View Full Version : Mazzone fired from the Orioles
vnodnarb
10-12-2007, 05:04 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3060643
Leo Mazzone was fired as pitching coach of the Baltimore Orioles (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=bal) on Friday, less than a month after completing his second season with a struggling staff.
Not really much to add, it's not that surprising as his friend Sam Perlozzo is no longer with the team, and he was the main reason he went there. It'll be interesting to see what he does next and see how successful he is.
charpotsss
10-12-2007, 05:06 PM
what are the chances of his returning to atlanta?
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 05:10 PM
And start the "Leo's coming back" bandwagon in 5... 4... 3... 2...
JCStone7
10-12-2007, 05:11 PM
To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if Leo did come back.
charpotsss
10-12-2007, 05:24 PM
i really miss his rocking in the dugout :)
colebert
10-12-2007, 06:01 PM
Sign Glavine, trade for Maddux, and get the Braves back on TBS.
Glory days all over again!!!
i really miss his rocking in the dugout :)
I miss the results he got.
gobravez
10-12-2007, 06:13 PM
I miss the results he got.
I miss the people he had to work with, unlike what mcdowell has had.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 06:22 PM
I miss the people he had to work with, unlike what mcdowell has had.Exactly. An armless, retarded monkey could have gotten the results Leo did with the front line of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Throw in the likes of Avery, Millwood, Schmidt, Neagle as #2 and #3 starters acting as #4s and servicable #5s in Pete Smith, Kent Mercker, Odalis Perez, John Burkett, Andy Ashby and it's not hard to see why the Braves were as successful as they were.
McCarroll21
10-12-2007, 06:24 PM
And start the "Leo's coming back" bandwagon in 5... 4... 3... 2...
I was thinking the same thing.
I also agree with you and gobravez in that he had something to work with.
Exactly. An armless, retarded monkey could have gotten the results Leo did with the front line of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Throw in the likes of Avery, Millwood, Schmidt, Neagle as #2 and #3 starters acting as #4s and servicable #5s in Pete Smith, Kent Mercker, Odalis Perez, John Burkett, Andy Ashby and it's not hard to see why the Braves were as successful as they were.
I don't know why people like to forget that it was Leo Mazzone that fixed John Smoltz in the minor leagues after he was traded to the Braves from the Tigers. Leo also developed Steve Avery through the minors. Pitchers like Kevin Millwood and Denny Neagle were clearly better under Leo than they were anywhere else.
JCStone7
10-12-2007, 06:30 PM
To be fair, Millwood has pitched in some of the best hitter's parks since he left: Philly, Cleveland, Texas
McCarroll21
10-12-2007, 06:35 PM
And it was actually a sports psychologist that fixed Smoltz.
gobravez
10-12-2007, 06:41 PM
And Neagle was 13-8 with a 3.43 ERA in his first full year as a starter, which was with the pirates BTW.
Then before getting traded to atlanta in mid 1996 he was 14-6 with an ERA of 3.05, then struggled the rest of the year with atlanta going 2-3 with an ERA over 5.59.
Nice try
And it was actually a sports psychologist that fixed Smoltz.
That must be why John Smoltz himself has said that he was a very confused young pitcher when he was traded to Atlanta and that Leo Mazzone got him on track. John also credits Leo for sticking with him when he was struggling during the first half of the 1991 season.
I'd fire Roger McDowell and hire Leo Mazzone in a heartbeat.
And Neagle was 13-8 with a 3.43 ERA in his first full year as a starter, which was with the pirates BTW.
Then before getting traded to atlanta in mid 1996 he was 14-6 with an ERA of 3.05, then struggled the rest of the year with atlanta going 2-3 with an ERA over 5.59.
Nice try
...and then Neagle went 20-5 with a 2.97 ERA in 233 innings pitched....the best year of his career because he listened to Leo and started throwing the ball down and away to set up his other pitches.
gobravez
10-12-2007, 06:52 PM
...and then Neagle went 20-5 with a 2.97 ERA in 233 innings pitched....the best year of his career because he listened to Leo and started throwing the ball down and away to set up his other pitches.
he wouldve been very close to those numbers the year before with the pirates had he played the full year there. His numbers were very similar with the pirates in '96 as to what they were with atlanta in '97. No drastic changes in his numbers, 2 different pitching coaches. As in most cases, it was more pitcher skill than anything, not Leo
he wouldve been very close to those numbers the year before with the pirates had he played the full year there. His numbers were very similar with the pirates in '96 as to what they were with atlanta in '97. No drastic changes in his numbers, 2 different pitching coaches. As in most cases, it was more pitcher skill than anything, not Leo
That's the typical response from the Roger McDowell apologists that I have encountered. Let's make it look like Leo really wasn't that good so it will make Roger look better.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 07:11 PM
That's the typical response from the Roger McDowell apologists that I have encountered. Let's make it look like Leo really wasn't that good so it will make Roger look better.None of are saying that Leo didn't accomplish anything or that Roger hasn't. We are saying that Leo's actual accomplishments are exaggerated and over-hyped because of what he had to work with. Sure, he made improvements with the pitchers he had to work with in Baltimore, but you can't make John Smoltz or Tom Glavine out of someone who isn't John Smoltz or Tom Glavine. He had some very special pitchers to work with during his time here, something Roger McDowell hasn't had the benefit of. You can't suddenly turn someone like Kyle Davies or Chuck James into a front of the rotation guy when they simply do not have the athletic ability or knowledge to become such. It doesn't matter if you have Mazzone, Greg Maddux, Nolan Ryan, a re-incarnated Cy Young and Armando Reynoso on the same staff, you can't make Buddy Carlyle a formidable starter on a playoff team.
None of are saying that Leo didn't accomplish anything or that Roger hasn't. We are saying that Leo's actual accomplishments are exaggerated and over-hyped because of what he had to work with. Sure, he made improvements with the pitchers he had to work with in Baltimore, but you can't make John Smoltz or Tom Glavine out of someone who isn't John Smoltz or Tom Glavine. He had some very special pitchers to work with during his time here, something Roger McDowell hasn't had the benefit of. You can't suddenly turn someone like Kyle Davies or Chuck James into a front of the rotation guy when they simply do not have the athletic ability or knowledge to become such. It doesn't matter if you have Mazzone, Greg Maddux, Nolan Ryan, a re-incarnated Cy Young and Armando Reynoso on the same staff, you can't make Buddy Carlyle a formidable starter on a playoff team.
I disagree.
When you have two young pitchers like Kyle Davies and Chuck James, you should be able to make something out of them. Kyle has the ability to be a #2 or a #3 starter in the majors, and he was progressing nicely during his rookie season under Leo. Don't forget that Kyle posted a 4.22 ERA as a starter under Leo as a rookie. Both pitchers were top 100 prospects in baseball. Both pitchers have been the targets of many GM's in trade discussions over the past few years as well. Don't forget that Kyle Davies was the pitcher Billy Beane wanted in the Tim Hudson deal, but JS wouldn't give in and gave them Dan Meyer instead.
When you have a pitcher like Rafael Soriano, he should not be slumping in June and July like he did this year. A year ago, Bob Wickman was automatic no matter where he pitched. This year, he was inconsistent and didn't pitch well on the road. He then goes to Arizona and is a key member of their bullpen in the last month of the season. The Braves had the potential to have an outstanding bullpen, but the relievers slumped in the middle of the year and underachieved overall. They did not pitch to their level of ability. That's all on Roger, because he's the pitching coach. He's the one responsible for getting those guys ready to pitch.
I'll give Roger credit for Peter Moylan, but Peter is the only pitcher Roger has ever gotten to do well in his entire career. And I'm not sure how much influence Roger actually had on Peter Moylan.
JCStone7
10-12-2007, 07:43 PM
McDowell got Tim Hudson's sinker back to where it was when Mazzone tried to change Huddy's approach to low and away even though Huddy thrives on his movement and his sinker.
Hobbes
10-12-2007, 07:48 PM
It's funny that once Leo left he gets tagged as having a very minor influence on the Braves staff. Yes, Leo had Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. But he also had a boatload of other pitchers, starters and relievers, that contributed to pitching staffs that were routinely the best in the league. You can't account for all of Leo's success by chalking it up to having the big three. Yes, he was given good talent, but even the best coaches need decent raw materials. He was good at taking those raw materials and getting the most out of them.
And the Braves didn't "get rid" of Mazzone because he couldn't work with young pitchers. He left voluntarily, and the knock on his abilities with young pitchers became a common refrain only after he left, partially as a means to minimize his importance to the fans. Perhaps there is some truth to it, but not as much as many seem to claim.
There was an anlysis of Leo's success as a pitching coach when he left.
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/03/the_mazzone_eff_1.php
That independent analyst arrived at the conclusion that Leo was a pretty darn good pitching coach.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 07:52 PM
When you have two young pitchers like Kyle Davies and Chuck James, you should be able to make something out of them.That logic is beyond flawed. If that were the case, pitching would not be at such a premium. If it were as easy as making "something out of" pitchers like Davies or James, teams would not be throwing around contracts nearing $10M per for the likes of Ted Lilly or Jason Marquis. Not every pitcher that comes up through the Minors, is going to turn into a front of the rotation guy. It's just like how you can't expect a player who has massive power in the Minors can't be expected to enter the lineup in the cleanup hole. Just because a lot of people perceive the potential as being there doesn't mean it ever actually was, it's not a measurable stat or attribute after all.
Kyle has the ability to be a #2 or a #3 starter in the majors, and he was progressing nicely during his rookie season under Leo. Don't forget that Kyle posted a 4.22 ERA as a starter under Leo as a rookie.A very misleading stat.
Kyle was very inconsistent during his rookie season, much like he has been since then.
Look at five of Kyle's starts from his rookie year:
5/21 (at BOS) - 5 IP, 0 R, 3 BB, 4 H, 6 K
5/25 (vs. NYM) - 5.1 IP, 0 R, 1 BB, 5 H, 6 K
6/4 (at PIT) - 7.2 IP, 0 R, 4 BB, 6 H, 5 K
7/4 (vs. CHC) - 6.2 IP, 0 R, 4 BB, 4 H, 3 K
And here are the combined stats for his other ten starts:
51 IP, 39 R, 50 BB, 63 H, 37 K - 6.88 RA, 2.22 WHIP
So, Leo gets credit for the four good starts, but had nothing to do with the ten bad ones?
When you have a pitcher like Rafael Soriano, he should not be slumping in June and July like he did this year.How many consistent, dominant closers did the Braves have over the Leo era? Every year there was either a closer controversy coming into the season, or one developed about halfway through.
A year ago, Bob Wickman was automatic no matter where he pitched. This year, he was inconsistent and didn't pitch well on the road.And Roger should be blamed because Wickman obviously had some type of mental block when pitching on the road? Or the fact the guy was a total asshole?
He then goes to Arizona and is a key member of their bullpen in the last month of the season. The Braves had the potential to have an outstanding bullpen, but the relievers slumped in the middle of the year and underachieved overall.A lot of this could be attributed to the injuries to Paronto and Gonzalez. Both were very key role players in the Braves bullpen, and then were cut out of the picture. Mahay, Acosta and Devine all showed up and did phenomenal in their roles. The Braves still had a very consistent and dominant bullpen by the end of the season.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 07:53 PM
That independent analyst arrived at the conclusion that Leo was a pretty darn good pitching coach.None of us are stating otherwise.
This is far from being an argument about whether or not Leo was a good pitching coach. We can all agree that Leo is likely the greatest pitching coach of our generation.
However, let us not be so quick to throw Roger under the bus simply because he isn't the greatest pitching coach of our generation and at least take into consideration the quality of pitching that he has had to work with in his two seasons with the club.
The man is simply being crucified because he is not Leo Mazzone, and that is in no way fair to him. It doesn't matter what he comes here and does, he's always going to be hit with "yeah, but he's not Mazzone" or "how many Cy Youngs has he won" or "we always won a division title under Leo!"
The bottom line is this: Yes, Roger McDowell is not Leo Mazzone. And because Roger has been here two seasons, and because of one reason or another, the Braves have not made the post-season, everyone is calling for his head on a stick.
Where were all these negative posts when Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine were routinely crapping the bed during the playoff runs from 1996 through 2003?
McDowell got Tim Hudson's sinker back to where it was when Mazzone tried to change Huddy's approach to low and away even though Huddy thrives on his movement and his sinker.
McDowell did nothing with Tim Hudson. All Tim did was go back to what he was doing. It's a fact that neither Tim Hudson nor John Smoltz listened to anything Roger had to say to them this season. They pitched on their own experience.
None of us are stating otherwise.
This is far from being an argument about whether or not Leo was a good pitching coach. We can all agree that Leo is likely the greatest pitching coach of our generation.
However, let us not be so quick to throw Roger under the bus simply because he isn't the greatest pitching coach of our generation and at least take into consideration the quality of pitching that he has had to work with in his two seasons with the club.
Let's not throw Roger under the bus. Let's throw good young pitching prospects under the bus instead. Young pitching prospects like Edwin Jackson, Kyle Davies, and Chuck James. EVERY young pitcher the man has come into contact with has regressed. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
JCStone7
10-12-2007, 08:00 PM
McDowell did nothing with Tim Hudson. All Tim did was go back to what he was doing. It's a fact that neither Tim Hudson nor John Smoltz listened to anything Roger had to say to them this season. They pitched on their own experience.
Well then how is Mazzone the greatest pitching coach if the staff was constantly stocked full of experienced veterans like Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine and Mazzone was constantly bad with young pitchers?
Well then how is Mazzone the greatest pitching coach if the staff was constantly stocked full of experienced veterans like Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine and Mazzone was constantly bad with young pitchers?
Because they weren't veterans when Mazzone started out with him. Mazzone had Smoltz and Avery in the minors, and he had Tom Glavine in his early 20s. Mazzone developed Smoltz and Avery.
This idea that Mazzone was bad with young pitchers is something that is completely made up in an attempt to make Leo look bad. As I said above, he had Smoltz, Avery, and Glavine all when they were YOUNG. Mazzone had David Neid when he was young. Mazzone had Kevin Millwood when he was young. Mazzone had Damian Moss when he was young. Mazzone had Jorge Sosa when he was young.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 08:12 PM
Some quotes from DOB -- from this (http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/braves/entries/2007/09/20/how_much_do_bra.html) article...
Let me reiterate what I’ve said before: I and other reporters can’t find a pitcher, including some who’ve struggled, who’ll blame McDowell or even say they don’t want to talk about his performance, or even roll their eyes and say, no comment, etc. Folks, I’m giving it to you straight on that one. They really do seem to all like the guy and his methods.
------
In Leo’s final three seasons as Braves pitching coach, the pitching staff finished with these NL rankings: 2003, ninth in overall ERA (4.04) and seventh in starters ERA (4.16); 2004, first in overall ERA (3.74) and second in starters ERA (3.84); 2005, sixth in overall ERA (3.98) and third in starters ERA (3.65).
In Roger’s first two seasons as Braves pitching coach, the pitching staff ranked, in 2006, 10th in overall ERA (4.60) and ninth in starters ERA (4.71); and this season they’re seventh in overall ERA (4.16) and seventh in starters ERA (4.45).
Fuck it, let's see what John has to say about the two, straight from the horse's mouth...
On the good-cop, bad-cop theory that some fans have come up with regarding the loss of Leo and how he was the eed balance to manager Bobby Cox’s players-manager persona, and how that’s been sorely missed:
Smoltz: “You’ve seen this organization turn over a lot of people. Everybody has had a huge impact. He [Mazzone] had a huge impact, but his time … it was probably best to move on. For whatever reason.
“Leo is a mechanical guy. He was good at mechanics. But Leo would admit, he wasn’t going to teach you how to pitch. He wasn’t going to show you how to get hitters out. That wasn’t his forte. And I think with the emergence of some young pitchers, they needed a little bit more. They needed to be able to pitch with what they had. He was so used to great stuff, that it was probably difficult - it would have been difficult for me [in his shoes] — to see someone not have particularly great stuff.
“Everybody that’s been through here, with the exception of Bobby, who’s been here the same time, everybody had something to add. But as times have changed, the game has changed. The strike zone has changed, You have to adapt. And I think the adaptability was difficult for [Mazzone’s] mindset, and a younger mindset.
“I think that, more or less, to be fair about it, that’s what became difficult…. Take an older player, someone who’d had success — they’d have success [again under Mazzone]. But the younger player who was struggling with certain components of what we were trying to do — you now, if you’re talented enough that you can hit down-and-away and down-and-away and down-and-away [in the strike zone], you can fit it [with Mazzone].
“But if you can’t, you’ve got to find a way to adjust to him, as a player.”
So Roger has, in your view, had nothing to do with the disappointments of past two years, that it’s been injuries and whatnot and not the absence of Leo?
Smoltz: “Absolutely. I think what Roger’s done is given a player an insight that will help them from a pitching standpoint — how do you get guys out with what you’ve got, and how do you improve on it? Where, again, everybody has something different. You go to 25 different pitching coaches, you’re going to get 25 different ideas, which is great, but in no way does that….
“This is the thing. In Leo’s last three years, we were pretty bad. Our ERA went the other way. It wasn’t just Leo, it was the product of some of the things that were changing here — philosophies, budgets. It’s not a blame or pointing the finger at anybody, it’s just the way it evolved. And you just didn’t have your power arms, your guys who could strike guys out when they needed to.
“I think any time in sports when someone’s spent a long time somewhere, i.e. Glavine, Leo — there’s always going to be a bigger story [when they leave], it’s always going to be ‘Oh, my God.’ And it’s always going to be more emphasis on trying to figure out why it happened.
And sometimes the media will take silence as a negative thing.
It’s just one of those deals where, if I’m fortunate enough to have accolades come my way, [Mazzone] be there. That’s how important he was for my in my career. It’s just that, uh— I don’t mean this in the wrong way, but when that story becomes bigger than what it is….”
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 08:13 PM
This idea that Mazzone was bad with young pitchers is something that is completely made up in an attempt to make Leo look bad. John Smoltz disagrees:
"Leo is a mechanical guy. He was good at mechanics. But Leo would admit, he wasn’t going to teach you how to pitch. He wasn’t going to show you how to get hitters out. That wasn’t his forte. And I think with the emergence of some young pitchers, they needed a little bit more. They needed to be able to pitch with what they had. He was so used to great stuff, that it was probably difficult - it would have been difficult for me [in his shoes] — to see someone not have particularly great stuff."
dogmanx23
10-12-2007, 08:15 PM
If Torre gets fired i expect the pitching coach to go too and Leo will be a yankee because they always wanted to take him from ATL
Hobbes
10-12-2007, 08:55 PM
None of us are stating otherwise.
This is far from being an argument about whether or not Leo was a good pitching coach. We can all agree that Leo is likely the greatest pitching coach of our generation.
Okay then. Because when you said this:
Exactly. An armless, retarded monkey could have gotten the results Leo did with the front line of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Throw in the likes of Avery, Millwood, Schmidt, Neagle as #2 and #3 starters acting as #4s and servicable #5s in Pete Smith, Kent Mercker, Odalis Perez, John Burkett, Andy Ashby and it's not hard to see why the Braves were as successful as they were.
It sounded like you weren't too high on Leo's skills. ;)
John Smoltz disagrees:
"Leo is a mechanical guy. He was good at mechanics. But Leo would admit, he wasn’t going to teach you how to pitch. He wasn’t going to show you how to get hitters out. That wasn’t his forte. And I think with the emergence of some young pitchers, they needed a little bit more. They needed to be able to pitch with what they had. He was so used to great stuff, that it was probably difficult - it would have been difficult for me [in his shoes] — to see someone not have particularly great stuff."
And in what way has Roger McDowell been better for the young pitchers?
Kyle Davies - GONE
Macay McBride - GONE
Joey Devine - YOYO
Chuck James - ????
Blaine Boyer - ????
Jose Ascanio - ????
Jo-Jo Reyes - ????
Let's not forget that he basically killed the careers of Edwin Jackson and John Hanrahan, two pitchers who were rated in the top 5 prospects in the Dodgers organization back in 2003. The Dodgers are lucky that he never had Chad Billingsley.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 09:02 PM
Typical job of spin control. We're getting nowhere. You absolutely refuse to accept any type of reality, so fuck this.
Typical job of spin control. We're getting nowhere. You absolutely refuse to accept any type of reality, so fuck this.
Not true. I accept reality, and the reality is that Roger McDowell is not a good pitching coach and Leo Mazzone is a great pitching coach.
The players are going to go to bat for Roger regardless. As long as he is here, you aren't going to hear John Smoltz come out and say that Roger isn't doing is job or doesn't have a clue about how to develop a young pitcher.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 09:14 PM
And why should we even be talking about Roger in a thread concerning the firing of Mazzone by the Orioles?
I don't think anyone here has said that hiring Leo to replace Roger was a bad idea.
However, anytime someone has a rebuttal to what you have to say about Leo, all you can do is bad-mouth Roger and the job he has done in his two years. Essentially proving the point all of us are trying to make here.
Nasadega
10-12-2007, 09:15 PM
Not true. I accept reality, and the reality is that Roger McDowell is not a good pitching coach and Leo Mazzone is a great pitching coach.
One of them has a job, the other doesn't.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 09:19 PM
One of them has a job, the other doesn't.:lol:
Exactly. An armless, retarded monkey could have gotten the results Leo did with the front line of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Throw in the likes of Avery, Millwood, Schmidt, Neagle as #2 and #3 starters acting as #4s and servicable #5s in Pete Smith, Kent Mercker, Odalis Perez, John Burkett, Andy Ashby and it's not hard to see why the Braves were as successful as they were.
This is the comment that brings Roger into the discussion, because this comment alone makes it seem like the ONLY reason Leo was a successful pitching coach is because he had Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. It's a comment that is meant to absolve Roger McDowell of all his responsibilities as a pitching coach with the Atlanta Braves because he "didn't have the talent to work with."
That, and the fact that Leo being available gives the Braves a perfect opportunity to fire Roger McDowell and bring Leo back.
BGarrett7
10-12-2007, 09:40 PM
This is the comment that brings Roger into the discussion, because this comment alone makes it seem like the ONLY reason Leo was a successful pitching coach is because he had Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. It's a comment that is meant to absolve Roger McDowell of all his responsibilities as a pitching coach with the Atlanta Braves because he "didn't have the talent to work with."
That, and the fact that Leo being available gives the Braves a perfect opportunity to fire Roger McDowell and bring Leo back.Actually, no, it wasn't.
You didn't bring up Roger until multiply replies later when you stated, rather randomly, that the Braves should fire Roger and re-hire Leo.
Once every single positive comment you said about Leo was debunked, you then went into the direction of attacking McDowell and the job he has done with the club over the past two years. No one brought Roger into this except you.
Mazzone and the "Mazzone Effect" have been studied and analyzed quite a lot over the years, and there should be no doubt that he had a positive impact on the Braves.
There are many articles on the "Mazzone Effect" you can google, but this one is pretty good:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/03/the_mazzone_eff_1.php
I think the best summary of Mazzone's overall contribution is this from the NY Times: "... separating Mazzone's skill from that of General Manager John Schuerholz and Manager Bobby Cox is difficult; the three have formed Atlanta's brain trust since 1990. Schuerholz is surely good at identifying pitchers who will succeed under Mazzone's system, and Cox deploys them deftly during games. But given how Schuerholz and Cox defer to Mazzone on many pitching matters and credit his system with their persistent mound dominance, his impact is undeniable."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/sports/baseball/22score.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Hobbes
10-12-2007, 10:20 PM
There are many articles on the "Mazzone Effect" you can google, but this one is pretty good:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/03/the_mazzone_eff_1.php
I posted that same link earlier in this thread. ;)
I posted that same link earlier in this thread. ;)
Must be twice as good as I thought!:o
Braves4Life
10-13-2007, 01:27 AM
How sad for him. I bet he really wishes he didn't leave the Braves for more mula. However, I've heard he was a turd in the clubhouse, so we didn't need a Bob Wickman in our house.
BGarrett7
10-13-2007, 02:05 PM
I bet he really wishes he didn't leave the Braves for more mula.Leo? Uh, he didn't leave for more money. He left so that he could work with his childhood friend, Sam Perlozzo.
AtlFan7
10-13-2007, 03:15 PM
Leo? Uh, he didn't leave for more money. He left so that he could work with his childhood friend, Sam Perlozzo.
Which was a very bad career move on his part. With the high turnover rate at the manager's position in Baltimore, he should've known that the chances of his friend's survival there was little to none.
Friendship should never be the basis for making an imporatant career move like this. And he should've known what he was in for when decided to work for such a volatile ownership group in Baltimore. Job security, not friendship, should have been his number one objective. Now is ass is out of a job.
The Braves probably would've resigned Mazzone if he had accepted a one-year extension at the current rate of pay, bad temper and all.
Hobbes
10-13-2007, 03:34 PM
Leo? Uh, he didn't leave for more money. He left so that he could work with his childhood friend, Sam Perlozzo.
It might not have been his primary motivation for leaving, but he did get a good bit more money by going to Baltimore.
McCarroll21
10-13-2007, 04:04 PM
Money certainly isn't what he was running after. If it were, he'd have bolted years before at one of the many tries the Yankees made.
-Merczateer-
10-13-2007, 07:08 PM
I honestly believe that Mazzone was a poor pitching coach for young pitchers in the dawn of their careers.
However, he could turn around slumping veterans.
I would rather have Roger Mcdowell instructing young pitchers anyday over Leo. LikewiseI , I would rather have Leo work with veterans.
It's tough to say who's better..... Though if you wanted to build a future and not just fix journeyman pitchers for a year or two before having to cut ties with them, I would rather go with Mcdowell.
I honestly believe that Mazzone was a poor pitching coach for young pitchers in the dawn of their careers.
However, he could turn around slumping veterans.
I would rather have Roger Mcdowell instructing young pitchers anyday over Leo. LikewiseI , I would rather have Leo work with veterans.
It's tough to say who's better..... Though if you wanted to build a future and not just fix journeyman pitchers for a year or two before having to cut ties with them, I would rather go with Mcdowell.
I don't understand why you believe that Roger McDowell is better with young pitchers than Leo Mazzone. Roger McDowell has NEVER developed a young starting pitcher or improved a young pitcher's game. He had Edwin Jackson in Las Vegas and completely ruined him. In Atlanta, Chuck James, Kyle Davies, and Macay McBride all regressed under his coaching. Where does this idea that Roger McDowell is good with young pitchers come from?
Leo Mazzone was working with a very young staff in Baltimore. The overall numbers are bad, but on that staff, Eric Bedard developed into a Cy Young candidate after being coached for 2 years by Leo. Jeremy Guthrie was a major surprise for the Orioles, and Adam Loewen was showing much better command of his pitches before getting injured. The only young guy he couldn't get through to was Daniel Cabrerra.
In Atlanta, Kevin Millwood didn't come up as a seasoned veteran. He did allright under Leo's coaching. The same thing goes for Damian Moss. He did allright as a young starter under Leo as well. Let's not forget that Leo was the minor league pitching instructor the year the Braves got John Smoltz in a trade and is the coach responsible for getting John pointed in the right direction. Not to mention that Leo was also the pitching coach in Richmond when John pitched there. John Smoltz will tell you that Leo gave him direction in his career. Leo also had Steve Avery at Richmond before Avery got promoted to Atlanta.
There are some that will try to tell you that Bruce Dal Canton is the guy that developed Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, and Steve Avery. It isn't true. Dal Canton spent more time with Glavine than either of the other two, so I will give him credit for getting Glavine started in the majors. However, Dal Canton spent a little over a year with John Smoltz and part of a season with Steve Avery. Leo Mazzone guided them through the biggest parts of their young careers.
I think people forget that Leo Mazzone was the guy that Bobby put in charge of developing the young pitchers and setting the philosophy for the minor league pitching development way back in 1985, so this idea that he can't develop young pitching is completely false. He's developed far more young pitchers than Roger McDowell has ever developed.
Here's the stance I am taking on Roger McDowell from this point on. The Braves have already traded two good young pitching prospects that should have developed under Roger and didn't, and the Braves essentially got nothing out of the deals for either prospects. Those prospects are Kyle Davies and Macay McBride. I really liked Kyle Davies as a pitching prospect, and don't even try to convince me that he didn't deserve the accolades he was getting as he came through the system. I feel the Braves gave up far too soon on a potential #3 starter and a potential left handed set up man and got nothing in return.
So here is the stance. We've still got a couple of young pitchers that MUST be developed and MUST progress this coming season. If Chuck James and Jo-Jo Reyes regress this coming season or end up getting traded for veteran pitching help, then Roger McDowell's contract should not be renewed at the end of the season. He was hired to develop young pitching, and he has not done that. If Chuck James and Jo-Jo Reyes advance their careers in 2008, then I'll get off Roger's back.
The stance that I'm taking from this point on does not change the fact that I believe Roger should have been fired after this past season and replaced with Kent Willis. Now, we run a strong risk of losing Kent Willis to another team.
JCStone7
10-13-2007, 11:51 PM
As BG7 pointed out Kyle Davies was under Mazzone in 05 and did great his first couple of starts and then just was lost from that point on.
Macay McBride had a 5.79 ERA under Mazzone in 2005 and had a combined 3.62 under McDowell in 06 and 07 and then was traded to Detroit and had an ERA of 6+ in 20 appearances under Chuck Hernandez.
Chuck James has poor mechanics and relies on two pitches. Jo-Jo Reyes I'll give you has struggled in the majors but has only had 10 starts, was Glavine lights out after 10 starts on a mediocre team?
As BG7 pointed out Kyle Davies was under Mazzone in 05 and did great his first couple of starts and then just was lost from that point on.
Macay McBride had a 5.79 ERA under Mazzone in 2005 and had a combined 3.62 under McDowell in 06 and 07 and then was traded to Detroit and had an ERA of 6+ in 20 appearances under Chuck Hernandez.
Chuck James has poor mechanics and relies on two pitches. Jo-Jo Reyes I'll give you has struggled in the majors but has only had 10 starts, was Glavine lights out after 10 starts on a mediocre team?
So, we are back to throwing the young prospects under the bus because we refuse to admit that Roger McDowell has not done a good job in Atlanta. He has not done the one task he was hired to do....develop the young pitching prospects the Braves have. What you have effectively done is state that Davies, McBride, and James are basically no good and were nothing but hype coming up through the system.
I have been wishing the Braves hadn't dealt Adam Wainwright for a while now, but I'm glad they did it now, because Adam would have been yet another young pitcher that Roger McDowell turned into crap if he was still here.
Chief Knockahoma
10-14-2007, 12:19 AM
So, we are back to throwing the young prospects under the bus because we refuse to admit that Roger McDowell has not done a good job in Atlanta.
that statement is one of opinion, thus "we" aren't all going to be on the same page when it comes to McDowell's performance as pitching coach for the Braves.
JCStone7
10-14-2007, 12:22 AM
I'm not saying Roger McDowell is the greatest pitching coach in the majors. Leo Mazzone left and he faltered with a staff of young pitchers in his two years in Baltimore. McDowell has his strengths that Mazzone didn't have and vice versa. But what are you trying to accomplish? You've stated over and over that McDowell has ruined the careers of Edwin Jackson and Joel Hanrahan considering they were top prospects coming up. But are you forgetting that not all prospects are going to be Major Leaguers?
I'm not saying Roger McDowell is the greatest pitching coach in the majors. Leo Mazzone left and he faltered with a staff of young pitchers in his two years in Baltimore. McDowell has his strengths that Mazzone didn't have and vice versa. But what are you trying to accomplish? You've stated over and over that McDowell has ruined the careers of Edwin Jackson and Joel Hanrahan considering they were top prospects coming up. But are you forgetting that not all prospects are going to be Major Leaguers?
I know not all young prospects are going to be major leaguers. If it had been one or two guys that didn't make it under Roger, then you would have a case. However, EVERY YOUNG PITCHER THAT IS A TOP PROSPECT THE MAN HAS TOUCHED HAS TURNED INTO CRAP!!! Every single one of them!!!
You cannot ignore the trend. You cannot ignore the trend he has of having bad pitching staffs either. The guy has never had a pitching staff that has produced. He's never developed a young pitcher, and he's never got good results out of his staffs. The man is a bad pitching coach!
Chief Knockahoma
10-14-2007, 12:31 AM
However, EVERY YOUNG PITCHER THAT IS A TOP PROSPECT THE MAN HAS TOUCHED HAS TURNED INTO CRAP!!! Every single one of them!!!
yet you only bring two examples to the table to support your argument(s).
BGarrett7
10-14-2007, 12:36 AM
So, we are back to throwing the young prospects under the bus because we refuse to admit that Roger McDowell has not done a good job in Atlanta.So, it's perfectly acceptable for you to throw Roger under the bus, but when we dare call into question the validity of the pitching prospects being discussed, it's our own stubbornness? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
He has not done the one task he was hired to do....develop the young pitching prospects the Braves have.I direct you to this (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2207938&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines) AP article which contains quotes from all the key players when Roger was hired. Where do you see any of them saying his "one task" is to "develop young pitching prospects"?
What you have effectively done is state that Davies, McBride, and James are basically no good and were nothing but hype coming up through the system.And just what is there to prove that isn't the case? Davies struggled under Leo, he's struggled without Leo. McBride struggled with Roger, he's struggled without Roger. James had one good season under Roger, and now he's had one mediocre season under Roger -- thanks mainly to his inability to effectively pitch late into games.
I have been wishing the Braves hadn't dealt Adam Wainwright for a while now, but I'm glad they did it now, because Adam would have been yet another young pitcher that Roger McDowell turned into crap if he was still here.Or, maybe, Wainwright could have been the one young pitcher that Roger had to work with that wasn't complete shit.
Chief Knockahoma
10-14-2007, 12:38 AM
Or, maybe, Wainwright could have been the one young pitcher that Roger had to work with that wasn't complete shit.
ha ha ha ha...you're the best B.
You're right. All the scouts and people at Baseball America that had Kyle Davies rated as a top 100 prospect were just out of their fucking minds.
Basically, if they can't do well under Roger, then they weren't a good prospect to begin with. I can see that now. I can see now that Roger is really a good pitching coach that has just never been in the right situation.
JCStone7
10-14-2007, 12:46 AM
Well screw it, let's fire Roger so he can go ruin some more young arms and re-hire Leo to work Smoltz, Huddy, and some more pieces of shit even though Leo the god-send only helped out Erik Bedard in his 2 seasons in Baltimore.
So what happened to Kris Benson, Daniel Cabrera, Adam Lowen, and Chris Ray. We'll be sure to ask them as soon as they return from the 60-day DL
BGarrett7
10-14-2007, 12:47 AM
IHowever, EVERY YOUNG PITCHER THAT IS A TOP PROSPECT THE MAN HAS TOUCHED HAS TURNED INTO CRAP!!! Every single one of them!!!Let me throw out some names for you:
Kent Mercker
Derek Lilliquist
David Nied
Ben Rivera
Brad Woodall
Terrell Wade
Chris Brock
Bruce Chen
Odalis Perez
Luis Rivera
Jason Marquis
Damian Moss
Trey Hodges
Jung Bong
Horacio Ramirez
Ramon Colon
All pitchers who, under Leo Mazzone, were supposed to develop into truly special pitchers.
Now, how many of those have had even moderately successful careers?
yet you only bring two examples to the table to support your argument(s).
Only two?
Edwin Jackson
Joel Hanrahan
Kyle Davies
Macay McBride
Chuck James
Jo-Jo Reyes
Anthony Lerew
Blaine Boyer
JCStone7
10-14-2007, 12:49 AM
You're right. All the scouts and people at Baseball America that had Kyle Davies rated as a top 100 prospect were just out of their fucking minds.
And scouts had Brien Taylor and Todd Van Poppel at the top of their lists too. So apparently all Top 100 prospects should make it to the show and dominate
BGarrett7
10-14-2007, 12:51 AM
You're right. All the scouts and people at Baseball America that had Kyle Davies rated as a top 100 prospect were just out of their fucking minds.Do you realize just how many prospects that make the BA Top 100 Prospects list either (a) never make the ML, or (b) flame out once they make it there?
Just because you make some fucking list doesn't mean a goddamn thing.
Well screw it, let's fire Roger so he can go ruin some more young arms and re-hire Leo to work Smoltz, Huddy, and some more pieces of shit even though Leo the god-send only helped out Erik Bedard in his 2 seasons in Baltimore.
So what happened to Kris Benson, Daniel Cabrera, Adam Lowen, and Chris Ray. We'll be sure to ask them as soon as they return from the 60-day DL
You must have forgotten about Jeremy Guthrie. Plus, Adam Loewen improved a lot under Leo. He was showing much better command before he got injured this season.
Bedard, Guthrie, and Loewen....that's more than Roger has done in the past two years.
I wonder if you guys will realize how bad Roger is when he fucks up Tommy Hansen and Cole Rohrbough. I'm sure it will be because neither are actually good prospects.
JCStone7
10-14-2007, 12:55 AM
Only two?
Edwin Jackson
Joel Hanrahan
Kyle Davies
Macay McBride
Chuck James
Jo-Jo Reyes
Anthony Lerew
Blaine Boyer
Kyle Davies - inconsistency has been his main problem, that's his M.O.
Macay McBride - has struggled at every level and digressed in Detroit
Chuck James - had an awesome 2006 season under Roger and tried to be a pitcher he's not in 07
Jo-Jo Reyes - it's kind of hard to judge after only 10 starts, once again did Glavine dominate his first 10 starts?
Anthony Lerew - hasn't had much time in Atlanta and you expect him to be lights out thru 3 major league starts
Blaine Boyer - 7 games under his injury-riddled 2 seasons in Atlanta, okay let's blame that on McDowell too
BGarrett7
10-14-2007, 01:04 AM
You must have forgotten about Jeremy Guthrie.Jeremy Guthrie: Indians #1 pick in 2002, Top 100 Prospect in 2004
Plus, Adam Loewen improved a lot under Leo. He was showing much better command before he got injured this season.Adam Lowen: O's #3 Prospect prior to Leo coming to town
And just to show you how many "BA Top 100 Prospects" amount to stellar careers, take a look at some of the names you'll find on these (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/at100.html) lists.
Chief Knockahoma
10-14-2007, 01:35 AM
Only two?
Edwin Jackson
Joel Hanrahan
Kyle Davies
Macay McBride
Chuck James
Jo-Jo Reyes
Anthony Lerew
Blaine Boyer
Kyle Davies - inconsistency has been his main problem, that's his M.O.
Macay McBride - has struggled at every level and digressed in Detroit
Chuck James - had an awesome 2006 season under Roger and tried to be a pitcher he's not in 07
Jo-Jo Reyes - it's kind of hard to judge after only 10 starts, once again did Glavine dominate his first 10 starts?
Anthony Lerew - hasn't had much time in Atlanta and you expect him to be lights out thru 3 major league starts
Blaine Boyer - 7 games under his injury-riddled 2 seasons in Atlanta, okay let's blame that on McDowell too
yup, only two.
---
i love these threads.
BGarrett7
10-14-2007, 01:36 AM
If he's still online, he's been coming up with a reply for the past 30 minutes... This should be a laugh fucking riot.
I love how he expects every prospect in the BA Top 100 to develop into something amazing when there are so many flame outs in the top ten every year.
milbraves
10-14-2007, 03:42 PM
Leo Mazzone left and he faltered with a staff of young pitchers in his two years in Baltimore.
Yeah, Leo really screwed up that Eric Bedard guy..... :rolleyes:
I think it's funny. Alot of you seem to want proof that Roger McDowell isn't a good pitching coach.
I'd like proof that he is. Aside from Moylan, where has he had success?
Someone said that all of the prospects McD has worked with were "shit." So, do they believe that the Braves scouts, some of the best in the business, draft "shit" in the first rounds and then give that "shit" million dollar bonuses?
gobravez
10-14-2007, 08:23 PM
Yeah, Leo really screwed up that Eric Bedard guy..... :rolleyes:
I think it's funny. Alot of you seem to want proof that Roger McDowell isn't a good pitching coach.
I'd like proof that he is. Aside from Moylan, where has he had success?
Someone said that all of the prospects McD has worked with were "shit." So, do they believe that the Braves scouts, some of the best in the business, draft "shit" in the first rounds and then give that "shit" million dollar bonuses?
McDowell has done a better job than Leo would've done with the young guys. Everyone knows that Leo didn't want to help the young guys here, im pretty sure he even said something like that himself.
And yes, McDowell has had ALOT of SHIT:
SHIT/JOURNEY MEN PITCHERS 2006-2007
Horacio Ramirez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ramirho01.shtml)
John Thomson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomsjo01.shtml)
Ken Ray (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rayke01.shtml)
Tyler Yates (http://www.baseball-reference.com/y/yatesty01.shtml)
Jorge Sosa (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sosajo02.shtml)
Chris Reitsma (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/reitsch01.shtml)
Mike Remlinger (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/remlimi01.shtml)
Jason Shiell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/shielja01.shtml)
Wayne Franklin (http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/frankwa01.shtml)
Danys Baez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/baezda01.shtml)
Travis Smith (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithtr01.shtml)
Kevin Barry (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/barryke01.shtml)
[/URL][URL="http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cormila01.shtml"]Lance Cormier (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/barryke01.shtml)
Buddy Carlyle (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/carlybu01.shtml)
Mark Redman (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/redmama01.shtml)
Wilfredo Ledezma (http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/ledezwi01.shtml)
Steve Colyer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/colyest01.shtml)
Kyle Davies (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/davieky01.shtml)
TOTAL - 18
I've been following this thread with great interest, and I have to admit that I still have absolutely no idea how to measure the contribution of a pitching coach.
The Braves did better during Leo's tenure than they have since - I do know that; and they haven't done as well since he left - I know that too.
Beyond those two things (actually they are the same thing - the only thing that matters), how much of the team's performance is attributable to a pitching coach is very hard to say.
So should we shitcan Roger and get Leo back just because the Braves did better when Leo was here; or should we say - based on no particular evidence - that Roger is better, and shun Leo; or should we just admit that it's hard to measure the contribution of any pitching coach?
I honestly don't have a clue.
Hobbes
10-14-2007, 09:03 PM
McDowell has done a better job than Leo would've done with the young guys. Everyone knows that Leo didn't want to help the young guys here, im pretty sure he even said something like that himself.
And yes, McDowell has had ALOT of SHIT:
I would not agree that everyone knows that Leo didn't want to help the young guys, and I don't recall him ever saying that. But I would say that he didn't want to change his approach for each young pitcher.
And Leo had a lot of shit as well, but many of them became less than shit under his watch.
Why is it that Leo has to be bashed just to defend Roger? I've seen so many comments that are so highly critical of the pitching coach that presided over the best pitching staffs in the history of the Braves, and maybe in all of baseball history. At the very least he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't a hack.
I would not agree that everyone knows that Leo didn't want to help the young guys, and I don't recall him ever saying that. But I would say that he didn't want to change his approach for each young pitcher.
And Leo had a lot of shit as well, but many of them became less than shit under his watch.
Why is it that Leo has to be bashed just to defned Roger? I've seen so many comments that are so highly critical of the pitching coach that presided over the best pitching staffs in the history of the Braves, and maybe in all of baseball history. At the very least he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't a hack.
Exactly!
In 2004, Leo had a pitching staff that posted a 3.72 ERA, and his #1, #2, and #3 starters were Russ Ortiz, John Thomson, and Jaret Wright. He took a sows ear and made a silk purse out of it in 2004. Also, Leo didn't have Rafael Soriano, or Mike Gonzalez, or Peter Moylan to set up John Smoltz. He had Chris Reitsma and Kevin Gryboski.
The staff that Leo had to work with in 2004 was easily less talented than the staffs that Roger had to work with in both 2006 and 2007.
StatBending
10-14-2007, 09:39 PM
I'm not sure which I would rather have. I believe one of the most important roles of a pitching coach is to keep the staff healthy. Barring Mike Hampton and Mike Gonzales, who were both damaged goods, Roger McDowell has done a decent job.
I do believe Leo Mazzone is a better pitcher, but there is more that needs to be weighed than just their performance. First of all, Leo Mazzone is looking for three more years in the majors. The question is whether we can get someone as good or better than Roger McDowell once Leo Mazzone retires. I don't think decent pitching coaches come a dime a dozen so I am betting not.
McCarroll21
10-14-2007, 09:42 PM
I don't want to say that Leo sucks. He's good at what he does, that's very apparent, but it's hard to say that Roger sucks when he hasn't had as much talent to work with.
Not only is Roger taking a beating for not having very good pitchers to work with, he's also getting crapped on just because he's not Leo. It's hard to follow a legend. That will be the same thing for whoever follows Bobby Cox on the bench, as well.
It's just not fair to label Roger as a bad pitching coach because he hasn't had the amount of talent that Leo had while he was here.
gobravez
10-14-2007, 10:23 PM
I don't want to say that Leo sucks. He's good at what he does, that's very apparent, but it's hard to say that Roger sucks when he hasn't had as much talent to work with.
Not only is Roger taking a beating for not having very good pitchers to work with, he's also getting crapped on just because he's not Leo. It's hard to follow a legend. That will be the same thing for whoever follows Bobby Cox on the bench, as well.
It's just not fair to label Roger as a bad pitching coach because he hasn't had the amount of talent that Leo had while he was here.
This is exactly what ive been trying to say. I haven't been trying to bash Leo, im just trying to show that Roger shouldnt be considered a bad pitching coach when he hasn't had the greatest pitchers to work with.
KB 34
10-14-2007, 10:24 PM
Exactly!
In 2004, Leo had a pitching staff that posted a 3.72 ERA, and his #1, #2, and #3 starters were Russ Ortiz, John Thomson, and Jaret Wright. He took a sows ear and made a silk purse out of it in 2004. Also, Leo didn't have Rafael Soriano, or Mike Gonzalez, or Peter Moylan to set up John Smoltz. He had Chris Reitsma and Kevin Gryboski.
The staff that Leo had to work with in 2004 was easily less talented than the staffs that Roger had to work with in both 2006 and 2007.
Mike Hampton and Paul Byrd>>>>>>Carlyle, Davies and Cormier. That is the difference between the rotation in 2004 and 2007. Add th 2004 addition of Hampton and Byrd to the 2007 rotation and the Braves are the best team in the NL. There's a reason the pitching staff is called a 5 man rotation.
Onto the bullpen: Smoltz was better than Soriano by a longshot, McDowell didn't have Gonzalez for hardly any time, Reitsma wasn't that bad, 6 Fingers pitched some decent innings but was scary, and Juan Cruz would have been a poor man's Pete Moylan had he been freed. The Braves pitching staff was better in 2004 period. The #1 and #2 starters weren't, but the big picture was.
Mike Hampton and Paul Byrd>>>>>>Carlyle, Davies and Cormier. That is the difference between the rotation in 2004 and 2007. Add th 2004 addition of Hampton and Byrd to the 2007 rotation and the Braves are the best team in the NL. There's a reason the pitching staff is called a 5 man rotation.
Onto the bullpen: Smoltz was better than Soriano by a longshot, McDowell didn't have Gonzalez for hardly any time, Reitsma wasn't that bad, 6 Fingers pitched some decent innings but was scary, and Juan Cruz would have been a poor man's Pete Moylan had he been freed. The Braves pitching staff was better in 2004 period. The #1 and #2 starters weren't, but the big picture was.
No, that staff wasn't better. That staff didn't have young talents like Kyle Davies and Chuck James at the end of the starting five. That staff didn't have a deep bullpen at all.
Nasadega
10-14-2007, 11:11 PM
Kyle Davies, young talent? Are you crazy? He did nothing more than killing the bullpen when he was starting! In 2004 there was Ramirez, which I'd gladly take in his 2004 form over Davies.
6 players started for the Braves in 2004, 8 in 2007
15 players relieved for the Braves in 2004, 20 in 2007
If that doesn't tell you how the 2004 staff was better and more stable to work with, then I don't know what to do.
KB 34
10-15-2007, 12:00 AM
No, that staff wasn't better. That staff didn't have young talents like Kyle Davies and Chuck James at the end of the starting five. That staff didn't have a deep bullpen at all.
You're right, the 2004 staff had pitchers who knew how to pitch 6 innings without giving up 8 runs at the end of the rotation, not the young, talented, and miserably bad Chuck James and Kyle Davies. The 2007 bullpen was better than 2004 but not nearly good enough to make up for 3 starters who didn't believe in throwing more than 14 combined innings a week. If there's one thing I've learned this year, it's the value of pitchers who may not have the prettiest numbers but eat 6 innings each time out. They really do make a difference when the alternatives are that bad.
You're right, the 2004 staff had pitchers who knew how to pitch 6 innings without giving up 8 runs at the end of the rotation, not the young, talented, and miserably bad Chuck James and Kyle Davies. The 2007 bullpen was better than 2004 but not nearly good enough to make up for 3 starters who didn't believe in throwing more than 14 combined innings a week. If there's one thing I've learned this year, it's the value of pitchers who may not have the prettiest numbers but eat 6 innings each time out. They really do make a difference when the alternatives are that bad.
The best pitcher in the starting rotation of the 2004 staff would have been nothing more than a #3 guy on any other staff that year, and would have been a #3 guy on the staff Roger had. That's what Leo was getting by with that year. A staff that didn't have a #1 or a #2 starter. He also had a bullpen that had one good pitcher and a bunch of retread guys. On a straight up talent basis, the 2007 staff had the edge. A clear edge. There's no question in my mind that Leo would have gotten more out of the 2007 staff than Roger did.
KB 34
10-15-2007, 01:16 AM
I wouldn't call the 2004 Jaret Wright a #3 starter. He pitched nicely and tricked the Yankees into giving him a lovely deal for him. I still think it's hilarious to think Leo could have turned Mark Redman, Chuck James, and the other 2007 bad starters into a good rotation. I personally like Leo more than McDowell, think he's a better pitching coach, but still believe in the conservation of bottom line potential law. Leo couldn't get anything out of Albie Lopez and he wouldn't get anything out of Davies. There's a difference between amazing pitching coach and baseball shaman.
vnodnarb
10-15-2007, 11:08 AM
I love when arguments span over 4 days.
milbraves
10-15-2007, 12:09 PM
Still don't get it. Still, no one has really pointed to any examples of McDowell bringing along any of his young starters to their full potential, much less above and beyond it. In saying we should keep mcdowell around, people say that Mazzone isn't any better, but we have so many instances where Maz brought along great pitchers and cases where guys brought in from other organizations have flourished under him. Of course, even Mazzone has guys on his record like Pete Smith- but who doesn't? All hot prospect pitchers can't live up to the hype, there's just not enough room in the majors for that. But not one of McDowell's proteges has come anywhere close to their projected potential. So, there is a problem somewhere. Either the scouting department isn't doing the job of drafting good pitchers into the organization (which i doubt, seeing as how as soon as we're ready to dump one of our highly touted pitching prospects who have failed miserably under mcdowell, there's always another team willing and ready to give them a shot), or McDowell isn't the guy we need coaching pitchers.
if anyone knows of any pitchers out there that blossomed into a quality pitcher under the tutelage of Roger McDowell, please let me know, because i'm drawing a total blank. (and please don't try to give McD credit for the way moylan or acosta came around this year)
KB 34
10-15-2007, 11:55 PM
Keeping McDowell over going after Leo doesn't mean he's necessarily the better option right now. The problem is that who knows how long Leo will want to keep on coaching. There are rumors about him and the front office having problems, are these issues that could even be overcome? I don't see how the issues could be resolved to pave the way for a Leo return. Once again, what chance has McDowell been given to develop? Davies, James, Cormier, Carlyle, and Redman? He's had nothing to work with. However, let me throw something else out there. Hudson rebounded this year and became the pitcher he had shown before that he could be. Whenever something like this happened under Leo, fans rushed to praise Leo for reviving a career. Where is the same enthusiasm about McDowell? Does he deserve some credit for helping Hudson rebound? In terms of the bullpen, Moylan blossomed this year, Acosta, Devine, and Ascanio showed signs of good futures, and Soriano started his development into a closer. Does McDowell deserve credit for the bullpen not collapsing entirely even though it was overused? That's something to think about.
Chief Knockahoma
10-16-2007, 12:01 AM
Hudson rebounded this year and became the pitcher he had shown before that he could be. Whenever something like this happened under Leo, fans rushed to praise Leo for reviving a career. Where is the same enthusiasm about McDowell? Does he deserve some credit for helping Hudson rebound? In terms of the bullpen, Moylan blossomed this year, Acosta, Devine, and Ascanio showed signs of good futures, and Soriano started his development into a closer. Does McDowell deserve credit for the bullpen not collapsing entirely even though it was overused? That's something to think about.
obviously this isn't going to be brought up because it helps support the argument of keeping McDowell over Mazzone.
:D
The only thing McDowell did to help Tim Hudson was get out of the way. Roger McDowell had zero influence on Tim Hudson.
Soriano was already good, and his regression in the middle of the season was because of Roger.
KB 34
10-16-2007, 01:18 AM
So every struggle a pitcher faced was due to McDowell acting as a pitching coach and every success was him getting out of the way, interesting.:rolleyes:
vnodnarb
10-16-2007, 01:19 AM
Soriano was already good, and his regression in the middle of the season was because of Roger.
This part is laughable.
McCarroll21
10-16-2007, 01:42 AM
So every struggle a pitcher faced was due to McDowell acting as a pitching coach and every success was him getting out of the way, interesting.:rolleyes:
I think we've figured it out!
gobravez
10-16-2007, 07:04 PM
I gotta say that this thread has made for a great debate.
JCStone7
10-16-2007, 07:45 PM
I gotta say that this thread has made for a great debate.
Haha I suppose so. Mazzone could teach Jesus a few things while McDowell would ruin him is what I've learned.
This part is laughable.
What's laughable is this idea that all of the talented young pitchers that have failed under Roger's coaching really weren't all that talented to begin with. This idea that Roger has been given nothing but crap to work with is laughable.
Again, I'm asking anyone on here to name me just one young pitcher that is better with Roger's coaching than he has been under any other pitching coach. Just one!
C-Dawg
10-17-2007, 05:22 PM
Again, I'm asking anyone on here to name me just one young pitcher that is better with Roger's coaching than he has been under any other pitching coach. Just one!
That's not really a good barometer, considering that Roger just finished up his second season as pitching coach. To my knowledge, the only notable young pitchers who had a chance to work with Roger, and who are now on another team are Davies and McBride. And those cases certainly wouldn't support your argument.
KB 34
10-17-2007, 06:48 PM
Something that's interesting to note. The Braves haven't really developed a lot of good young starting pitchers in a long time. Marquis might be the last and in his last season with the Braves he didn't really contribute. Millwood would be the last really good starter to come through the system. The name of the game has been recollection/maximization projects dealing with struggling pitchers with talent. Think Burkett, Sosa for a year, Wright, and to an extent Shane Reynolds. In fact, outside of Mike Hampton the Braves don't have a starter from 2004 left on the team. What this says is the Braves have struggled in developing starters but have thrived on picking up pitchers with prospects who might or might not pan out. The argument that McDowell is bad because he can't develop Chuck James and Kyle Davies is simply laughable considering Leo couldn't develop Horacio, Capellan, Colon, Hodges, and many others in his last few years with the Braves. Leo did succeed in some recollection projects but McDowell hasn't really gotten the chance. He did have somewhat of a chance with Carlyle and did very well. The bottom line is that the Braves simply haven't developed their own pitching for a while now and it would be nice to see it change. It isn't going to change with James nor does it need to. The key will be moving the Buddy Nelsons and keeping the Adam Wainrights that come along.
MSU Bulldog
10-17-2007, 06:58 PM
I don't really see what role Roger or Leo plays in their development anyway. It's not like some of these guys are named Homer Bailey or Phillip Hughes. All they should be doing is showing them how their stuff will get out a ML hitter and watching for the occasional mechinal flaw and coaching them through it. One would think if they have to start developing at the ML level, then we've already got it wrong. All they should need is that final polish. They need to do a better job of scouting and developing in the minors.
I don't really see what role Roger or Leo plays in their development anyway. It's not like some of these guys are named Homer Bailey or Phillip Hughes. All they should be doing is showing them how their stuff will get out a ML hitter and watching for the occasional mechinal flaw and coaching them through it. One would think if they have to start developing at the ML level, then we've already got it wrong. All they should need is that final polish. They need to do a better job of scouting and developing in the minors.
The Braves already do a great job of scouting and developing their pitchers in the minors. In fact, that's the crux of my argument against Roger McDowell. When the Braves hired him, they should have promoted from within and maintained the same organizational philosophy that is a proven success. The Braves should have promoted Kent Willis to Atlanta. Kent Willis has done a great job with the Braves young pitching prospects as they have come up through the minors. The man knows pitching and is a fantastic pitching coach.
So, instead of promoting from within the system, the Braves went outside a system and got a pitching coach that had done nothing but coach poor pitching staffs in the minors whose record with developing the young pitchers he coached was poor.
As a result, the Braves run the risk of losing a great pitching coach that is in the system, because there is a great chance that Kent Willis becomes the pitching coach for Kansas City.
Hobbes
10-17-2007, 08:33 PM
I heard today that Guidry won't be returning as the Yankees pitching coach. Looks like they might be able to snag Leo after all.
The Braves already do a great job of scouting and developing their pitchers in the minors. ... The Braves should have promoted Kent Willis to Atlanta. Kent Willis has done a great job with the Braves young pitching prospects as they have come up through the minors....
I wasn't too familiar with Willis, so I googled him, and the best summary I found is this: "Chuck James (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2577588), Kyle Davies (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365501), Macay McBride (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365510), Joey Devine (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365507), and Blaine Boyer (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2502143) are five of the pitchers on the Atlanta pitching staff that were greatly helped by Willis".
Great job? Maybe, maybe not, but not demonstrably superior to Roger as far as I can see.
JCStone7
10-17-2007, 09:50 PM
I wasn't too familiar with Willis, so I googled him, and the best summary I found is this: "Chuck James (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2577588), Kyle Davies (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365501), Macay McBride (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365510), Joey Devine (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365507), and Blaine Boyer (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2502143) are five of the pitchers on the Atlanta pitching staff that were greatly helped by Willis".
Good job Googling. But AAA hitters and MLB hitters are worlds apart. Yes Jo-Jo went down did great and came back and forgot how to pitch and I suppose that's Roger's fault.
I wasn't too familiar with Willis, so I googled him, and the best summary I found is this: "Chuck James (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2577588), Kyle Davies (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365501), Macay McBride (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365510), Joey Devine (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2365507), and Blaine Boyer (http://braves.scout.com/a.z?s=248&p=8&c=1&nid=2502143) are five of the pitchers on the Atlanta pitching staff that were greatly helped by Willis".
Great job? Maybe, maybe not, but not demonstrably superior to Roger as far as I can see.
It is clearly superior than Roger McDowell. When Roger was the AAA coach with the Dodgers, pitchers on average did 39% worse under him than they did under their previous pitching coach, and his pitching staffs posted numbers that were something like 21% below the league average.
When pitchers played for Kent Willis, they got better. When Kevin Barry was struggling at AAA 2-3 years ago, he was sent down to work with Kent Willis. Willis changed his mechanics and got him on the right track. While Kevin isn't a major league pitcher, he did become an excellent AAA pitcher after working with Kent Willis.
Unlike with Roger McDowell, I can't name a pitcher that Kent Willis did a poor job with. None of his pitchers did worse under him.
Good job Googling. But AAA hitters and MLB hitters are worlds apart. Yes Jo-Jo went down did great and came back and forgot how to pitch and I suppose that's Roger's fault.
Yes, I get it that there is a difference between AAA and MLB hitters, and no I don't think it's Rogers fault Jo-Jo forgot how to pitch. I just think it's hard to make a case that any one pitching coach is demonstrably better than another.
It is clearly superior than Roger McDowell. When Roger was the AAA coach with the Dodgers, pitchers on average did 39% worse under him than they did under their previous pitching coach, and his pitching staffs posted numbers that were something like 21% below the league average..
What is your source for the performance percentages? Link?
McCarroll21
10-18-2007, 12:39 AM
Also, does this take into consideration a move from Jacksonville (AA) to Las Vegas (AAA)?
I'm not sure about the park factors for Jacksonville, but I know Las Vegas is generally thought of as a hitter's haven.
What is your source for the performance percentages? Link?
http://www.bravesjournal.com/?p=2074
McDowell was the pitching coach at AAA Las Vegas in the Dodgers organization last year, where the only guy to turn in a respetable performance was someone named Franquelis Osoria. Las Vegas is a hitter-friendly environment, and a pretty extreme one at that (on par with Ameriquest Field), but the team ERA was 28% worse than the league average, and its K/BB was 17% worse. The brightest prospect on the team, Edwin Jackson, regressed from what was already a pretty awful 2004 season with a total nightmare of a 2005 campaign.
Here’s the real scary part, though - by taking each pitcher’s K/BB ratio at his previous stop and weighing it for the amount of innings he pitched in Las Vegas, you find that the staff as a whole underachieved by 39% (in terms of strikeouts to walks) under McDowell. Some of this is due to many pitchers facing a higher level of competition, along with the general across-the-board deleterious effects of pitching in a bandbox, but still, that’s hardly an encouraging bit of support for McDowell’s case.
It probably doesn’t mean very much, since analyzing the effect of pitching coaches is hazy at the best of times, but when it’s all you have to go on…well, it’s worth thinking about.
and
Did they underachieve, or did they get exactly what you’d expect if you start Scott Erickson, Ryan Rupe and Pat Mahomes?
Honestly, it has to be some of both, but I get worried when the guy has 0 success with the sorts of AAA journeymen that flit between teams and leagues. The two guys with the most starts put up ERAs of 6.38 and 7.12. No, they weren’t really prospects any more than Ryan Rupe was, but then why is it that Tacoma can get solid production from Jeff Harris, Damian Moss and Masao Kida?
Yes, the ballpark plays a big role, but my god, the law of averages would imply that SOMEONE on the Vegas roster (probably Jackson) would be league average or so, right?
Also, the Las Vegas 51s went from a team ERA of 6.6 in 2005 with Roger McDowell to a team ERA of 4.4 in 2006 after he left. This is in the so called hitters league. It's amazing that with many of the same pitchers, they got better when Roger left.
Thanks, KB21 - one thing from that we can all agree on: "... analyzing the effect of pitching coaches is hazy at the best of times ..."
Thanks, KB21 - one thing from that we can all agree on: "... analyzing the effect of pitching coaches is hazy at the best of times ..."
So, do you think it is just a coincidence that Las Vegas's pitching staff got better the year Roger left?
McCarroll21
10-18-2007, 02:30 AM
So, do you think it is just a coincidence that Las Vegas's pitching staff got better the year Roger left?
Not any more of a coincidence than it was that Roger had trash there too.
Compare the talent on the pitching staffs:
Las Vegas 2005 (http://minors.baseball-reference.com/teams.cgi?yid=2005&lid=PCL&tid=LVG)
Las Vegas 2006 (http://minors.baseball-reference.com/teams.cgi?yid=2006&lid=PCL&tid=LVG)
So, do you think it is just a coincidence that Las Vegas's pitching staff got better the year Roger left?.
I don't know, but yeah, probably. It's difficult to form a supportable opinion from so little hard data - for me anyway.
Most of the evidence for both sides seems anecdotal at best, and I don't know how you guys can be so certain either way.
I shouldn't be in this discussion - I just look at Leo's track record and Roger's track record in MLB, and it seems obvious Leo's is better.
Not any more of a coincidence than it was that Roger had trash there too.
Compare the talent on the pitching staffs:
Las Vegas 2005 (http://minors.baseball-reference.com/teams.cgi?yid=2005&lid=PCL&tid=LVG)
Las Vegas 2006 (http://minors.baseball-reference.com/teams.cgi?yid=2006&lid=PCL&tid=LVG)
I see no difference in the talent. Roger had Edwin Jackson and Joel Hanrahan. The pitching coach that replaced him had Chad Billingsly and Joel Hanrahan. Joel Hanrahan IMPROVED without Roger.
JCStone7
10-18-2007, 11:59 AM
I see no difference in the talent. Roger had Edwin Jackson and Joel Hanrahan. The pitching coach that replaced him had Chad Billingsly and Joel Hanrahan. Joel Hanrahan IMPROVED without Roger.
And yet Hanrahan and Jackson are no longer there and still aren't worth anything.
And yet Hanrahan and Jackson are no longer there and still aren't worth anything.
The point is, both players were top prospects before Roger got a hold of them. Their careers fell apart with Roger's coaching, or lack thereof.
JCStone7
10-18-2007, 01:22 PM
So let's just fire McDowell and put Willis in the pitching coach position and if Chuck James, Jo-Jo Reyes, and Lance Cormier fall on their face we'll run him out of town too. I'm game.
absintheofmalaise
10-18-2007, 01:33 PM
The point is, both players were top prospects before Roger got a hold of them. Their careers fell apart with Roger's coaching, or lack thereof.
How many "top prospects", pitching or position players fall apart and don't make it to MLB every year? The streets of every ml town are littered with their corpses. Perhaps the "good" year they had was the outlier. Personally, I don't know. You also have to judge a pitcher by the quality of the batters that he faces. You have to look at a large body of work, whether it's for a player, a team or a coach, before you can really make an educated judgment about their ability.
How many "top prospects", pitching or position players fall apart and don't make it to MLB every year? The streets of every ml town are littered with their corpses. Perhaps the "good" year they had was the outlier. Personally, I don't know. You also have to judge a pitcher by the quality of the batters that he faces. You have to look at a large body of work, whether it's for a player, a team or a coach, before you can really make an educated judgment about their ability.
This isn't about how many top prospects fail. This is about a coach that has had EVERY top prospect he has ever coached fail under his coaching, not to mention pitchers that weren't top prospects.
So let's just fire McDowell and put Willis in the pitching coach position and if Chuck James, Jo-Jo Reyes, and Lance Cormier fall on their face we'll run him out of town too. I'm game.
Unfortunately, the Braves have waited too long to make this move. They have already announced that they will make the mistake of bringing Roger back for another year of mediocre results with the pitching staff. As a result, they run the risk of Kansas City hiring Brian Snitker and having Snitker bring Kent Willis to Kansas City with him.
I'm really hoping Willis stays around, because I'd really like to see him become the pitching coach in 2009 when Terry Pendleton is the manager.
JCStone7
10-18-2007, 02:34 PM
So why do you not hate Brian Snitker even though he was 57-86 in his lone season at Richmond?
absintheofmalaise
10-18-2007, 02:58 PM
This isn't about how many top prospects fail. This is about a coach that has had EVERY top prospect he has ever coached fail under his coaching, not to mention pitchers that weren't top prospects.
So every pitcher that was under his tutelage has failed?
I wasn't trying to turn this into a failed pitching prospect thread. I brought that up because about 99% of all ml players fail at some level.
So why do you not hate Brian Snitker even though he was 57-86 in his lone season at Richmond?
Because that's the only bad year he has had as a coach?
JCStone7
10-18-2007, 03:14 PM
Because that's the only bad year he has had as a coach?
And maybe had a bad team to manage.
Hobbes
10-18-2007, 03:17 PM
I'm really hoping Willis stays around, because I'd really like to see him become the pitching coach in 2009 when Terry Pendleton is the manager.
I don't see Pendleton being the next manager.
I don't see Pendleton being the next manager.
I think he is a lock for the job if he doesn't end up taking the St. Louis job, if it opens up this offseason, or the Kansas City job.
MSU Bulldog
10-20-2007, 12:56 PM
Speaking of top prospects failing, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Presley) is a guy I went to high school with. He was like a man among boys. I've never seen a guy dominate with the bat, pitching and on the football feld like this guy did. He was the very definition of beast. Unfortunately, he was over worked by his HS coach. The Mets tried to change his motion and that translated into shoulder problems/surgeries. He also broke his hand twice while batting. Once due to a HBP and another while attempting to bunt. He had enough of the contunuous rehabs and came back home. He invested his signing bonus well and is not hurting for anything. Still, I would have loved to see his HS success translate to MLB.
<TABLE class=boxed cellSpacing=0 borderColorDark=black cellPadding=5 borderColorLight=black border=1><TBODY><TR class=boxed bgColor=#dddddd><TD class=header noWrap align=middle bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=5>1993 First Round Draft Picks
</TD></TR><TR class=boxed bgColor=#4d3201><TD noWrap align=middle>#</TD><TD noWrap>Selected By</TD><TD noWrap>Name</TD><TD noWrap>Position</TD><TD noWrap>College or Hometown</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>1.</TD><TD noWrap>Mariners</TD><TD noWrap>Alex Rodriguez (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=rodrial01)</TD><TD noWrap>SS</TD><TD noWrap>Miami, FL</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>2.</TD><TD noWrap>Dodgers</TD><TD noWrap>Darren Dreifort (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=dreifda01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Wichita State University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/wichita_state_university_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>3.</TD><TD noWrap>Angels</TD><TD noWrap>Brian Anderson (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=anderbr02)</TD><TD noWrap>LHP</TD><TD noWrap>Wright State University</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>4.</TD><TD noWrap>Phillies</TD><TD noWrap>Wayne Gomes (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=gomeswa01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Old Dominion University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/old_dominion_university_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>5.</TD><TD noWrap>Royals</TD><TD noWrap>Jeff Granger (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=grangje01)</TD><TD noWrap>LHP</TD><TD noWrap>Texas A&M University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/texas_am_university_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>6.</TD><TD noWrap>Giants</TD><TD noWrap>Steve Soderstrom (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=soderst01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>California State University, Fresno (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/california_state_university_fresno_baseball_player s.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>7.</TD><TD noWrap>Red Sox</TD><TD noWrap>Trot Nixon (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=nixontr01)</TD><TD noWrap>OF</TD><TD noWrap>Wilmington, NC</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>8.</TD><TD noWrap>Mets</TD><TD noWrap>Kirk Presley</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Tupelo, MS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupelo%2C_Mississippi)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>9.</TD><TD noWrap>Tigers</TD><TD noWrap>Matt Brunson</TD><TD noWrap>SS</TD><TD noWrap>Englewood, CO</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>10.</TD><TD noWrap>Cubs</TD><TD noWrap>Brooks Kieschnick (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=kiescbr01)</TD><TD noWrap>OF-RHP</TD><TD noWrap>University of Texas (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/university_of_texas_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>11.</TD><TD noWrap>Indians</TD><TD noWrap>Daron Kirkreit</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>University of Cal-Riverside (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/university_of_california_riverside_baseball_player s.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>12.</TD><TD noWrap>Astros</TD><TD noWrap>Billy Wagner (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=wagnebi02)</TD><TD noWrap>LHP</TD><TD noWrap>Ferrum College</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>13.</TD><TD noWrap>Yankees</TD><TD noWrap>Matt Drews</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Sarasota, FL</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>14.</TD><TD noWrap>Padres</TD><TD noWrap>Derrek Lee (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=leede02)</TD><TD noWrap>1B</TD><TD noWrap>Granite Bay, CA</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>15.</TD><TD noWrap>Blue Jays</TD><TD noWrap>Chris Carpenter (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=carpech01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Manchester, NH</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>16.</TD><TD noWrap>Cardinals</TD><TD noWrap>Alan Benes (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=benesal01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Creighton University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/creighton_university_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>17.</TD><TD noWrap>White Sox</TD><TD noWrap>Scott Christman</TD><TD noWrap>LHP</TD><TD noWrap>Oregon State University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/oregon_state_university_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>18.</TD><TD noWrap>Expos</TD><TD noWrap>Chris Schwab</TD><TD noWrap>OF</TD><TD noWrap>Eagan, MN</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>19.</TD><TD noWrap>Orioles</TD><TD noWrap>Jay Powell (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=powelja04)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Mississippi State University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/mississippi_state_university_baseball_players.shtm l)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>20.</TD><TD noWrap>Twins</TD><TD noWrap>Torii Hunter (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=hunteto01)</TD><TD noWrap>OF</TD><TD noWrap>Pine Bluff, AR</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>21.</TD><TD noWrap>Twins</TD><TD noWrap>Jason Varitek (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=varitja01)</TD><TD noWrap>C</TD><TD noWrap>Georgia Tech (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/georgia_institute_of_technology_baseball_players.s html)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>22.</TD><TD noWrap>Pirates</TD><TD noWrap>Charles Peterson</TD><TD noWrap>OF</TD><TD noWrap>Laurens, SC</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>23.</TD><TD noWrap>Brewers</TD><TD noWrap>Jeff D'Amico (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=damije01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Pinellas Park, FL</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>24.</TD><TD noWrap>Cubs</TD><TD noWrap>Jon Ratliff (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=ratlijo01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>LeMoyne College (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/lemoyne_college_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>25.</TD><TD noWrap>Athletics</TD><TD noWrap>John Wasdin (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=wasdijo01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Florida State University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/florida_state_university_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>26.</TD><TD noWrap>Brewers</TD><TD noWrap>Kelly Wunsch (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=wunscke01)</TD><TD noWrap>LHP</TD><TD noWrap>Texas A&M University (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/texas_am_university_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>27.</TD><TD noWrap>Marlins</TD><TD noWrap>Marc Valdes (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=valdema01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>University of Florida (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/university_of_florida_baseball_players.shtml)</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#f3e9ce><TD noWrap align=middle>28.</TD><TD noWrap>Rockies</TD><TD noWrap>Jamey Wright (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=wrighja01)</TD><TD noWrap>RHP</TD><TD noWrap>Oklahoma City, OK</TD></TR><TR class=boxed><TD noWrap align=middle bgColor=#4d3201 colSpan=5>1993 First Round Draft Picks
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There are some names that jump out at you in this draft.
<!-- End Page Body --><!-- Begin Old Baseball -->
I remember seeing Kirk pitch in high school. He had a fastball that his catcher couldn't handle. He's the most talented pitcher I ever saw in high school, and I played against Van Johnson who was the closer on MSU's 1997 and 1998 CWS teams.
MSU Bulldog
10-22-2007, 10:14 AM
I remember seeing Kirk pitch in high school. He had a fastball that his catcher couldn't handle. He's the most talented pitcher I ever saw in high school, and I played against Van Johnson who was the closer on MSU's 1997 and 1998 CWS teams.
Van went to Saltillo High School which is in the same county as Tupelo High School. He is a year younger than Kirk. While Van was good, he couldn't hold Kirk's jock strap!
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.