The Braves Collapse Is Not Nearly As Painful As Other Past Failures

This season, I followed a Braves team that wasn't very good, yet somehow, they were pulling away with the Wild Card lead. I could never quite put my finger on it. How in the world were they 10 1/2 games ahead of the Cardinals at one point? It seemed like every time I watched them or listened to a game, they were doing something ridiculously bad. They lost some painful games this year, yet the stats were showing some fantastic seasons for some players.

The only problem is...when those players had a bad game, it cost them. Being a well-rounded team means that you can make a couple of mistakes here and there and it won't cost you the game seemingly every time. It means, if your pitchers are having a bad game, your offense has the ability to pick them up, and vice-versa. The Braves never had an offense that clicked, because there were too many black holes in the lineup.

Even with the Wild Card lead, I never really believed in this team. The weaknesses were too glaring. At the beginning of the season, the leadoff man was Nate McLouth, and when he got hurt, it turned into Jordan Schafer. Neither of those guys is any good. Then the Braves got Michael Bourn, who pretty much slumped after the trade, although he was much better than those other two guys.

Then the 2nd spot was filled most of the year by Martin Prado, who for the past couple of years could be depended upon to bat around .300. He batted around .260 this year. And since he never walks, that hurts.

Chipper Jones is, of course, well past his prime. He had a decent year for someone his age and constantly injured. But he was being relied upon to be the team's #3 hitter. And I don't care what sabermetrics might say about Chipper, this is a case where the human eye was better than the advanced stats. He never could really be a #3 hitter this year, and probably never again.

Dan Uggla took an entire half of the season to get right. When he did, he was awesome. Unfortunately, nearly everybody else on the team tanked once he got hot.

Brian McCann must have been severely sidetracked by his injury after the All-Star Break. You could depend on McCann almost daily to do something great. But after he got off the disabled list, he was pretty useless the rest of the year.

Freddie Freeman had a great rookie season, and unfortunately, his production, which would be a great compliment to an awesome offense, was relied upon to be one of the main sources. You can't rely on a 21-year-old who is just learning the ins and outs of the majors be your top offensive producer, even if he's having a great season for a rookie.

Jason Heyward was so bad this year, people started remembering the types of things said about Jeff Francoeur during his stay in Atlanta. Heyward was the biggest disappointment of the year, and hurt the offense more than any one person, right alongside Prado. The Braves were relying on Prado to stay the course and for Heyward to get better in his second season. And they got worse, which made them unfortunate, almost automatic, outs.

Alex Gonzalez was a black hole in the lineup from the start. But his bad numbers at the plate only became magnified as the Braves looked for someone to start hitting. I think everyone was OK with Gonzalez' offensive production, as long as the other guys did what they were supposed to do. They didn't, so the presence of Alex Gonzalez at the plate was always a painful sight because now, his lack of production just compounded the other lack of production the lineup was getting.

I like to think in these terms--the Braves had very little room for error when it came to scoring runs, and while, rightfully so, the team was criticized for being unable to get hits with runners in scoring position, it seemed like so many times, they needed that hit with two outs. Since on average a batter is not going to get a hit somewhere over 70% of the time, the odds were always against them.

The pitching kept them winning games for much of the first half, and that had to do with solid presences Tommy Hanson and Jair Jurrjens, both who went down shortly after the All Star Break along with seemingly everyone else. With Hanson and Jurrjens unable to put in solid work, the Braves had Tim Hudson, rookie Brandon Beachy (who began to lose it in the second half), the god-awful Derek Lowe (and somehow, the saber stats supported him being just as good a pitcher as Hudson, which...I think more data is needed), and a triumvirate of rookie pitchers who were not ready to be in the majors until 2012 or 2013: Julio Teheran, Randall Delgado, and Mike Minor.

With all this inexperience and worn-down veterans, the bullpen was used a lot. Unhittable pitchers like Johnny Venters and Craig Kimbrel suddenly became wild and hittable towards the end of the season. It would not shock me if I found out Venters needed surgery after this season. The guy was ridiculous all year, and there should have been some regression in his stats, but not to the point where he became absolutely frightening to watch later in the season, walking guys and giving up solid hits. I worry about Venters a bunch.

Venters and Kimbrel each gave up games in September that had they been played in June, would have never happened.

There were just too many holes in this team, and the prospect of going to the playoffs with this bunch was scary. I didn't think they had a chance to make it past the first round, and when the collapse began, I wondered if it wouldn't just be better for baseball that this team didn't make it anyway. They were not going to be a tough first round opponent throwing Hudson, Beachy, and Lowe against any of the playoff pitching staffs. And with this offense, even if they made it past the first round and into the NLCS, it would likely be against Philly, and Philly is way too much of a beast for Atlanta. Halladay, Lee, and Hamels would have carved this team up quickly. Another playoff loss was inevitable. Collapse or no, this team wasn't going to win the World Series.

So when the analysts and the sports pundits talk about "worst collapse" and how that's so bad that they missed the playoffs, I think it's an overblown story. Make the playoffs, not make the playoffs, this team was embarrassing for many reasons, and they were not going to be champions. Manager Fredi Gonzalez, chided by many this season and many times referred to as "Frediot," certainly wasn't going to be the balm this team needed. Just too many bone-headed mistakes. But his bad decisions were magnified mainly because of the team that was on the field. As I was saying before, good teams can overcome mistakes. When Gonzalez made one, it lost the game. When Charlie Manuel in Philly makes one, that team finds a way to blur it out.

Plus, I don't know what this idea was that Gonzalez is just like Bobby Cox. In what way? Maybe philosophy, maybe "player's manager," but not very fiery. I wished so many times he would race out of the dugout and bark at an umpire, but it looked like Gonzalez was always worried that his mom was in the stands or something and just took the "if you have nothing positive to say, then don't say anything at all," approach to leading the team.

The Braves collapse...it was inevitable. I was resigned to it about a month ago, the last time they got swept by Philly and had an 8-game lead in the Wild Card. It's not worse than Jim Leyritz in 1996 or Ed Sprague in 1992, or Kirby Puckett in 1991. It just doesn't have the same feel. I saw it coming and braced for it, and I feel a little relieved I won't have to see this team in the playoffs. Also, seeing the Rays win in the way they did, combined with the way the Red Sox lost their game, was the type of thing that made me love baseball in the first place. When I saw that, I was totally at peace that the Braves had come up short, yet again.

So Why Is the MLB and NHL Champ More Random?

I started out writing this as a comment, but I think it's a subject worthy of study and decided to make it a post.

True, true. MLB and NHL have more random champs than anyone. I wonder, though, how much of the data is skewed between the four sports depending on these factors:

1. Number of teams allowed in the playoffs.

The MLB allows 8, the NHL 16, the NBA 16, and the NFL 12.

My theory, and I would be wrong based purely on this data, is that the more teams allowed in the playoffs, the more random it gets. It wouldn't explain the NBA's higher winning percentage, and wouldn't explain the MLB's lower winning percentage.

It makes me wonder: is the NBA the sport where talent matters the most, and isn't as susceptible to randomness like the other sports?

And then I take a look at the difference between the NCAA tourney and the NBA: randomness occurs far more often, probably because it's one-and-done.

2. Number of games played in the season, skewing winning percentages.

NBA 82, NHL 82, MLB 162, NFL 16.

I think most teams can get into the playoffs with a 10-6 record in the NFL, with some exceptions being lower. 10-6 works out to .625, and even 9-7 is .562. Remember this is your usual wild-card team, so there are teams with better records. It's not uncommon to have a couple of 13-3 (.812) or 14-2 (.875) teams in the mix.

The reason I bring this up is that you don't find teams in any other sport that win more than 80% of their games. In the MLB, 80% is 129-33 (never has happened), the NBA and NHL it's 65-17, which isn't exactly common. I think we can take the NFL out of the "better winning percentage" category based on how skewed the records are due to the amount of games played. Your worst NFL playoff team has winning percentage right around the best of baseball teams.

It still doesn't explain the NBA, though. With the exact amount of games played and number of teams allowed in the playoffs as the NHL, why are those two sports so different?

Could it be that goaltending is an integral part of the NHL, and is a foul in the NBA?

I wonder how the NHL would be without a goaltender (and to the point that an NHL ref could award a goal to a team if the puck is about to go in the goal and is blocked). Your skill guys would take over, and it would be less random. Just a theory. The NBA, meanwhile, mostly allows guys to shoot towards the basket with a reasonable expectation that it won't get blocked. This allows your best shooters to do what they do best. And while shooting is not the only part of the game, and is susceptible to some randomness, I think your skill guys have a better chance to thrive in the NBA.

Meanwhile, in the MLB, there is an obvious randomness that leads a sport with only 8 teams in the playoffs to crown unworthy champs. I've always disliked the idea that in a short series, a team with two good pitchers will find a way to use those guys as often as possible (and we're in the age of the 5-man rotation), and teams get more days off in a week than they do in a week in the regular season. The playoffs are played differently, and therefore, it's mostly a different game.

NHL, same thing. Overtime games are not the same, you no longer have the shootout, and it seems like (and I don't know how to verify this quickly) more penalties are called. I still think the NHL's real reason for having more random champs is just the randomness of the sport itself. Skill guys, while having a better chance at helping their team win, are still subject to the whims of the game.

And in the NFL, this sport is famous for not calling as many penalties in the playoffs, especially the Super Bowl, and therefore the game is changed. Plus, the neutral site (which I don't favor, at all, and the MLB is mulling it over...ugh) for the Super Bowl takes away the home crowd.

So perhaps the NBA has two things going for it: the games aren't played much differently other than harder and more physical, and your skill guys have a better chance to thrive. Therefore, your better teams are going to win more often than not.

Anyone care to comment, refute, or support?

Super Bowl Thoughts, Notes, Suggestions, and WhatHaveYou

-I wrote all this at work today. Not really that much to do...

-It was like the Pats were never really into it. Brady was never under that kind of pressure this year, the Giants D looked fantastic because of it. When the Pats started to get those breaks that they always seemed to get this year, like the interception that fell into that guys hands, they wouldn't let them capitalize. I thought that was it, they were going to make it 14-3, and it never happened. Brady wasn't really on when he wasn't being pressured, with several passes thrown behind his receivers. It was strange from front to back, but it only made it a better game. We'll be talking about this for a long time.

-A theory; Billy B. took the life out of them. He was looking harder and harder throughout the year, admittedly from a distance, but a coach can do that. In the end he just looked soulless, too hard. I don't hate him for that, because you have to be a different kind of person to be an NFL coach, but I think it worked against him yesterday.

-That play that Manning made? You'll be seeing it when you're 80, over and over again.

-The Patriots cheat... and so do many other teams in the league, and quite a few players as well. And, in reality, the NFL doesn't care as long as it doesn't affect their image. That's why they destroyed the tapes, that's why they haven't investigated the Panthers using HGH before the Super Bowl a few years ago, and that's why their drug testing is a joke. Why would they do any different? The NFL as a whole is valued in the billions of dollars now, and no federal laws that they break will cost them as much as a substantial hit to their image could. There's too much money involved in sports now for it NOT to happen. And the media doesn't care, because the last thing they'd want is to kill the entertainment that so many read about in their pages. And who else is there to call them out on anything?

At this point, I think of it as a couple of notches above the WWF, but much more entertaining. I can't help but think that the NFL is going to receive its comeuppance at some point, but don't know when. I'll say it again; if there were a Mitchell report for the NFL, the league would have to shut down for a year. Doesn't that temper your enthusiasm for the league, even a bit?

-All those people surrounding the Petty stage - where do they come from? Do they just stay under the stadium in some enclosed place? Are they forced to leave the stadium when the halftime show is over? Do they watch on a big screen in some remote place? Do you get in by knowing someone, or by being attractive, or young, or what?

-I wish the half-time show weren't so long - I think it affects the players, and I'm not in favor of that.

-I'm thrilled that there is a dominant team in the NFL. For years I was afraid that there never would be another one, that every team would slowly fall to the mean, and that I'd never see another great team again. For the first ten weeks of the season, the Pats were a great team, and I was happy, even thrilled. Finally a team to compare to the 49ers and Cowboys of the 80's (for fear of my life, I kept this opinion to myself)! Yes, I want emotion in sports, and no, I don't want the same teams to win every year, but I also crave greatness, something to watch and be amazed by, something to give high praise to. And for a while we had it, and it was great fun. So maybe this salary cap thing does work, huh? The best teams have the least egos, and intelligence is desired in coaches. This is very interesting to me.

-So, in European sports, regardless of the sport, it is completely free market, and the biggest teams only get bigger as bandwagon fans become permanent; there is never a prolonged period of losing to kill them off! Soon it becomes very hard for other teams to compete. This means that, in Spain, not only are Barcelona and Real Madrid the two biggest soccer teams in the country, they are also the two biggest basketball teams in the country, by far, and could do the same in other sports if they wanted, making the Yankees dominance look pitiful. This would never fly in this country, and I'm glad for it.

-One thing I do like about European sports is promotion and relegation, where the worst teams are sent down to a lower division, and the best teams are promoted to a higher one. So, maybe that combined with a salary cap, and we could have some fantastically entertaining leagues. Oh well, I can dream, I guess.

-I like this.

-I once went undefeated in Tecmo Super Bowl using the Bucs, back when they were horrible. It was my only perfect season. I think I should be proud of that.

-Here's the thing about a mediocre team getting hot and winning the title; their goodness will be over-estimated for a long time. New York fans - and they are legion - will continue to bring them up, speaking about what a magical team they are, when they really just got hot for a couple of months, if that. Like the Bears, I bet they don't make the playoffs next year. If they were in the AFC, they wouldn't have made it in this year.

-And yes, as you may have expected me to say, please don't tell me the Giants are the best team in the NFL. They aren't. Please direct all hatred and slander towards the comments section.

SB XLII

I've got a bad feeling about this one. Watched the game with George yesterday, and I'm not thinking this is gonna be pretty. The New York media will talk themselves into it, but, man, it could get real ugly real quick. Watching the first game, even with a lifeless Pats team that seemed to be going through the motions, they still found a way to stop the Chargers every time in the red zone. They HAD to score a TD to win that game, they knew they had to, and they couldn't.

The second game seemed like just mistake after mistake, with the least worst team winning. How can that Giants team I watched yesterday put it together, especially with a Pats team that I fele will be motivated again, with two weeks of game planning and rest behind them? I feel a late 80's SB thrashing coming on again, and a sorry way to end our football for the year. Oh well.

How an NCAA Playoff System Could Work

Alright, here's my proposal. I think you take the top four teams in the BCS and give them home games. Take the next three teams and put them on the road, and throw in the top mid-major as a reward for the little guy (and a nice opening game for the top seed as well). Here would be your seeds this year:

(8)Hawaii at (1)Ohio State
(7)USC at (2)LSU
(6)Missouri at (3)Virginia Tech
(5)Georgia at (4)Oklahoma

What's not to like? You play the next rounds seeded just like March Madness, and they can be at a bowl site if you like, and would be heavily attended. Play the quarterfinals on weeknights, the semi-finals the next week, and the final at the top BCS bowl. Really, would this be so bad?

I know there are several reasons for avoiding this playoff that the teams give, but none of them seem to hold water for me; they're just excuses to avoid change. I can't help but think that this would be a great money maker. And it would keep Ohio State out of the finals, as they'd be trounced by somebody in the semis!

AFC Playoff Thoughts

-Pretty straight forward first half, with the Jags simply being a better team. And Roth-whatever not having great decision making at all.

-The pictures of Pittsburgh in HD were so great, I wanted them to just keep it there. Fantastic pictures at night, certainly looked better than that field, even if it was having a "good night".

-The Steelers had no answer for the rushing game, and did you hear the boos. Was anyone else as disturbed as I was at all the booing the fans did? I thought the Steelers fans would get behind their team, but I guess they played just that badly.

-Maybe the Jags hype is for real, huh? The Steelers looked pretty good in the second half, but they weren't the best team today.

-I was thinking the same thing as Al Michaels, that the Steelers should have kicked the extra point in their next-to-last touchdown. They were backed up to the 12 and should have kicked it though. We'd be playing overtime now.

Some NFC Playoff Thoughts

-I forget how good the Seattle crowds are for the NFL, and I guess for other sports. Do you ever really think of Seattle as a great sports town? But they delivered today, even if the team didn't. I think so much of it has to do with that stadium, which I think is fantastic, not only in appearance, but in keeping the crowd noise in.

-Why don't we study that more, how much a stadium affects a crowd? How many teams have you heard of that lost a large part of their character when they changed venues?

-Before the game I thought that there was no way Todd Collins was going to lead this team to victory. Then, it was the rest of the offense that let them down for most of the game, with several drops and no pocket protection. This really wasn't his fault.

-DVR is fantastic. I started the NFC game an hour and a half late and almost finished at the same time the game is, and early enough to pick up the AFC game live. No commercials!

-Man, did Seattle try to throw that game away or what? And then the Redskins threw it right back to them. I hate when a game is decided by bad plays. At times it seemed neither team was ready to step up and win the game. I think it points to how weak the NFC is. If the Redskins were in the AFC South, they would have won six games.

-After Santana Moss gave up on that ball that was returned for a touchdown, I wouldn't have played him in another play. Why do we put up with this from WRs? And that pretty much ended the game.

NFL Thoughts

-Everybody keeps saying the Jags are so under-rated and will sneak up on everyone. Now I think they're over-rated because of it.

-Even though I was cheering for the Titans, I don't like that the Colts didn't call time out at the end of the game. They could have forced them to punt it away at the end of the game, and maybe, just maybe, Sorgi could have completed a couple of Hail Marys. Why not give your team a chance? The football god will punish the Colts.

-I think it's unfair that a ten win team in the AFC doesn't get in, but the Redskins do. Nice story and all, but they aren't one of the twelve best teams in the league.

-Man, Kerry Collins in high def, fantastic!

-All four teams in the AFC South ended up over .500, with three in the playoffs.

-If their were a Mitchell Report on the NFL, the league would have to shut down for a year.

-Just for the heck of it, hot merging action!


-My predictions? How about this: Titans get hammered by the Chargers, Jags take the Steelers. Chargers take the Colts, as they return to their losing ways, and the Pats humble the Jags, with the Pats making the Super Bowl. I don't know as much about the NFC, but I think the Redskins get beaten in a close game by the Seahawks, and the Giants beat the Bucs... I guess. The Packers and Cowboys win their respective games, and the Pack lose to the Pats by three scores. I've largely gone with teams who are playing well.

-I predicted early in the year that the Jags would beat the Pats in the first playoff game in New England. But now the Jags are so over-hyped, I think everyone will be ready for them. If I had to pick a team to win the Super Bowl other than the Pats, I would say the Chargers, who are playing fantastically well.

-Worst case scenario? One of the lesser NFC teams make the Super Bowl and gets killed by the Pats. The hatred and anger that this would create could be seen from space.

-Hey, Arsenal's back on top of the league! I still think they win it all this season.

Baseball!

The playoffs have begun today, and despite the fact that the Braves didn't make it, I'm very excited about the postseason.

And then I turned to our old friends at The Electric Commentary, where there had been, much like our blog, a dearth of posting for awhile. But there were a few postings about baseball and sabermetrics, something I really love because it takes all the bullshit out of sports analysis. Many of the things I rail against, like momentum and experience and emotion as quantifiable factors that analysts get caught up in, are disproved regularly by sabermetrics.

The EC also pointed me to this humorous and well-thought-out site, and I think my friend Mike will enjoy this title: Fire Joe Morgan.

Just adding my two cents to The EC, who have discussed the idea that the closer (i.e., supposedly your best pitcher) should come in during the worst situations, not just when he can pad his stats with saves, there's something else in baseball that bothers me that managers don't do more often.

Charlie Manuel took out starter Adam Eaton early in game 161, when the Phillies needed to win to ensure that they would at least be tied with the Mets after game 162. They ended up losing the game, but it was the absolute right move. I've always felt when pitchers don't have it, they shouldn't be allowed to continue to pitch, no matter what your perception of the relievers are. The Mets' Willie Randolph chose not to do the same thing with Tom Glavine on the final game of the year in the 1st inning. Glavine should have been taken out as soon as he gave up 2 runs, but instead, he was only taken out after he had given up 5 (eventually 7 when all was said and done).

The relief situation in baseball needs to be addressed. I listened to many Braves games this year and Bobby Cox does this thing where, if the starting pitcher has a big lead after 7, no matter how well he's throwing, he takes the guy out and lets the relievers finish it off. To me, in a game like that, the starter should finish the game unless for some reason he just can't get anyone out. With all the talk about how the relief is used too much over a season, why use these guys in a game that has more or less been decided? Let the starter go the full 9 unless his arm is about to fall off. He's going to get 4 days rest, and you save the bullpen from extra innings.

I think I'd like to see a sabermetrics guy manage a team for once. Start with Bill James. There are some GMs I'm sure who would entertain the idea.