Wednesday, March 11, 2009

(0) Comments

Bobby V debate continues

SS

There's been some back and forth about Bobby Valentine.  I started it by observing that his teams had horrible starts.   This latest observation came into the mailbox from Dr. Jay:
 

To respond to osh41: I liked Valentine too, until his last season when he clearly lost control of the club. But you can hardly say that he managed "very average clubs." In 1999, with Piazza, Ventura, Olerud, and Alfonzo all in their prime? (Though as it turned out, all just a couple of years away from falling off a cliff.) And Ordonez solidifying the best defensive infield ever? And Payton looking like an up-and-coming star, and even Rickey still contributing?

 

If the 1998 - 2001 teams, especially '99 and '00, had a significant weakness (or rather "averageness"), and an area where obviously the "Braves had far superior talent," it was starting pitching. On most successful clubs in most years, Al Leiter and even Mike Hampton are nobody's idea of an ace. And the likes of Rick Reed and Bobby J. Jones (let alone Bobby M.) were "average" at best. But the bullpen was a definite strength, and far better than we've had any year since except for '06. Turk Wendell, Dennis Cook, and yes, the much-maligned Johnny Franco and Armando Benitez. Sure, Benitez infamously blew some "big" games, and he and Franco (and sometimes Cook) gave us heart attacks even when they were ultimately successful. But all the games are equal in the standings, and Armando consistently saved over 90% of his opportunities, and club-record total numbers. If he hadn't, there wouldn't have *been* any "big" games for him to blow.

 

And recall that the Braves during this period went through three or four closers without finding a consistent one who stayed injury-free. And their offense was Furcal, the Jones boys, and who, Javy Lopez? Ryan Klesko? The Mets certainly had those two beat head-to-head, at least on paper. Which leads us to a major reason we couldn't catch the Braves in those years -- we couldn't beat them head-to-head, on the field. And I'm afraid a major reason for that is in-game management. I remember more than one game where Cox had a move to counter every one of Valentine's, with the end result being that the Braves had the situation they wanted and we didn't. And it took Bobby V the better part of four years in the non-DH league to get the first clue about how to make a double switch, and he never quite figured out when *not* to. Willie Randolph was far from perfect, including in this regard, but he had a better idea of that kind of thing in his first year managing anywhere, after a lifetime with the Yankees.


0 Responses to "Bobby V debate continues"

Post a Comment