beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,727
- Liked Posts:
- 3,724
So, i was watching a video talking about whether or not you can blame bobby cox for his failure to win more titles and in the video they brought up a fairly natural comparison to the yankees of the late 90s. The point being made was the two teams built differently. And it sparked something in my mind because in a lot of ways I feel like this is an issue some fans have with the cubs. That is to say I feel like they devote resources in a similar fashion to the 90's braves. Those braves teams spent heavy on pitching but ignored their bullpen and had pretty good defensively sound offenses. It's not an exact 1:1 match with the current cubs group but I don't think it's a stretch to see the similarities. By contrast, the 90's yankees team were mostly good bats with iffy defense and they had more emphasis put on their bullpen. Ultimately there's never going to be a team that can have everything. You have to cut corners some where. And honestly that's where I find this debate intriguing.
Before I go further I think it's worth pointing out the Yankees also had huge advantages current teams don't in that back then you could effectively buy better draft picks and IFAs. So, just saying look at who "won more championships" I don't think is fair. In fact, it might be better comparing the 2010-present yankees given they are also built off a dominant bullpen(50.2 fwar 2010-2018 where #2 team has 36.1).
With that being said, where I find this interesting is the question of how you value a bullpen. The absolute strength of the 90's braves teams were that while they did have an iffy bullpen, skimping there meant they consistently had one of the best overall teams for nearly 15 years. And subsequently that meant they were in the playoffs for all of those seasons. The obvious downside there is that often their bullpen let them down in the playoffs. Conversely, the yankees probably have been a better team in the playoffs with their approach but aren't as good in the regular season and if we're using the 2010-present example, they've missed the playoffs several years.
I'm not sure there is a "right" answer here because if there were all teams would do it and then it frankly probably wouldn't be the "right" answer because of game theory. And having said that, given the recent move of teams stacking bullpens there likely is some value going the other way. I guess I'm just curious how other people feel. As a hypothetical what if here, would you rather be a team that makes the playoffs 6 out of 9 years but is built better to win playoff series or would you rather be a team that makes the playoffs 9 straight years and only comes away with one championship?
Before I go further I think it's worth pointing out the Yankees also had huge advantages current teams don't in that back then you could effectively buy better draft picks and IFAs. So, just saying look at who "won more championships" I don't think is fair. In fact, it might be better comparing the 2010-present yankees given they are also built off a dominant bullpen(50.2 fwar 2010-2018 where #2 team has 36.1).
With that being said, where I find this interesting is the question of how you value a bullpen. The absolute strength of the 90's braves teams were that while they did have an iffy bullpen, skimping there meant they consistently had one of the best overall teams for nearly 15 years. And subsequently that meant they were in the playoffs for all of those seasons. The obvious downside there is that often their bullpen let them down in the playoffs. Conversely, the yankees probably have been a better team in the playoffs with their approach but aren't as good in the regular season and if we're using the 2010-present example, they've missed the playoffs several years.
I'm not sure there is a "right" answer here because if there were all teams would do it and then it frankly probably wouldn't be the "right" answer because of game theory. And having said that, given the recent move of teams stacking bullpens there likely is some value going the other way. I guess I'm just curious how other people feel. As a hypothetical what if here, would you rather be a team that makes the playoffs 6 out of 9 years but is built better to win playoff series or would you rather be a team that makes the playoffs 9 straight years and only comes away with one championship?