Bobby Cox a Bad Playoff Manager?

[OaktownTribeFan]

The Braves are coming on strong lately, despite so many key injuries. As everyone here is no doubt aware, they are good at getting to the playoffs, but when it comes to getting to and winning the WS, they're not so good. Why? Is it Cox's managerial style?

I believe that there must be something fundamentally wrong with his approach, because they've only been successful once.

[JamesI]

I'd place it on two things

1) luck
2) the Yankee dynasty.

[OaktownTribeFan]

We often hear that it's "luck" that wins in the playoffs. But that doesn't explain why the Yankees have had most of the luck, and the Braves almost none. Good teams usually make their own breaks.

Cox has now managed teams to 12 first place finishes and just one WS victory. So that's just bad luck and the Yankees' dominance? I don't think so. Got to be more to it than that.

[LeGrandOrange]

He might have the worst success of playoff managers but even John McGraw was a terrible playoff manager (3-8 in the Series) and I don't think it hurts his reputation much.

Point is whether Coxy is or isn't one, it doesn't matter either way because it isn't going to dramatically hurt his reputation as a good manager. Or at least I think so. Your mileage may vary.

[BravesWin!]

Oh so many comments and such little time to make them...
In a nutshell, Bobby Cox is not the greatest postseason manager of all time. He's not great, but he's certainly not bad...The problem is that the Braves teams he has Managed (and the 85 Blue Jays to an extent) were/are built for the long haul. These Braves Teams were built to win over 162 games and then essentially take their chances in the postseason. Whether or not you feel this is wise is not the point of this thread...To answer the original question I think that he is a solid postseason manager...people forget, despite he's lackluster record in the World Series, YOU GOTTA GET THERE TO LOSE!! And you dont just have to win your league (now division) but there are two stupid rounds of playoffs (again another argument id be happy to make...just needs to be saved for another day) before you can even get to the World Series...so considering the type of teams he has managed (built for the long haul- 4 solid SP, consistant hitting; not a overwhelming 1-2 SP punch and a lot of .260 40 HR men; i.e. a short haul team) I would say he's a better than average post season manager...

-andrew

[satchel]

Andrew, in what way have the Braves been built for the long-haul? I would have thought that a team built around top-notch pitching above all-else would be just what one would consider a team built for short series with rest in between.

I agree with you about everything else. The Braves' postseason record is not all that bad. In most years when they have failed to advance in the playoffs, they have not been favorites (usually due to a realtively weak offense). Where they've lost the World Series, Andrew is correct to point out that they have gotten there by getting through two rounds of competition (except 1991) rather than just one.

In 1996 they were taken by surprise by a scrappy Yankees team that didn't give up after going 0-2 in dramatic fashion. In 1999, they were steamrolled by a Yankees team that was still in "juggernaut" mode. The Yankees stomped everyone in the playoffs that season - 11-1!

My rambly point is, I can't really see laying the blame for this on Bobby Cox. What could he have done differently?

[TimmyB]

It's hard to find fault with Bobby Cox for:
1991 -- Since I was just a bit too young to remember the '75 series, this is the greatest World Series I've ever seen (to the extent that I could make it past midnight only so many times during the workweek for the extra-innings games). Losing Game 7 in extra frames can't be held against him. Further, Cox couldn't run the bases for Lonnie Smith (and I'm not laying this all at Smith's feet, either).

1999 -- Who was gonna beat the Yankees? The '27 Yankees, maybe?

For many of the other years, you have to look at their starting pitching. Glavine and Maddux have not had stellar post-season careers -- they've been average, at best. (And this is really a topic for a different thread.) I have a hard time saying this is the result of some mis-doing by Cox.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Let's look at the '96 WS. The Braves were had a better record than the Yanks and had the best pitching in baseball. As usual, the hitting was just okay -- something that has always been a trademark of Cox's Braves.

The Braves won games 1 and 2 in NY 12-1 and 4-0 behind Smoltz and Maddux. The Yanks took games 3 and 4 in Atlanta, 5-2 and 8-6.

Game 5 in Atlanta was a classic pitching duel, Pettitte edging Smoltz 1-0. Game 6 was similar, with Key besting Maddux 3-2.

The Yanks had good pitching in '96 and the Braves had good-to-great pitching. The difference is that the Yanks had good hitting and the Braves' hitting was just average.

The old saw is that great pitching will stop great hitting when it counts. Maybe so, but what really happens IMO is that most of the time either the hitting or the pitching isn't that great, merely very good.

The Braves have shown that very good pitching will usually stop very good hitting, but that average hitting will be stopped by very good pitching on a regular basis -- and that's what Cox's teams in Atlanta have ALWAYS had: very good pitching and just average hitting. It works in the long-haul since Cox is probably the best manager ever at keeping his pitching healthy. But in the short series against good pitching, his team's hitting flaws are magnified.

[SmedIndy]

I can't think of a time where it was Cox's fault the Braves lost.

[BravesWin!]

Originally posted by satchel
Andrew, in what way have the Braves been built for the long-haul? I would have thought that a team built around top-notch pitching above all-else would be just what one would consider a team built for short series with rest in between.

To me, and yall a free to disagree, the 2001-2002 Diamondbacks are the example of a team built for the short haul. How many times did you hear "Arizona is the team to avoid in a short series...having to face Johnson/Schilling 4 times in a 5 game series could be murder for (insert team here)" A short haul team has 1-2 totally dominant overwhelming SP's but its 3-4-5 is very average at best. It has some big boppers in the lineup and doesnt hit for a ton of average...the kind of team that in a short series (when things dont always even out like they do over 162 games) can get hot and can be nearly unbeatable...(the braves experienced this first hand in the 2001 national league championship series).
A long haul team is what the Braves have been over the past 13 years...The Starting Pitching is good, very good, and even great at sometimes (see Maddux 95) and the Rotation goes 4 if not 5 deep, and the difference between say #4 and #2 isn't too great (see 96 Braves, for example...Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Neagle...Neagle was #4 starter and won 20 games). The team isn't great offenseivly, but gets it done. Over the long 162 games the team scores...enough. They can get you 4 runs a night as well as some timely, but you gotta have the pitching hold up. And over 162 games, its the pitching you need to be successful, not the hitting. Its pitching, defense and timely hitting...
And I think that this is what Bobby Cox manages to sucha successfl rate...He knows how to manage the Braves over the 162 games eason and is great at he does...The Braves play for the long haul, and then throw the dice in the short haul, which to me, makes sense b/c i consider the post season to a joke and crapshoot (again, another discussion for another thread on another day) to begin with...

-andrew

[BravesWin!]

Originally posted by TimmyB


For many of the other years, you have to look at their starting pitching. Glavine and Maddux have not had stellar post-season careers -- they've been average, at best.


This is a perception that really bothers me....

Maddux: 3 World Series (95, 96, 99): 2-3, 5 GS, 2.09 ERA 38.7 IP, 6 BB, 18 K
Maddux Career Post Seaso: 11-13, 30 GS, 3.23 ERA, 184 IP, 47 BB, 121 K...

Glavine: 5 World Series (91, 92, 95, 96, 99) 4-3, 2.16 ERA, 58.3 IP, 20 BB, 28 K
Glavine Career Post Season: 12-15, 3.44 ERA, 201.3 IP, 80 BB, 137 K

Smoltz 5 World Series: (91, 92, 95, 96, 99) 2-2, 8 GS, ERA, 50.7 IP, 21 BB, 52 K
Smoltz Post Season: 12-4, 35 GS, 2.72 ERA, 191.7 IP, 64 BB, 166 K

These are VERY GOOD numbers....its a misconception that these guys have not been good post season pitchers....For some reason, that rumor started around 96 or 97 and it just all of a sudden became a fact, although i have no idea why...

-andrew

[KCBOOMER]

I've never thought much of Bobby Cox as a game manager since I watched Dick Howser run rings around him in the 1985 playoffs. Cox's '85 Blue Jays were much better than the Royals and yet Howser always seemed to get the best of the matchups.

Cox is magnificent at judging talent and getting all the horses to pull together. He's not so good at putting the right horses in the race.

[poorme]

in my fantasies the white sox have a manager as bad as cox.

[SmedIndy]

Boom - I was going to add that, but I think Cox has learned since then. The Braves have been devoid of platooning to the nth degree as he did in Toronto, and he doesn't seem to be "push button".

[sweaver]

I think Cox gets a share of the blame. Playing Lockhart at 2B last year, along with Castilla at 3B, after their poor seasons, is hard to defend.

Some managers are good at managing over the highs and lows of the regular season, resting the regulars, balancing the pitching staff. Others are better at the short series, getting the most out of the top pitchers, getting the right pinch-hitter to the plate at the right time, and just having the right guys on the bench to use for certain situations.

Cox is good at the people-managing skills that do well over the course of a season, but not as skilled at the strategic moves of more use in the postseason.

Of course, Bob Brenly won a World Series, so who knows?

[samclyatt]

Watching the Braves almost nightly for the past twelve years, I think I have learned a great deal about their incredible self-confidence in their pitching and in their ability to come from behind to win in so many ways.

This self-confidence, or whatever you want to call it (some would call it arrogance), sometimes becomes a downfall when they come up against teams which are equally self-confident and just as capable as they are--such as the Yankees and D'Backs, to name a couple of instances.

If Cox does have a major flaw as a manager, it is his inability (or unwillingness) to be a motivator out of that self-confidence or arrogance. They just expect to win. That is different from "refusing to lose." By the time they realize they are in trouble, it is too late.

Does that make sense to anyone?

A second major flaw, if it can be called a flaw, is his continued inability or unwillingness to "cut the strings" with guys who have bailed the team out in the past--he stays with them too long sometimes. Loyalty is a great quality, but sometimes it bites you, at least in the win/loss column. A prime example would be Lockhart for two seasons too long.

[RichG]

Originally posted by samclyatt


A second major flaw, if it can be called a flaw, is his continued inability or unwillingness to "cut the strings" with guys who have bailed the team out in the past--he stays with them too long sometimes. Loyalty is a great quality, but sometimes it bites you, at least in the win/loss column. A prime example would be Lockhart for two seasons too long.

I agree with the part about failing to cut the strings when there's some promising alternatives (Giles, DeRosa) available but on the other hand it's the exact opposite of his willingness to try out an unproven player like Furcal or Andruw Jones.

The Loyalty / Try something methods would seem to be at odds but I give Cox credit that his "Try something new" seems to be more productive than the loyalty method.

[gyb13]

Cox's record won-loss (series won-loss):
ALCS 3-4 (0-1)
NLDS 20-8 (6-2)
NLCS 27-27 (5-4)
WS 11-18 (1-4)
Total 61-57 (12-11)

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Originally posted by gyb13
Cox's record won-loss (series won-loss):
ALCS 3-4 (0-1)
NLDS 20-8 (6-2)
NLCS 27-27 (5-4)
WS 11-18 (1-4)
Total 61-57 (12-11)

Exactly. All it proves is two things:

1) The extra layers of playoffs makes it harder for ANYONE to win it all.

2) Having two great playoff pitchers sometimes isn't enough -- you have to have some hitting too.

Let's see how the D'Backs do this fall.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
Exactly. All it proves is two things:

1) The extra layers of playoffs makes it harder for ANYONE to win it all.

2) Having two great playoff pitchers sometimes isn't enough -- you have to have some hitting too.

Let's see how the D'Backs do this fall.

1) very true

2) The best pitching in the world will not make up for a bad bunch of bats (which other than Chipper was what Cox had a lot of the time)

3) The DBacks aren't going to make the playoffs this year

[OaktownTribeFan]

Let's see how the D'Backs do this fall.

Ytown, I got a hunch they'll be doing the same thing as our Indians--a lot of hunting, a lot of fishing, and a lot of looking forward to 2004.

[tortured angel]

I'd place more blame on the GM than on Cox because their bench and bullpen have never matched thier WS opponents. Plus three instances I remember that were crucial.

In '91 Cox had to bring in Charlie Liebrandt to face Puckett and Puckett took him deep. Game 6 I believe.

In '92 Leibrandt vs Winfield where Winfield doubled home 2 runs.

In '96 Wohlers decided to hang a slider to Leyritz when the Braves had a chance to put the series out of reach.

The Braves never seemed to be able to bring in anyone late in the game to gain any type of advantage.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Originally posted by tortured angel
The Braves never seemed to be able to bring in anyone late in the game to gain any type of advantage.

If the Braves win it all this year, the decision to make an Eckersley out of Smoltz will be the key.

I'm betting right now that they do; that the Braves win it all this year.

[OaktownTribeFan]

So far, the Giants are proving to be better than the Braves.
The only thing that might hinder the bunch from SF is their bullpen.

[SmedIndy]

Still way early - I don't think the Phils have ceded the division to the Braves yet.

[gyb13]

how much is the decision of taking 3 catchers to the playoffs cox's?

[pathogan]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Still way early - I don't think the Phils have ceded the division to the Braves yet. :p

[pwdennis]

I think that what the Braves lack of post season success suggests is that depth of starting pitching, crucially important during the regular season , isn't of much value during play off since every team goes to basically a three man rotation

[qtlaw]

Until Smoltz showed up, the Braves never had a great reliver/closer. The best they had was Alejandro Pena in '92? Another problem was the lack of offense, the Braves have never had a couple of big sticks together until Sheffield last year. Chipper has been clutch but there's been nobody to back him up. Andruw is not the answer. Gant/Justice was fine for 80 rbis but not going to take you over the top. Pendleton had one great year. From 91-95, the Braves seemed to win with Otis Nixon and Lemke, who else could win with that? Don't blame Cox.

[SmedIndy]

QT - I refuse to believe the lack of a "closer" held the Braves back.

[OaktownTribeFan]

QT, I agree with SmedIndy. The Braves had a quality closer, a big stick in the form of Sheffield , and the usual good starting pitchers in the 2002 playoffs, but they still couldn't get the job done.

It's kind of interesting that most everyone here gives a pass to Cox. IMO, he's not known for solid strategy & tactcis, and must bear some of the responsibility for the Braves' lack of success in the postseason.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
QT - I refuse to believe the lack of a "closer" held the Braves back.

I quite agree - to me the problem was basically the poor OBA of the leadoff and #2 hitters. Most years it was rather poor, other years it was putrid