike Gonzalez in 60 apiece.) With so many quality starts (72), you’d think it would work the other way.
Loading ...As we know, Cox uses the same guys over and over. He deploys his closer in non-save situations, which other teams take pains not to do. Rafael Soriano has worked in 54 games, with more than half those appearances (28) under non-save circumstances. Jonathan Papelbon has worked in only 19 non-save games, Brad Lidge in 18, Joe Nathan in 15, Mariano Rivera in 14.
(No, Soriano hasn’t been the full-time closer all season. He and Gonzalez split the duty for a while. But Gonzalez has worked in 35 non-saves.)
My problem with Cox isn’t that he leaves his starters in too long — the business with Lowe on Tuesday was an obvious exception — but that he wears his relievers to a frazzle without cause. (It wasn’t always this way. At no other time in this decade have the Braves had more than one reliever among the top 10 in games.) The Braves have three relievers with 60-plus appearances. The Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers have none.
So there’s my answer, and I apologize for it being a half-step. But it’s clear, at least to me, that the same guy who handles his starters expertly has placed an undue strain on his bullpen. And when your closer yields two game-losing home runs in the span of eight days … well, it does make you wonder, does it not?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
227 comments Add your comment
Shawon
August 20th, 2009
2:48 pm
This has ALWAYS been Cox’s m/o (overuse/misues of the bullpen). I remember thinking back in the day that we needed a sniper in the stands in case he even so much as looked in the direction of Greg McMicheal or Brad Cloontz again.
ijudgenot
August 20th, 2009
2:48 pm
The fact that this topic is finally being discussed is good news for the Braves and their fans. Someone has finally hollored out “the Emporer has on no clothes” Cox is what he is, a by the book manager. He does not spend his time late at night thinking about how he can be innovative tomorrow to give his team a chance to win. He would much rather send the same 8 out on the field and have the starting rotation take its turn with the same setup guy and closer coming in in the 8th and 9th respectively. He will be a HOF manager because of his longevity and number of wins(3d all time). To me he is a cross between the 2 Dodger back-to-back HOF managers Walt Alston and Tommy Lassorda. Alston was blessed with a pitching ataff of Koufax, Drysdale and company. Like Cox had with Smoltz, Glavine and Maddox, and he did not like changing the rotation or starting lineup like Cox. He was a by the book manager. Lasorda was the consistant rah rah guy, always cheering his team on like Cox. Lassorda however was also innovative. He would try different things to try to give his team the edge or the appearance of an edge(managing and coaching from 3rd base). He would also manage by feel, something Cox would not do. Putting Kirk Gibson in as a pinch hitter against Eckersly in the World Series, was pure genious. Despite knowing that even if Gibson got a line drive hit to right, he probably would have been thrown out at first because he could not run at all.That was a feel for the moment at hand and what it could do to give his team a kick in the butt to get them going. How many of us think that Cox would have sent a gimpy kneed Chipper up to the plate grimaacing with every swing? Nope, it would have been by the book. With Norton making the final swing for the Braves to determine the teams destiny.
jwyatt15
August 20th, 2009
2:49 pm
With the exception of Lowe the other night I think Bobby has been too quick to pull some of the starters this year for sure. We should have A LOT more complete games than the what, one, we have? Of course we more often than not need a pinch hit late int he game in the pitchers spot.
Mac
August 20th, 2009
2:50 pm
This is why the AJC should NOT switch to a register-to-comment method. Why stifle genius? This poster could use many comic names to weave even more hilarity.
Dan Kolb’s Mom
August 20th, 2009
2:34 pm
Point in case- I have a 12-year-old potbellied pig named Templeton. He was kicked in the head by a mule when he was a piglet, and subsequently had some mental development issues. He cant walk in a straight line, falls asleep while eating, runs in circles, etc. Now, during the Phillies series, when Cox brought in Soriano to face Howard, i had just started to doze off when suddenly Templeton screams “WHY THE HELL IS A FASTBALL THROWING RIGHTY IN TO FACE A LEFT-HANDED POWER HITTER?!”
Now, you can imagine my initial shock as I had to suddenly register the fact that my mentally inept swine had suddenly discovered the power not only to verbally converse with humans, but to also understand a bit of baseball strategy. As I struggled to get a handle on the situation, I realized the truth in Templeton’s logic, and looked up just in time to see Howard’s homerun ball entering the lower stratosphere as it rocketed towards left center. Before I could stop him, Templeton screamed again. “
trey
August 20th, 2009
2:50 pm
Kawakami is just not that effective but he does have some good outings.
Dan Kolb's Mom
August 20th, 2009
2:51 pm
sigh. Ok Hillbilly.
So, as Howard’s ball threatens to take out the space station before eventually settling down in left center, and the sound of 40,000 crushed souls and crying children begins to reverberate around Turner Field, Templeton screams “I JUST CANT TAKE THIS SH*T ANYMORE” and runs out of the house in great haste. Normally I dont approve of profanity, particularly from a farm animal, but I understood his frustration. I havent seen him since, and I was met with only ridicule and bewilderment when I proceeded to put up posters in my neighborhood reading “LOST TALKING PIG. ANSWERS TO TEMPLETON. MAY EXPRESS VULGAR DISTASTE AND/OR APPREHENSION REGARDING THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT STYLE OF THE ATLANTA BRAVES COACHING STAFF.”
trey
August 20th, 2009
2:53 pm
How many surgeries has Smoltz gone through in his career does anyone know?
All I'm Saying Is...
August 20th, 2009
2:57 pm
Appearances is the wrong statistic Bradley. I’ve seen plenty of instances where a reliever comes in, the other team sends up a differnt pinch hitter, and then the reliever delivers an Intentional Base on Balls and is taken out of the game.
By your argument, that Appearance would factor in as to whether the reliever was over-used when the only thing that happened was he had to warm up.
That (and other reasons) is why you have to use Innings Pitched.
As I typed earlier, your entire argument is wrong from the beginning is you use the wrong statistic. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you call Leo Mazzone and see what he thinks. Last time I checked he was working for one of the Atlanta area sports talk radio stations.
LET’S GO BRAVES!
Hillbilly Deluxe
August 20th, 2009
2:58 pm
Dan Kolb’s Mom
Oh well if Templeton doesn’t come home you can always get you a nice Hampshire, Duroc, or Poland-China. They’re better eating anyhow.
Brian
August 20th, 2009
2:59 pm
A lot of people are freaking out because the Braves have four players with a lot of appearances. But, as Bradley says, this is the first time this decade that the Braves have more than one pitcher in the top 10. What we are seeing is a league-wide evolution into 6-inning starters and 1-inning relievers, which drives # of appearances through the roof. Here’s some numbers to chew on:
In 1980, MLB set a new record when 49 pitchers pitched in at least 50 games in relief. They broke that record again in 1984 with 51. They proceeded to set a new single season record in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, when 128 pitchers pitched in 50 or more games in relief. This year, 118 pitchers are on a pace to hit 50 games in relief. That’s the way pitchers are bred to pitch these days. There’s really not much you can do about it.
As long as they’re effective (4th in bullpen ERA) and don’t get hurt, I see no problem with how Cox is using his bullpen.
Rob in Fayetteville
August 20th, 2009
3:00 pm
I agree with the first part of Bill’s comment. Whatever happened to the concept of complete games? For the record, I believe the one complete game this season – by Javier Vasquez – was an eight inning affair, as the Braves lost that game on the road.
Call me an old codger, but I long for the days when real big league pitchers tossed 300 innings and put up 15-20 complete games in a season. When the pitch count was irrelevant. When bullpens were fresh. And when Bobby Cox didn’t religiously follow the “book.” Yes, he presided over Braves teams that were either first or second in the league in complete games from 1991 to 1998.
And if you ever went up to Steve Carlton or Bob Gibson and told them a “quality start” was a six-inning, three earned run outing, they’d have punched you, and rightfully so…..
Rich
August 20th, 2009
3:02 pm
Thanks Mark – this was the point that I was trying to make yesterday.
I disagree
August 20th, 2009
3:04 pm
The mistake here is separating the starters from the relievers when talking about “handling” the staff. Though they have separate roles, the have the same responsibility and that is to get the other guys out.
You can’t say that he handles the starters correctly and then wonder why the pen is overtaxed because one works off the other. The reason why other teams don’t pitch their closers in non save situations as much is because their starters don’t come out too soon. That’s the problem. Last night the starter should’ve have gone 7 innings, if not completed the game.
The problem is the starters! 6 innings may be a quality start, but it’s an invitation to blow up the pen as we’re are now seeing Cox do once again. Remember last season he drove Boyer and Acosta into the ground. The starters need to go 7, not 6. If those guys are who they are said to be, then simply going 6, instead of 4 or 5 like last year, is not enough. They must pitch through the 7th inning.
The fewer outs left for the pen to get, the less likely it is they will be overused. But our starters have come out too soon on too many occasions and so I disagree that he has handled the starters correctly.
matches
August 20th, 2009
3:05 pm
I miss complete games too, but keep in mind we live in the OBP era. Hitters are conditioned to work counts and try to make pitchers throw lots of pitches. Add to that the fact that the strike zone is about the size of a postage stamp, and pitchers are going to more deep counts, and therefore throwing more pitches.
The Braves staff used to use 13 pitches per inning as a standard – they assumed their guys would throw an average of 13 pitches each inning. At that rate 100-105 pitches would take you well into the 8th inning. Last night Jurrjens – on a night where he was pitching pretty well – threw 96 pitches in 6 innings. I’m no huge fan of pitch counts but we cannot send guys out there regularly to throw 120+ pitches and expect them to remain healthy/ effective.
All I'm Saying Is...
August 20th, 2009
3:08 pm
Brian: Thanks for the comment and the research. Bradley: you should read his post.
As I typed before, Appearances is a misleading statistic and inappropriate. I have seen plenty of instances where a reliever is brought in, then the other team’s manager inserts a pinch hitter, which causes the reliever to be told to issue an intentional base on balls and then the reliever is removed from the game.
Using Appearances as a measuring stick would mistakenly count this as a significant event when all the reliever did was warm up.
You have to use Innings Pitched and then you compare Innings Pitched for Closers, Set Up Men, Situational Pitchers (Leftys and Rightys), and Middle Relievers (if you want) across all NL teams.
By comparing a Soriano and Gonzalez to a F-Rod and Rivera, then you might know if a Manager is ‘over-using*’ them.
So, as I typed, what we need to do is not use the wrong statistics or say that Innings Pitched is wrong because if a reliever has a lot of innings pitched then he is a middle reliever (what does that have to do with what we are talking about?) but instead tally up the innings for Closers, Set-Up Men, Lefty Situational Pitchers, Righty Situational Pitchers, and Middle Relievers if you want for every team in the NL and then see where the Braves rank and that might give you some idea of whether Bobby is actually using his non-starters too often.
(And its a whole ‘nother can of corn as to whether Bobby is being forced to use his non-starters often because his starters cannot give him seven complete innings — which I maintain is a quality start not six innings).
*Overuse of a reliever is, I still maintain, not something you can define but is only a relative term and if every team in the NL has crappy starters then all of the Managers will be forced to use their relievers and all of a sudden over-use is harder to judge.
LET’S GO BRAVES!
Charlie
August 20th, 2009
3:09 pm
Jason falls into the same catagory as Wainright and Marquis, he was young and developed, and there was not a place for him to crack the rotation. Can name many pitchers who were veterans that pitched for the braves and went on the have better seasons when they left.
Cox’s brilliance is managing poeple, now that we got to see the egos of Smoltz and Glavine, you can really appreciate the job he did all those years keeping them focused and happy.
Rob in Fayetteville
August 20th, 2009
3:11 pm
There’s a real good solution to the whole OBP era we live in, and the high pitch counts – throw strikes! Or at least utilize umpires who aren’t bound by the stupid Questec system, which really helped (along with PED’s) bring us to the offensive era we’re in now. Heck, I don’t mind Eric Gregg’s double-wide strike zone (God rest his soul) if it helps bring about some sort of edge to the pitchers, and makes the game less offense oriented….
Mark Bradley
August 20th, 2009
3:12 pm
I don’t think it’s a great secret that Marquis and Schmidt were two pitchers who didn’t take to the Mazzone method all that avidly.
Brian
August 20th, 2009
3:15 pm
Rich and I disagree…a lot of people would agree with you that pitchers should pitch longer in games, but the overwhelmingly prevailing trend is that 100 pitches is a benchmark for when a pitcher should be removed. It is likely that many of the young pitchers in baseball today have never thrown more than 130 or so pitches in a game in their life. Can you responsibly put them out there for over that amount consistently? That’s what it would take to get everyone to seven innings these days. This is not Bobby Cox’s problem. That’s just the way baseball is now.
The average innings pitched for a starter in the NL today is 5.8. In 1990 it was 6.1. In 1970 it was 6.5.
Floyd
August 20th, 2009
3:17 pm
Could the high number of appearances by Moylan, O’Flaherity and Gonzo simply be a reflection of Cox’s lack of confidence in the rest of the pen? I think so. And perhaps for good reason…the bullpen talent seems to drop off rather steeply after those three. Despite his electric stuff, Acosta gets knocked around quite a bit out there. Bennett was horrid. Logan inexperienced. Medlen clearly a middle reliever. It’s too late now, obviously, but the pen could use another arm. Somebody who can reliably eat some innings would be ideal.
Rich
August 20th, 2009
3:21 pm
Brian, I agree with you on the pitch count. 100 pitches seems to be the bench mark and if you get 6 innings out of a starter then you are getting the best you can hope for. By and large, the Braves get 6 innings out of their starters, q quality start. Which leaves 3 innings to the bullpen, that is what the bullpen is for. However, when you have 4 guys in the bullpen that are among the league leaders and 3 guys whose appearances are few and far between there is a disparity in the use of the relievers.
gene garbage
August 20th, 2009
3:22 pm
i wouldn’t do it any other way. last nite, he could’ve used a few more pitchers in my mind. the ones who need the work, that is, and soriano needs it, badly….guys who only pitch every 3-4 days get rusty. they simply need the work to be sharp when called upon. sure they’re times when i was yelling at the tv to get someone outta there, but by and far, he does just fine. it was a couple nites ago,when gonzo pitched the 8th, i thought he should’ve come in to face howard in the 9th, but didn’t. i did disagree with that decision, but soriano had been getting the job done. cox does give his players every chance to prove themselves, and you can’t fault that. i think we all want every chance to prove ourselves..
and for some guys who come in to face one, maybe two batters, they CAN’T get worn down.. i don’t care what you say…
Brian
August 20th, 2009
3:23 pm
matches has a great point as well. Pitchers throw more pitches now than ever. Strikeout rates have never been higher. Walk rates are higher than historical averages. Pitchers are pitching 3.8 pitches per plate appearance in the NL in 2009. That’s 12 pitches for a 1-2-3 inning, 16 if you have a good inning with one baserunner. 9 innings with just one baserunner each inning (an excellent 1.00 WHIP) would get you to 144 pitches at that rate. That rate of pitches per plate appearance just keeps on going up every year.
matches
August 20th, 2009
3:23 pm
Floyd, this year’s team has a very good pitching staff and a mediocre lineup. Thus we tend to have lots of low-scoring games, and those games tend to be close late. It’s natural that the best relievers will be called upon more often in those situations, becuase geez who wants Acosta out there if the outcome’s in doubt? Personally I’d like to see Logan and/or Medlen in more of those spots but it’s not surprising to me that we’re going with our best guys with games on the line. I’m all about having guys who can eat innings but I’d rather they gorge themselves on games where the outcome is already decided.
strom
August 20th, 2009
3:24 pm
Bobby is still beating his old lady and pissing in his pants.
Russell
August 20th, 2009
3:25 pm
You can’t say that the health of the rotation this year is because of Cox. The only pitcher that ever played for Cox before this season was Jurrjens. Lowe, Vazquez, Kawakami, Hanson, all were playing for different managers in the past years who managed them all differently. Lowe & Vasquez have a history of durability. The only Braves starter that is on the DL is Hudson, and he’s the only one that Cox has managed for any period of time.
Starring Kam Fong as Chin Ho
August 20th, 2009
3:25 pm
Maybe Cox burns up the same 2 or 3 relievers because the bullpen depth is atrocious and he is going with the best available, ie trying to win the game. That said, to me a quality start means 7 innings, not 6 and not 6 2/3. And righty against righty is fine every now and then, burning 3 pitchers in an inning is not bullpen management, it’s a recipe for a blown up pen
Hillbilly Deluxe
August 20th, 2009
3:27 pm
I used to like the way Lee Weyer umpired. He’d take his foot and run his toe around the outer edge of the plate. Anything that came over that mark was a strike. Pitchers didn’t nibble and hitters came up hacking. The games zipped right along and it had no effect on the quality of the baseball played.
Admittedly baseball has become stat crazy but the offensive statistic I like is runs produced, (runs scored + rbi’s) – home runs. I think that one shows how you helped your team.
Hillbilly Deluxe
August 20th, 2009
3:32 pm
According to this article (can’t vouch for the accuracy), pitch counts per game have between 142 and 149 for 60 years.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-pitch-counts-hath-wrought/
Hillbilly Deluxe
August 20th, 2009
3:32 pm
*have been
I disagree
August 20th, 2009
3:33 pm
Brian, I’m not saying I agree with Nolan Ryan’s (supposed) elimination of pitch counts, but I do agree with his demand that the starters prepare themselves to go deep into ball games, if not finish them.
Bobby, Roger and the organization should make it clear that the expectation is for starters to go 7 innings or more. 6 innings is “ok”, and some days you might only have 5 in you, but anything less than 7 isn’t fully meeting our expectations, especially starters 1-4. I don’t mind “appearances” if it’s just to get 1 guy out here and there. But this bringing late-inning specialists into games with better than a 4-run lead is pure madness and tells me that Bobby and Roger are trying to get by with 1/2 a pen.
Start telling pitchers that the way to big money is 7or more innings, and they’ll deliver. But now people have set an artificial 100 limit that the guy knows he’ll come out regardless of what is happening in the game. I believe that great organizations set high standards and pay those who meet them. The Braves only expect 100 pitches and that’s all they get, meanwhile the relievers are in and out of surgery and they are being paid more too.
We seem to be ok with “saving the starters”, how about more balance and thinking about how we can “save the pen” too? As we are now into the dog days, it’s time fort those starters to go for it. If we make the playoffs, they aren’t going to go more than 6 innings anyway, so your pen best not be overworked during the season.
Fresh starters, stale relievers is not a good recipe for making it to, or succeeding in the postseason.
Brian
August 20th, 2009
3:35 pm
Hillbilly Deluxe, the folks over at Hardball Times are pretty smart, but when I look at how much higher strikeout and walk rates are, and see the jump in pitches/PA just since 1990, that surprises me. I wonder if the number of average pitches has gone up significantly since the last year they studied, which was 2003.
Peter
August 20th, 2009
3:37 pm
Bobby is old and old fashion………put a fork in it…….let him go……..
We need a team with true leadership !
Russell
August 20th, 2009
3:41 pm
Anyone remember the 1st game of the season in Philadelphia when Lowe was pitching lights out for eight innings and then got yanked before the ninth? He would’ve had a complete game shutout to start the season and his Braves career, but no! Cox had to pull him! I agree with “I disagree” that these pitch limits are ridiculous. If a guy is pitching light out, why take him out for the unknown coming out of the bullpen?
Russell
August 20th, 2009
3:43 pm
Peter – Bobby is not old-fashion, if he were, he would let his pitchers pitch complete games!
Tomy Fournier
August 20th, 2009
3:44 pm
Mr. Moron Cox is a trash…yes!!!!…he don,t know nothing about Pitchers.
NO, NO, NO
August 20th, 2009
3:46 pm
Bobby Cox single-handedly lost Tuesday night’s game against the Mets. He never seemed to realize that D. Lowe just wasn’t effective after the 3rd inning. And for it to take 10 hits and 8 runs for him to realize this is ABSOLUTELY MINDBOGGLING. Was he having some sort of episode while Lowe was getting throttled?! Should Lowe have taken himself out of the game?
Frank Wren
August 20th, 2009
3:47 pm
Well MB you went and did it. You gave the morons a forum.
I laugh when I think of what guys like Bob Gibson and Nolan Ryan would say when told that these poor baby relievers are overworked. Would be classic.
matches
August 20th, 2009
3:47 pm
HD, I’m a little skeptical that anyone could estimate pitch counts from the 50’s, or even the 70’s. I enjoyed the article but I’m just not sure such a thing can be estimated this far after the fact. I can only go by the Braves’ internal metric (which the TBS announcers used to refer to regularly) of 13 pitches per inning. That would be 117 pitches over a typical nine-inning game – and that was in the 90’s. Maybe our staff was more efficient than most (we did have Maddux after all), but 30 pitches-per-game more efficient? Seems very questionable.
Angus
August 20th, 2009
3:52 pm
A stat regarding Lowe’s debacle: regardless of the situation this year, a team’s winning pct when having to pull their starter before the end of 4: .226.
I wouldn’t jump to too many conclusions based on that game – it’s a no-win situation for the manager. And, there’s not telling how it affects the staff for the next couple of days.
All I'm Saying Is...
August 20th, 2009
3:52 pm
Below is what I can pull together (in less than an hour by the way, Bradley, so please next team do your homework) from MLB.com regarding Closers and Innings Pitched for the NL using players designated as Closers per MLB.com.
From it you can tell that out of 16 Closers not on his team, Gonzo has pitched more innings versus other Closers in the NL than all except one. For Soriano, out of 16 Closers not on his team, Soriano has pitched more innings versus other Closers than four.
This result would appear to support the notion that among Closers in the NL that Bobby has heavily used Gonzo and Soriano. Why might this be the case is the more interesting question to me.
Is this because they perform better with regular work (i.e. Soriano pitched last night to get some work in), because the set-up men are not doing their job, because Bobby is aggressive in trying to win games (isn’t — win games — that what we pay BC to do?), or is it because BC flat out ‘over-uses’ them?
Pitcher /Games /Innings Pitched/ Saves /Save Opportunities
1) Hoffman 36 35.0 26 28 (Milw)
2) MacDougal 39 37.0 13 14 (Nats)
3) Valverde 36 37.0 17 21 (Hous)
4) Capps 44 40.1 22 25 (Pitts)
5) Lidge 49 43.2 23 31 (Philly)
6) Cordero 47 47.0 25 26 (Cincy)
7) Franklin 48 47.2 31 33 (STL)
9) Bell 47 48.2 30 32 (SD)
10) Street 53 50.0 31 32 (Colo)
11) Nunez 57 52.1 13 17 (FLA)
12) Soriano 54 54.0 17 20 (ATL)
13) F-Rod 54 55.0 26 31 (Mets)
14) Wilson 52 55.2 30 36 (SF)
15) Broxton 53 56.0 26 31 (L.A.)
16) Gonzo 60 56.0 9 14 (ATL)
17) Marmol 61 56.1 4 8 (Cubs)
chas
August 20th, 2009
3:53 pm
Definitely agree. I feel like Cox in the past did not have a short enough leash on his starters and now he has too short a leash. That is crazy that we are tied for last in complete games. Soriano and Gonzalez need more rest no doubt and I would like to see some of these relievers pitch multiple innings one night and then have a couple of days rest after that. I never have like the model of having a 7th inning pitcher followed by and 8th inning pitcher followed by your closer. It seems likely that at least one of the three relievers will have an off night and cost you the game potentially. Other than that I think Cox is a great manager.
Russell
August 20th, 2009
3:57 pm
Everybody is just mad because we don’t have Maddux, Glavine, & Smoltz in their prime to trot out there every day. We were all spoiled by the unparalled and unsustainable success of the pitching staff of the 90’s. We should have treasured it more while it lasted. It was always a shame that the Braves had some of the best teams in baseball during that run, but they couldn’t even sell out playoff games!! Everyone in Atlanta took the Braves for granted, and now they want to whine and complain because we don’t win 100 games every year.
Freddie G
August 20th, 2009
3:59 pm
Had Bobby been any place else he would have been fired long ago, but here the management knows that fans settle for anything, and so winning the division 14 times was paramount to winning the WS. There is a fellow now on 680 who was the Braves pitching coach, who benefited from the brilliance of Maddux, Glavine, Avery and Smoltz, who stated recently on 680 that winning 4 division titles was better than winning 1 WS. How stupid and ridiculous that sounds, but it tells us he was just a yes man to Bobby and would never make any meaningful suggestion to Bobby with regards to pitching changes etc. The great players coming through here have covered his weaknesses, and had it not been for that his record would have been awful. Frank Wren will not fire him because of that record, and the public outcry that it would cause, so we can only hope that he will walk away gracefully, so we can get Freddy Gonzalez here or another Manager who knows how to manage.
All I'm Saying Is...
August 20th, 2009
4:00 pm
As I have typed, this is a hard thing to figure out: whether a reliever has been over-used by a Manager. With Closers, its even more thorny. F-Rod has 55 Innings Pitched in 54 Appearances and has 5 Blown Saves (but one was due to his second baseman dropping a pop up, right?). You might note that the Closer with the most Blown Saves (Lidge with
is also lightly used (ranking #5 from the bottom in Innings Pitched). Street has one blown save in 32 attempts which is fantastic and has pitched 50.0 innings which is four fewer innings than Soriano and six fewer innings than Gonzo. What does this mean?
jake
August 20th, 2009
4:03 pm
No problem with Cox on starters, but he’s terrible with relievers. Could be a function of age. You know, in a body, they say the legs go first, etc? Well, in this manager, it’s a tendency to over-simplify…to settle on a few relievers and ride them til they’re exhausted, like Pony Express horses. He is an old school manager who lacks intuition and seat-of-the-pants feel for a game.
Frank Wren
August 20th, 2009
4:07 pm
Listen the Braves have great starting pitching and a lousy offense most of the year right?
That means your gonna be in tight games all the time right?
That means you are gonna use the same 3 or 4 good relievers over and over and over in tight games right?
Right
Hillbilly Deluxe
August 20th, 2009
4:08 pm
Brian @ 3:35
Don’t know about the statistic since 2003. Like I said I couldn’t vouch for the validity of it but thought it was interesting. And Nolan Ryan pitched over 200 innings something like 14 times if memory serves. I remember when closers (Fingers, Sutter, etc) would routinely pitch 2 or 3 innings in relief. If the game was on the line they were expected to handle it. I don’t think all the specialization has necessarily been a good thing.
I’ve been watching baseball since the early 60’s and the calling of balls and strikes is more erratic now than I think at anytime I’ve been watching. I don’t know how you would factor that in but it surely has an effect on the game.
I’ve also noticed that closers seem to burn out at a faster rate now than they used to. With a couple notable exceptions, they have a couple hot years and then they’re done. They’re sort of like the bomb disposal guys during the London Blitz; very short life spans.
Paul In Richmond
August 20th, 2009
4:10 pm
Please stop it with the “tired arm” stuff. This is baseball. These guys are professional athletes. As a reliever they may pitch 20 pitches. Stop acting like that makes them gasp for gatorade or in need of a vacation. It doesn’t.
Bobby is excellent with his pitchers. He is simply overmanaging because his offense stinks. We have few .300 hitters and no HR threat and Bobby doesnt know what to do about that so he shuffles pitchers.
I would prefer that he not shuffle lineups and relievers. Just put a TEAM out on the field and inspire them to produce. [He left Andruw and Frenchy in key spots in the lineup for entire years when they sucked - yet he shuffles Diaz and Prado and others with each full moon]
This team played well enough for post season and then lost because a collection of players is not a team.
J. Evans
August 20th, 2009
4:11 pm
Mr. Bradley, you may have answered why the Atlanta National League Baseball club only won one title during its best years, when it could have won at least two more. We have all pondered this question for a long-while.