How Many World Titles Would We Have
- Thread starter SJ24
- Start date
bravos4evr
Still Playing the Waiting Game
maybe we would have had zero! The playoffs are too random to say "xyz" means championships as there are just so many variables and it relies so much on BABIP and hit sequencing. If you threw the worst teams into this 2 WC playoff system as an experiment we would expect one of them to win every 8-10 years.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Well if you disqualify the Yankees every year like I do then we had multiple titles. I disqualify the yankees for using their significant market advantage while fighting against a salary cap. In contrast the NY Giants owner fought for a salary cap rather than manipulate the system to keep a huge market advantage. The Yankees winning a title would be like letting the Knicks have 7 players on the court.
msstate7
Well-known member
What we lost in pitching, bonds would make up in offense.
bravos4evr
Still Playing the Waiting Game
we lost for a number of reasons, lack of offense in key games, bad starts, blown saves...etc there is no "one thing" we can point at and say "if we had xyz" we would have won more. Wohlers gave up the home run to Leyritz in 1996 and he was one of the best closers in MLB that year.
Baseball is a complex game with a ton of variables, winning in the playoffs is a crapshoot (and now, more than ever with the added teams) I mean, even Rivera blew playoff and world series saves for the Yankees.
Interesting question. Steve Avery seemed to be much like Smoltz, very "clutch" in the playoffs. But even if he had stayed healthy, it would have been unlikely that he stayed great as long at the big three did. Early Bonds was not "clutch" in the playoffs, later Barry was. So I'd guess 2 World Series, but only 8-10 pennants during the 14 pennant stretch.
bravos4evr
Still Playing the Waiting Game
that assumes that the best team wins the world series. That may have been generally true in the days before multi team playoffs, but these days in the wildcard era, it just isn't so.
Braves offense was 14th in 2002, pitching was 5th, relief pitching was the best in MLB
in 2003- Offense was first, pitching was 15th, relievers were 13th in MLB
either year the team was good enough to win, but they didn't due to a myriad of events. there just isn't one thing to pin it on. gotta perform in those 2 series heading to the WS and then those 7 games. and anything can happen in that small of a sample size with a "winner take all" format
bravos4evr
Still Playing the Waiting Game
well, to be fair to Barry, he got walked a lot in the playoffs and had pretty small sample sizes of plate appearances considering he was in 48 playoff games in his career. (52 walks) so he didn't have a lot of chances to hit well. (really only 2 series where he had huge perfomance, and both when he was roided out)
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Someone watches too much ESPN. Saying Bonds wasn't clutch in the playoffs is a Skip Bayliss level retarded statement.
bravos4evr
Still Playing the Waiting Game
"clutch" doesn't exist as a skill though. clutch situations exists, and we tend to exhibit confirmation bias when remembering those events. Bonds had 2 sub .600 OPS playoff series, then an .838 then he had 3 really good series and a mediocre one. Most of those were all buttressed by a ton of walks (though he did hit 7 homers in 2 of those playoff series) It's all just situational hitting and hit sequencing. things nobody can control
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I think clutch can exist as a skill or lack of skill but it's not as prevent as people think. I think some players up their concentration when in certain situations. David Ortiz is a good example. I also think pressure can get to a player like AROID. I think clutch is much more something pitchers can be. Like Smoltz. He had an extra gear for the playoffs. I just think it's stupid to say someone is clutch or isn't over a small sample size. I remember when they used to say the Astros killer B's weren't clutch, reality was they were facing 3 first ballot hall of famers in a 5 game series.
CyYoung31
Shift Leader
We had good offenses in the 90's, and Bonds was a cancer. He also would have taken up a larger chunk of our payroll than Maddux, not allowing us as much maneuverability to mold the well rounded teams we had all of those years.
Plus, Maddux led the league in WAR the year we won our World Series, if that really means anything.
Too random, but we made the WS 5 times in the 90's??? (Three times from 91-95).
msstate7
Well-known member
Maybe so, but bonds was freaking awesome. After he left Pittsburgh, he had an ops under 1.000 one time (.999 in '06 at age 41). To put that in perspective, chipper only did that 5 out of 19 years. Bonds did it 16 out of 20 years with 6 years over 1.100. I'm no bonds' fan, but we would've been lethal with him anchoring our lineup
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I always thought Avery was headed for arm trouble. He really flew open in his delivery putting a lot of stress on the arm.
CyYoung31
Shift Leader
Have you seen Greg Maddux's numbers?
msstate7
Well-known member
I was too young to notice; but after watching Avery and Wakefield in that nlcs, I thought both were headed to greatness