The Teams in the Playoffs

[nsacpi]

I tend to stay away from broad claims about what it takes to be a playoff team because there are so many ways to build a winning team. For example, no one would claim that defense is unimportant, but if you are strong enough in other areas you can overcome a weak defense.

Among the teams currently slated to make the playoffs, we have the Yankees (27th in defensive WAR), the Astros (26th) and the Blue Jays (22nd).

What about strikeout rate? The Cubs have the highest strikeout rate and the Astros are second.

What about lack of power? The Pirates are 26th in ISO, the Cardinals 22nd and the Royals 21st.

What about a poor bullpen? The Rangers have the 5th highest FIP and the Yankees and Blue Jays are no better than average.

Starting pitching? The Rangers have the 6th highest FIP, the Royals are 10th and the Blue Jays 11th.

[dak]

The "what it takes" angle that has always annoyed me most is that you need an Ace SP to make the playoffs or to succeed in the playoffs.

[nsacpi]

The "what it takes" angle that has always annoyed me most is that you need an Ace SP to make the playoffs or to succeed in the playoffs.

Looking at this year's FIP leaderboard, I see 9 of the top 20 pitching for teams NOT in the playoffs. I also see two teams in the playoffs (the Yankees and Cardinals), whose best starting pitcher by FIP does not rank in the Top 20.

[thewupk]

Yeah there are many ways to build a team good enough to make the playoffs. What's the most annoying is say if the Astros make it to the WS. Then everyone we will be on their jocks about how we need to fill a team with power guys, etc. It's always the last team that makes it or wins it that people start to say you have to model your team around because that's what wins.

[clvclv]

The "what it takes" angle that has always annoyed me most is that you need an Ace SP to make the playoffs or to succeed in the playoffs.

While I'd agree that "needs" is too strong a term, it's hard to argue that the teams that have very strong TOR starters or combos don't have a huge advantage in a 7 game series. That's why I think many of the purists and old-timers hate the wildcard game and short series formats - the higher seeds simply don't get rewarded enough for their success over the long haul.

If each level of the postseason were 7 games, teams that played the Dodgers, Jays, Cubs, or Mutts would have to face Kershaw and Greinke twice each, Price and Stroman twice each, Arrieta and Lester twice each, and Harvey, deGrom, and Syndergaard twice each (and potentially Kershaw, Price, or Arrieta three times). It's tough to argue that that's not one *ell of an advantage. Miller would have to beat Kershaw/Price/Arrieta/one of the Mutts' guys at least once (or twice), and/or Teheran would have to beat Greinke/Stroman/Lester/one of the Mutts guys at least once (or twice) to give you any shot at winning a series from them.

I may well be alone in thinking there's not much chance of that happening, but I don't see any way we wouldn't be considered pretty substantial underdogs in that type of situation. If you had to burn Miller in a wildcard game, you've got almost no shot at beating one of those teams.

[clvclv]

Looking at this year's FIP leaderboard, I see 9 of the top 20 pitching for teams NOT in the playoffs. I also see two teams in the playoffs (the Yankees and Cardinals), whose best starting pitcher by FIP does not rank in the Top 20.

Just curious - during "the run", how many times did teams beat the Braves with three "Aces" in a playoff series regardless of where any SP on either team ranked on the FIP lists that particular season?

[nsacpi]

Just curious - during "the run", how many times did teams beat the Braves with three "Aces" in a playoff series regardless of where any SP on either team ranked on the FIP lists that particular season?

Good question. I remember a particular series where Orlando Hernandez beat Maddux and Pettitte beat Smoltz in key games. Or rather we lost games with those matchups. Was this because the other team had superior starting pitching. I believe maybe the hitting on both teams had a role in the outcomes of those games. Sometimes we remember what we want to remember.

Which starting pitchers from the Twins and Blue Jays dominated us in the first two world series of our run. My memory fails me. But surely we must have lost those two series due to dominant starting pitching from the other teams. I remember Erickson and Tapani being among the pitchers for the Twins. It must have been them. Lonnie Smith getting lost at second. Hrbeck pushing Gant off the base. Puckett. Well those were incidental details. Dominant pitching is what matters.

More recently, I think we would have won that Wild Card game if not for Lohse's dominant performance. And Kershaw versus Garcia. Well, we don't have to say anymore than that. Nothing else counts when the starting pitching is so stacked against us. Plus it was a complete fluke that Minor outpitched Greinke in that one game, so we should not have even gotten to game four.

[nsacpi]

I have a question for the folks who believe dominant starting pitching is the most important factor in the playoffs. Which teams do you like this off-season?

[NYCBrave]

Good question. I remember a particular series where Orlando Hernandez beat Maddux and Pettitte beat Smoltz in key games. Or rather we lost games with those matchups. Was this because the other team had superior starting pitching. I believe maybe the hitting on both teams had a role in the outcomes of those games. Sometimes we remember what we want to remember.

Which starting pitchers from the Twins and Blue Jays dominated us in the first two world series of our run. My memory fails me. But surely we must have lost those two series due to dominant starting pitching from the other teams. I remember Erickson and Tapani being among the pitchers for the Twins. It must have been them. Lonnie Smith getting lost at second. Hrbeck pushing Gant off the base. Puckett. Well those were incidental details. Dominant pitching is what matters.

More recently, I think we would have won that Wild Card game if not for Lohse's dominant performance. And Kershaw versus Garcia. Well, we don't have to say anymore than that. Nothing else counts when the starting pitching is so stacked against us. Plus it was a complete fluke that Minor outpitched Greinke in that one game, so we should not have even gotten to game four.

While I am a firm believer that you not only need a couple of dominant aces to succeed in the playoffs (preferably power pitchers, no surprise Smoltz was our best SP), I know it was our hitting that failed us time and time again in the playoffs. It's almost like our hitters never showed up. Especially in recent years and especially our stars.

2003: Castilla 4-16, Fick 0-11, Furcal 4-19, Andruw 1-17, Chipper 3-18, Sheffield 2-14
2004: JD Drew 4-20, Giles 3-24, Chipper 4-20, LaRocha 4-17,
2005: Francoeur 4-17, Furcal 3-20, Giles 4-20, Chipper 3-17, McCann 3-16
2010: 4 games, .175 BA, .477 OPS as a team!!! (Heyward 2-16, Ankiel 2-12, Conrad 1-11, Diaz 1-10, Alex Gonzalez 3-15, Infante 4-18, D. Lee 2-16 , McCann 6-14)

2013: 4 games, .214 BA, .564 OPS as a team!!! (Freeman 5-16, Gattis 5-14, Heyward 3-18, C. Johnson 7-16, Elliot Johnson 1-14, McCann 0-13, Simmons 3-12, Upton 2-14)

It also didn't help that we had key errors in every single series! 2010 Conrad, 2012 WC Chipper blew that double play, 2013 Gattis adventures in LF

[bravesnumberone]

Pretty much good execution will help you be successful. Starting pitching giving you a chance, hitting with RISP, good defense, a good bullpen and a manager capable of managing close games.

You won't win a lot of games committing errors, or stranding runners. I could point to numerous Braves postseason losses that fit that description.

Also, your big dogs have to produce. I'm recalling a series against the Giants or Cubs when Chipper/Sheff/Andruw had something like 4-5 hits between them the whole series.

[nsacpi]

Can anyone identify which teams have the kind of dominant pitching that will provide them with an edge this post-season?

[thewupk]

Can anyone identify which teams have the kind of dominant pitching that will provide them with an edge this post-season?

You'd assume the Dodgers, Blue Jays, and Mets would have that advantage. But then again it's the playoffs so anything can happen.

[clvclv]

While I am a firm believer that you not only need a couple of dominant aces to succeed in the playoffs (preferably power pitchers, no surprise Smoltz was our best SP), I know it was our hitting that failed us time and time again in the playoffs. It's almost like our hitters never showed up. Especially in recent years and especially our stars.

2003: Castilla 4-16, Fick 0-11, Furcal 4-19, Andruw 1-17, Chipper 3-18, Sheffield 2-14
2004: JD Drew 4-20, Giles 3-24, Chipper 4-20, LaRocha 4-17,
2005: Francoeur 4-17, Furcal 3-20, Giles 4-20, Chipper 3-17, McCann 3-16
2010: 4 games, .175 BA, .477 OPS as a team!!! (Heyward 2-16, Ankiel 2-12, Conrad 1-11, Diaz 1-10, Alex Gonzalez 3-15, Infante 4-18, D. Lee 2-16 , McCann 6-14)

2013: 4 games, .214 BA, .564 OPS as a team!!! (Freeman 5-16, Gattis 5-14, Heyward 3-18, C. Johnson 7-16, Elliot Johnson 1-14, McCann 0-13, Simmons 3-12, Upton 2-14)

It also didn't help that we had key errors in every single series! 2010 Conrad, 2012 WC Chipper blew that double play, 2013 Gattis adventures in LF

I think this (and bravesnumberone's post) define the postseason for me.

Not trying to pick an argument nsacpi, but we can all go back and find a fluke spot where a true TOR type got beat by an inferior pitcher when his offense tanked or his defense booted the ball around like a bunch of little leaguers, In general though IF only your "big dogs" produce offensively and you play solid defense without stranding tons of runners (often playing small ball when needed) having those "Aces" gives you a *elluva lot better chance to win a 2-1 or 3-2 game in the postseason. Those guys tend to give you 7-8 strong innings consistently this time of year, meaning that more often than not you stand a better chance of winning than those teams running the Lohses of the world out there against them since you're not sifting through 2 or 3 middle relievers before you even get to your best setup guy or Closer.

FWIW -

Jack Morris (All-Star in 1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1991 - 3rd in Cy Young balloting in 1981 and 1983, 4th in 1991, 5th in 1986 and 1992, 7th in 1984, and 9th in 1987) beat Smoltz 3-2 in Game 4 and 1-0 in Game 7 in 1991.

David Cone (All-Star in 1988, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 1999 - won Cy Young in 1994, 3rd in 1988, 4th in 1995 and 1998, 6th in 1999) beat Smoltz in Game 2 in 1992, Jimmy Key (All-Star in 1985, 1991, 1993, and 1994 - 2nd in Cy Young balloting in 1987 and 1994, 4th in 1993) beat Glavine 2-1 in Game 4.

Orel Hershiser (All-Star in 1987, 1988, and 1989 - won Cy Young in 1988, 3rd in 1985, 4th in 1987 and 1989) beat Maddux in Game 5 in 1995 before Glavine's gem in Game 6 against Dennis Martinez (All-Star in 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1995 - 5th in Cy Young balloting in 1981 and 1991).

Smoltz beat Pettitte (the only Pitcher with more postseason wins than Smoltz) in Game 1 in 1996, Maddux beat Jimmy Key in Game 2, David Cone beat Glavine in Game 3, Pettitte beat Smoltz 1-0 in Game 5, and Key beat Maddux 3-2 in Game 6.



Pretty tough to say that many of the losses Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine had in the postseason came to also-rans who had the game of their life.

[bravesnumberone]

Can anyone identify which teams have the kind of dominant pitching that will provide them with an edge this post-season?

Yes it's not really difficult. But it doesn't mean they will win.

[nsacpi]

I would make a distinction between dominant pitching and dominant pitching performance in the post season. The latter reveals itself after the fact. Before the fact it is less obvious to put it mildly. Thats why I ask the question about which teams might have an edge in the dominant starting pitching department. So everyone agrees it is the Dodgers, Mets and Blue Jays?

[NYCBrave]

I would make a distinction between dominant pitching and dominant pitching performance in the post season. The latter reveals itself after the fact. Before the fact it is less obvious to put it mildly. Thats why I ask the question about which teams might have an edge in the dominant starting pitching department. So everyone agrees it is the Dodgers, Mets and Blue Jays?

For me, it's identifying the teams who have two aces, which in the 5 game series format is important

Pirates - Cole & Liriano
Cubs - Arrieta & Lester
Mets - DeGrom, Harvey, Syndegaard
Cardinals - Wacha
Dodgers - Grienke & Kershaw

Yankees - Tanaka?
Blue Jays - Price
Rangers - Hamels
Astros - Keuchal
Royals - Cueto

[nsacpi]

So four teams meet your criterion for having dominant pitching. Others have mentioned the Blue Jays who have Stroman in addition to Price. So five of the ten playoff teams arguably have dominant pitching. Do you see where I'm going with this. Dominant pitching cant be said to be the determining factor this year when most teams in the playoffs seem to have it. But i will hazard a bold prediction. Dominant pitching performance will seperate the wheat from the chaff this offseason. And one of the poor five teams not listed as havening dominant pitching will get some dominant pitching performances.

For me, it's identifying the teams who have two aces, which in the 5 game series format is important

Pirates - Cole & Liriano
Cubs - Arrieta & Lester
Mets - DeGrom, Harvey, Syndegaard
Cardinals - Wacha
Dodgers - Grienke & Kershaw

Yankees - Tanaka?
Blue Jays - Price
Rangers - Hamels
Astros - Keuchal
Royals - Cueto

[Horsehide Harry]

The strike zones tend to shrink a bit in the post season. Pitchers who can get called and swinging strikes on pitches in the zone have an advantage. That is typically power pitchers with big fastballs and at least one other elite type pitch and reasonable control. That's why Maddux and Glavine were not nearly as successful in the post season as you might expect unless they came up against a free swinging team like Cleveland.

Now, everybody will point back to Eric Gregg as an obvious counter to this when he did his Enrico Palazzio impersonation against the Braves. But, I ask this-was he ever seen or heard from again after that?

The tight strike zone carries over to the pens as well.

From a offense stand point, patient teams who are willing to work a count for a good pitch to hit tend to have better results. The Braves under Cox were typically a pretty free swinging bunch, not necessarily so much with SO but they weren't extremely patient in finding the best pitch to hit. The first good one was good enough.

[nsacpi]

So which teams this year are poised to benefit from this phenomenon?

The strike zones tend to shrink a bit in the post season. Pitchers who can get called and swinging strikes on pitches in the zone have an advantage. That is typically power pitchers with big fastballs and at least one other elite type pitch and reasonable control. That's why Maddux and Glavine were not nearly as successful in the post season as you might expect unless they came up against a free swinging team like Cleveland.

Now, everybody will point back to Eric Gregg as an obvious counter to this when he did his Enrico Palazzio impersonation against the Braves. But, I ask this-was he ever seen or heard from again after that?

The tight strike zone carries over to the pens as well.

From a offense stand point, patient teams who are willing to work a count for a good pitch to hit tend to have better results. The Braves under Cox were typically a pretty free swinging bunch, not necessarily so much with SO but they weren't extremely patient in finding the best pitch to hit. The first good one was good enough.

[clvclv]

So four teams meet your criterion for having dominant pitching. Others have mentioned the Blue Jays who have Stroman in addition to Price. So five of the ten playoff teams arguably have dominant pitching. Do you see where I'm going with this. Dominant pitching cant be said to be the determining factor this year when most teams in the playoffs seem to have it. But i will hazard a bold prediction. Dominant pitching performance will seperate the wheat from the chaff this offseason. And one of the poor five teams not listed as havening dominant pitching will get some dominant pitching performances.

Maybe. But I'd personally much rather be one of those teams that doesn't need that performance coming from someone you don't expect it from.

Having those guys guarantees nothing other than if you have them and execute, the odds are MUCH MORE in your favor.