Schuerholz was always overrated
I’ve been on record several times now saying that John Schuerholz was secretly one of the worst GM’s in baseball for the past decade or so. I admit that this was probably somewhat of a hyperbole (after all, there were always guys like Dave Littlefield around). We can probably say now, looking back on his entire record, that he was adequate. And if people were just saying he was adequate right now, I wouldn’t be writing this post. But we are hearing things like “one of the greatest general managers ever,” and “best GM of the modern era,” so once again I have to step forward and be one of the only lone dissenting voices in the chorus of praise for Schuerholz.
I don’t deny that Schuerholz made some nice trades and signings, particularly early in his tenure with the Braves, but he also made some real clunkers, so I think we can say that on the whole, his record in those departments was pretty average. The Braves did manage to homegrow quite a bit of talent from the farm system during his watch, so he definitely deserves some credit for hiring good minor league personnel and leading some fruitful drafts, but a lot of other people had a hand in those players’ development, and he also did some really questionable things like promote his son beyond all reason.
What we have to realize is that Schuerholz benefitted from three amazing blessings early in his career that had nothing to do with his abilities as a GM - Ted Turner’s money, the once in a century coincidence of three Hall-of-Fame pitchers all falling into his lap at the same time, and the miracle work of pitching coach Leo Mazzone. As the money dried up in the late 90s, Maddux and Glavine moved on in the early 2000s, and especially after Mazzone’s departure in 2005, Schuerholz’s weaknesses as a GM were increasingly exposed.
It’s interesting to see Mazzone get fired by Baltimore a day after Schuerholz quits as GM, for the two men will always be linked in my mind. The Braves won 14 consecutive division crowns, and Schuerholz and Bobby Cox received most of the credit, but I will go to my grave thinking that Mazzone deserves more credit than the other two combined.
Under Leo Mazzone’s tutiledge, scrap-heap nobodies became decent, replacement-level mediocrities became good, good pitchers became great, and great pitchers became gods. I’ve now read three different studies that sliced the numbers different ways, and all came to the conclusion that on average, pitchers who came to the Braves reduced their ERAs by about half a run compared to how they fared before and after.
This is a huge, huge advantage, and one that I don’t see how we can give John Schuerholz much credit for. Every year for 16 years, he would let all his good free agent relievers go, and sign a bunch of nobodies off the scrap heap, and yet the Braves led the league in bullpen ERA year after year.
If Leo Mazzone helped all pitchers by an average of 0.50 off their ERAs, I think it’s safe to say that he probably helped starters a little less than that, and relievers significantly more. I mean, seriously - Kevin Grybowski? Kerry Ligtenberg? Darren Holmes? Chris Hammond? Tim Spooneybarger? Kevin McGlinchy? Mike Bielecki? These are just few examples of the no-name relievers who came to the Braves and had Mariano-Rivera-like seasons, only to suck again as soon as they went to another team. And there were a number of starters who had similar miracle seasons only to suck as soon as they left - Denny Neagle, John Burkett, and Russ Ortiz come to mind most immediately.
Somebody please tell me, how does John Schuerholz deserve credit for miraculous pitching performance after miraculous pitching performance that happened during his tenure, no matter who he signed and threw out there?
Schuerholz employed a similar strategy with position players as he did with relievers. Each year he would let all of his good free agents walk, and pretty much not replace them in any meaningful way, but the Braves would still win the division anyway. Oh sure, he would occasionally pull a trade to fill a hole, if one fell into his lap, but by and large he would just sign some scrap heap guys and sit back and wait for a Braves prospect to fill the hole eventually. This meant that hundreds and hundreds of at-bats got wasted on these fill-in guys - terrible players like Dave Gallagher, Michael Tucker, Tony Graffanino, Keith Lockhart, Gerald Williams, Brian Hunter, Bobby Bonilla, B.J. Surhoff, Rico Brogna, Robert Fick, and Vinny Castilla in his dotage.
Yes, its true, all of those terrible, terrible players I just mentioned were everyday starters for a whole season or more during the Braves’ 14 straight division championship years. Now I know that most championship teams have a player or two who is less than awesome, but these guys were truly, honestly god-awful. Go look them up - their collective average with the Braves must be something like .225. And several of them played first base! Division titles were won in spite of players like these rather than because of them.
But that’s the kind of player Braves fans could expect to see Schuerholz sign the following season after one of their All-Stars left as a free agent. That’s the kind of GM he was. And this tendency only got more pronounced as the money ran out toward the end. Schuerholz just wasn’t that creative a GM.
In fact not creative at all. It got so that in the past few years Schuerholz was so predictable in his behavior that I could call what he was going to do before he did it. Honest-to-god, I predicted he would sign Raul Mondesi to be his starting right-fielder in 2005 before he even did it. And I predicted that he would sign no relievers in 2006 and that the bullpen would fall apart without Mazzone, and it did just that. But most importantly of all, I predicted as soon as Mazzone left that the Braves run as AL East champions was over, and sure enough, it absolutely was.
The bottom line is, Schuerholz was like most other GMs. He did some things right, but he did a lot of other things wrong. He just happened to have the greatest pitching coach of our lifetime on his side, as well Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, and John Smoltz, together on one team for a decade in the prime of their Hall-of-Fame careers.
To paraphrase Danny O in one of his past rebutals to my view, “at least you have to give Schuerholz credit for being a part of a winning formula all those years.”
Well okay, yes, but “the greatest GM of the modern era”? Not even close.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Give a little love to White Sox third baseman Josh Fields. In 111 games, he hit 24 homers and had 69 RBI. Certainly not as good or impactful a rookie as Pedroia, but worthy of at least a mention.
REPORT COMMENT
October 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
You’re right. I should have mentioned Fields, though I just don’t think I could vote for a guy with a .244 avg.
Still, Fields will be an impact guy for the Sox in the future.
REPORT COMMENT
October 1st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Natty league it’s a gimmie to braun, although I wanted Josh Hamilton to have a monster 2nd half and take it.
American League I’d have to say pedroia , if Joba Chamberlin was eligible I way say him but alas he doesn’t hae enough innings so we will wait and see next year.
REPORT COMMENT
October 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Joba Chamberlain will be a favorite for 2008 ROTY, though it’ll be interesting to see how he fares if he’s moved to the starting rotation.
Hamilton was derailed by injuries and illness, but as long as he stays drug-free, he should be back strong in 2008.
I’m serious about Braun, though. I can’t wait to see where he goes in fantasy drafts next year. He’s one of those guys who A. can’t possibly live up to the expectations and B. will surely make you regret not picking him.
REPORT COMMENT
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Coley, though I pay homage to Braun’s ridiculous slugging output in my own post, I have to take issue with your selection of Braun as Rookie of the Year because he’d be great for a fantasy team. Please. The emphasis ought to be on reality teams, not fantasy teams!
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Nick,
Your reasoning is flawed my man. If Schuerholz is only average b/c his highs and lows balance one another, there is no way that Mazzone can be the greatest pitching coach of all-time. Just look at Mazzone’s last two years in Baltimore - can you say complete and utter disaster? By your own logic, Mazzone is simply not as affective w/o Schuerholz.
Mazzone and Schuerholz were both part of the winning formula in Atlanta. There’s no way to tell how they would measure up without one another in the long run…and really, that’s not the point. The idea is that they both contributed heavily to one of the most remarkable runs in sports…
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
My logic was that studies have shown that pitchers improved their ERAs on average by half a run when they came to the Braves. I choose to assign responsibility for this to Leo Mazzone rather than John Schuerholz. I think that just makes sense.
While it’s true that the Orioles had a terrible ERA this year relative to the rest of the league, that ERA was improved from the team Mazzone was handed year before. Mazzone was given complete crap, and he improved it, which is what he does. He turned Eric Bedard and Jeremy Guthrie into aces, and although Daniel Cabrera still walked over 100 batters this season - an awfully high figure - that actually represented a drastic *improvement* over his walk rate from the year before.
But anyway, since I already conceded in my post that Schuerholz was “part of a winning formula in Atlanta” and you are still objecting, I take it you think he was in fact one of the greatest GM’s of ever?
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
It just seems like you’re judging Schuerholz and Mazzone with two seperate standards. Mazzone takes trash and turns it into treasure…Chris Hammond, John Burkett, Mike Remlinger, the list goes on and on.
But Schuerholz did the exact same thing. He took a laughing-stock of a franchise and turned it into a dynasty (of sorts). I agree that Schuerholz had his highs and lows on the trading block, but a GM is more than just trades. He’s contract negotiations, operations, system implementation, etc. Schuerholz hired the right scouting personnel and a perfect manager…just by doing those two things, I don’t see how it’s feasible to argue that he’s one of the most overrated GMs of all time.
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
You say you predicted Mondesi and the Braves not winning, any proof? Or should I start a blog and write about all of the things I predict AFTER they happen?
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Wow, this is absolutely brilliant analysis. I now know those many well-respected baseball writers who’ve been singing Schuerholz’s praises must be off their rocker. Moreover, your anecdotal insights totally changed my mind about the man who presided over the Atlanta Braves since his arrival in 1991.
If your overall argument is that Schuerholz was not, in fact, “one of the greatest general managers ever,” and the “best GM of the modern era,” I wonder who deserves these lofty descriptions if not this particular GM? You make no counterargument or claim for who was better, including an example of who actually was the “best GM of the modern era.” With little support beyond the regretful Mondesi signing, you even make the claim he was “always overrated” because of his team’s failure to make the playoffs the in very recent years. Any fan who watched October baseball since ‘91 knows that Lockhart, Williams, Hunter, and Tucker (to name a few you listed) all had their key moments with the Braves.
As someone who followed a link to your website because of the provocative tagline I was hoping to read a trenchant evaluation that would actually overturn conventional wisdom regarding Schuerholz’s tenure. However, it seems someone was simply hoping to increase his site’s hit numbers rather than impress us with baseball acumen. Talk about disappointed.
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Gosh Matt, I’m so sorry my evidence is so anecdotal! Next time I’ll be sure to use only statistically rigorous evidence when evaluating GMs, things like VORGM (Value Over Replacement General Manager), and ESA (Equivalent Signings Average).
Also, I totally see your point about how it was pure genius for Schuerholz to give so many at bats to Michael Tucker (career .339 OBP), Keith Lockhart (career .319 OBP), Brian Hunter (.298 OBP), Gerald Williams (.301 OBP), because of all those “key moments” they had in all those World Series the Braves never got to and/or didn’t win.
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Zvee, I’m not saying that John Schuerholz had nothing at all to do with the Braves’ sucesses, or that he was “one of the most overrated GMs of all time” as you characterize it.
I’m just saying that he *is* overrated to some extent.
I think it’s common for people who are one part of a winning formula to be overrated by the media in its constant quest for greatest/worst binaries. It definitely possible to do many things right yet still be overrated.
Some other people whose relative contributions have traditionally been overrated in a similar way include: Bobby Cox, Joe Torre, Derek Jeter, Jason Varitek.
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Claiming that the GM does not deserve credit for all the successes that the Braves have had in bringing in great players from its own farm system is ridiculous. Who else would you give that credit to? Any other GM you would like to put up above Schuerholz as a better GM over the past 2 decades would have to be judged entirely without taking their team’s farm system into play. That’s just bad analysis…
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Schuerholz took over a franchise that was absolutely woeful and presided over it’s transformation into a perennial division champion. The fact that he allowed free agents to leave and replaced them with less than average players without losing ground in his division only bolsters the argument for his excellence. Greg Maddux for one didn’t “fall in his lap,” he was a free agent that Schuerholz targeted and landed over franchises in New York and Chicago, where Maddux could have earned more money. Mazzone certainly didn’t make Maddux great. You did not mention even one player that he let leave that went on to greatness elsewhere and was seen as a regrettable loss in hindsight. Many GMs have rebuilt their teams through their farm system but not been able to bring in sub-par free agents that keep them competitive until their own prospects mature. His timing seemed to be impecable as to when to let a guy loose and replace him with an unproven minor leaguer who then went on to be great. Please remember also that you don’t know if those prospects will pan out or not until you take the risk to play them. Time and time again Schuerholz was able to evaluate his own talent major and minor league as well as free agents to piece together a winning ball club. You can call him great or over-rated but the ultimate measurement of his success is the 14 consecutive division championships. He consistently gave his manager and coaches, players that were able to execute for them. Schuerholz was in fact the architect of a great organization.
REPORT COMMENT
October 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Nick, what I think you should remember, and why much of your argument is anecdotal, is the role Scheurholz played in the organization when judging the impact he has had on the Atlanta Braves during his tenure. When I sat in Atlanta-Fulton County stadium in the mid-to-late 1980s, usually with 4000 or so of my best friends, I watched a team that clarity on exactly what was worse - the formidably atrocious lineup or the completely incompetent front office.
Before I explain the absolute horror of being a Braves fan in that era, I want to explain the earlier mention of those largely forgotten players. Put simply, those players were temps. When Schuerholz had to find creative ways to fill lineup spots to ensure he could pay he could pay market value to the team’s all stars (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, the Joneses, etc.) he did the best he could with what was available. Were any of the players mentioned doing anything but drawing fairly low salaries and filling in the lineup card? That is why their key moments were so important, not their OBPs.
When you consider what Schuerholz has done in the last five years you could still argue he was among the best general managers, if not the very best, in baseball. What did he give up in the Renteria, Diaz, and Hudson deals? The Teixeira deal was masterful, even if he does not resign. The farm system continues to produce excellent players and remains well-stocked. If, over a seventeen year career, a player has 3,000 hits and a lifetime BA of .350 his hall of fame credentials are undoubted. Schuerholz’s farm system, drafts, and trades surely merit that type of BA, particularly when you take post-Ted Turner budget issues into the equation. Moreover, 14 straight division titles (with the now minor exception of ‘94) are easily equivalent to 3,000.
More importantly, any Atlanta fan who endured the 70s and 80s, as I did, will appreciate the change Schuerholz had on the organization. When the Braves of today are called the “gold standard” of baseball it amuses me to no end to remember the Braves of old. As such, a general manager does much more than approve trades, sign free agents, or find temporary players to fill lineup spots. It is in this arena where Schuerholz’s credentials are unassailable, and this is why your argument is anecdotal and marked by poor analysis. It is also quite telling your response did not answer my primary question - if Schuerholz cannot be called the current era’s best then who could? If you do respond again, please include the names and why they’re better than the “always overrated” Schuerholz. Thanks for the lively debate, and please include some numbers from VORGM and ESA.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 1:48 am
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, because I don’t really follow the Braves at all.
But I will say that division championships are not the ultimate measure of success, folks. World Series rings are. This is especially true because for the past fifteen years, the competition in the NL East was pretty slim. The Mets are good now, and the Phillies always have a few bright years sprinkled in amongst the darkness, but it’s not like the Braves were racking up those division wins in anything like a tough division.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 1:51 am
“The ultimate measurement of his success is the 14 consecutive division championships.”
No, melissa, the “ultimate measure of success” in baseball is actually not division championships. It is World Series titles.
Schuerholz did well to win all those division titles, but only one World Series title out of 14 trips to the postseason in a row is a pretty poor showing.
If he’d assembled teams that were a bit stronger, he would have done better in the postseason. John Schuerholz certainly did not by any means achieve “ultimate success” as Braves GM.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Okay, sure Matt. A few GMs off the top of my head from this era I think probably would have done a better job if they had been Braves GM during the Schuerholz years - Walt Jockety, Terry Ryan, Dave Dombrowski, Pat Gillick, Kevin Towers, Brian Cashman, Billy Beane. These kinds of guys didn’t just adequately manage the farm system and compile a hit and miss record of occasional trades and signings - they creatively built and rebuilt franchises with daring and judicious moves.
And people keep talking about how John Schuerholz turned the woeful 1980s Braves around. But John Schuerholz didn’t do that. BOBBY COX did that. John Schuerholz took over when the franchise was already turned around. He was a caretaker GM, and he did an very adequate job of caretaking, at least until the end when it was actually time do do some rebuilding of his own.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Okay, name a significant Braves Free Agent signing, since 97. You don’t have one guys. Mike Hampton trade anyone?
He did great in the drafts, which is his job. He wasn’t much of a free agency guy, and thanks to NY and Boston, most teams aren’t.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Joshua. How soon we forget! Cast your mind back to 1997. Totally different landscape in baseball. The Sox were not yet evil hegemons vying in cruel bidding wars with the similarly deep-pocketed Yankees. In fact, in 97, the Yankees weren’t so much the evil hegemons that they are today, either. Sure, their payroll of $59 million was still first in baseball, but the rest of the teams weren’t too far behind. The Red Sox were 12th at 43 million. And the Braves were fifth at 50.5 million.
In fact, it wasn’t until 2001 that the Red Sox spent more money on payroll than the Braves did, and even then, the Braves were ranked sixth overall in spending—-ie, they were hardly going begging. In the interim, the Braves were always in the top 5 in payroll, which certainly ought to be good enough to get anyone into the playoffs.
In fact, in 2002, the Braves surged up to the three-spot again, Boston falling to 8th. New York was second that year, to the Orioles (who had also outspent New York in ‘98). In ‘03, the Braves were again third in spending after the Yankees and the Mets (Boston was 6th). It was only in ‘04, the year that the Red Sox won the World Series, that the team cemented its position as second-richest team in baseball, spending 127 million that year to the Yankees’ 184 million. The Braves ranked 8th in spending in 04 and 10th in ‘05. As you might recall, 2005 was the year that New York’s payroll broke the $200 million-mark. The Red Sox were still second, despite trimming some payroll. In 06, the Braves ranked 9th. This year, they’re 15th.
But the real problem for Braves fans is not the spending spree in the AL East. The real problem for Braves fans is that in three of the past four years, both the Phillies and the Mets have outspent them. It seems clear that higher-spending direct competitors would more directly affect a team’s chances of getting into the playoffs. After all, spending money does increase a team’s chances of making the playoffs. Once in the postseason, however, it becomes more of a crapshoot. Thus, if the Braves organization was willing to outspend Philly or the Mets, they’d have a much better chance of seeing postseason action and as good a chance of any at winning the World Series.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Cashman and Gillick are better GMs than Schuerholz????????
Ugh, I can’t even speak right now.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Zvee, as a Braves fan, can you honestly say you are happy with Schuerholz’s performance as GM the past 10 years or so?
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I am completely disgusted by this argument. Many people don’t even know that Schuerholz pulled off a trade for Barry Bonds, until Leyland found out and forced Pittsburgh to take it back. He signed the right guys for every job, and never overpaid. So Mondesi wasn’t great? he paid 1 million dollars for him. It was nothing. Might I add that Mondesi had lots of family problems emerge as the season started.
Any Braves writer will tell you the everlasting impact Schuerholz has on the industry.
Brian Cashman will never be considered a good or great GM until he isnt given an unlimited payroll.
He has made his assistant GM’s known, and now that Schuerholz is ready to slow down, Dayton Moore left for KC where he has already made a big impact, and Frank Wren is now the GM of the best NL team of the 90’s.
Whats wrong with John signing the lower impact players, that are apparently garbage because they have low OBP? Tell me what he didn’t do to deserve the recognition he gets.
You are the only person I have ever heard to speak against Schuerholz. I feel you are only supporting this argument because you are against his philosophy of makeup. You are a moneyball guy, everything is based on stats. Considering none of your arguments are based on makeup.
He brought up 17 rookies in 2005 and still won a division title. This year the team fell short, only because they were lacking a 5th starter, but Schuerholz did everything in his power to help the team.
Injuries have plagued the team as well, had Hampton been healthy this year, the Braves would have won the division.
Look at Buddy Carlyle, the previous holder of the longest time since last win for an active pitcher. He hadn’t won a game since the mid to late 90’s! Schuerholz brought him in, got 8 wins for a reviving team.
Schuerholz has continued to judge talent perfectly. He will let players go just as he expects their downfall. Example: Ryan Klesko. Look at that trade, it was amazing.
He had one of the greatest outfields in this history of baseball with Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones, and Gary Sheffield.
He got Andruw to sign a deal behind Boras’ back so that way he could remain in Atlanta. He did everything in his power to make the 1990’s Atlanta Braves, one of the best franchises ever.
So he didn’t win many world championships, but in fact, he made it to 5 World Series in 10 years. And since then, his payroll has decreased dramatically, and that is completely out of his hands.
He has been nothing but helpful to a once pitiful Atlanta franchise.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Nick,
Yes, I can easily say that I am COMPLETELY satisfied w/ Schuerholz’s entire tenure in Atlanta.
Kevin,
If you haven’t done so already, read “Scout’s Honor” by Bill Shanks…a good book about the Braves’ focus on “makeup”. It’s the anti-Moneyball.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I live off of Scout’s Honor. Bill and I talk regularly about the Braves through e-mail.
I just wanted to point out one other quick thing, the article is titled Schuerholz was always overrated. He wasnt always overrated, it was until the last 5 years once the team started getting into the double digits and losing their trio of pitchers that people really talked about John a lot. He never was overrated, just talked about a lot.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Nick, thank you for answering my question on who could be considered the best modern general manager. Oh, wait, you didn’t answer that question! Instead, you told us who could have done a better job had they been the GM of the Atlanta Braves instead of Schuerholz.
I always enjoy it when someone attempts to answer a question with a counterfactual. Ah, what better way to respond to me than with a point that cannot be proven! You truly skewered the Schuerholz supporters with that one. I’m not going to restate my entire argument (it’s all above, including cool typos!), but it’s quite clear, even with the mistakes Schuerholz has made, that no other GM has come close to his sustained level of excellence over the period.
Yes, all the names you listed are certainly going straight to the Hall of Fame. Let’s see, Dumbrowski, Towers, Jockety, Ryan, Gillick, Cashman, Beane. As Dr. Evil would say, riiggghhhtttttt…. At the very least, most casual fans know Cashman and Beane, they’re probably better. Are those the two examples you want to use? Well, they would certainly lose some of luster if they were put under the same microscope you’re using on John S. Cashman is simply the tool The Boss uses to run the Yankees, and his record of drafting, trades, and free agent signings has been nothing to get very excited about. Beane should be given credit for the impact he has had upon the Athletics organization, and perhaps baseball in general, but when viewed through your bounded lens of trades, contracts, draft, free agents, etc., Beane has had significant failures.
I’ve said my peace, and anything further would be pointless because I think you may simply be trying to goad me. Keep up the false logic - I’m sure FOX will have a job waiting for you.
REPORT COMMENT
October 14th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Actually Matt, though it pains me to say this, I think Cashman is actually pretty good. I think this gets overlooked because he has absolutely no financial constraints. But the Yankees almost never make a mistake in a trade, and you can’t give credit for that to Steinbrenner.
Plus, I think Nick was honestly trying to answer your question. UmpBump isn’t a rant n’ rave-type blog where people try to “goad” others and have pointless smackdown-type arguments. We just all really like baseball.
It seems there was also some confusion from the commentors on this post about whether we were talking about the best GM “in the modern era” or “in the current era.” Obviously, none of the names we’re bandying about right now are the best “in the modern era,” which is the phrase that Nick was objecting to in the original post, the rather mild point of which seems to have gotten lost.
REPORT COMMENT
October 15th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Just admit it. This article is false.
REPORT COMMENT
October 15th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Kevin, it’s impossible for this post to be “true” or “false.” It’s my opinion, and opinions can’t be true or false.
But feel free to disagree, as you clearly do.
REPORT COMMENT
October 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I just want to clarify my point that Atlanta’s 14 division titles are the proof of Schuerholz’s success not the “ultimate measure of success” in general. Obviously the ultimate goal of an organization is to win the World Series, which the Braves did accomplish. If a general manager consistently puts together a division champion his team will have a chance to win the World Series. The best team in a division normally wins over 162 games, the best team doesn’t always win in a playoff format. I believe that success in the playoffs is more dependent on the performance of the players and the coaching staff than the GM. You may say that other GMs are superior but they weren’t able to lose free agents and rebuild and still win division titles. Beane and Ryan have rebuilt but their teams didn’t win 14 divisional titles in the process and no one has had more room for error than Cashman. I’m still waiting to hear which players he let go that cost his franchise.
REPORT COMMENT
October 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Melissa, thanks for clarifying. I will let Nick answer the part of your question about the players that the Braves let go. But I will try to address the other points that you raised.
You make a good point about the somewhat random capricious nature of winning in the playoffs. Thus, Schuerholz’s “average” of 1 World Series win per 17 seasons as Braves GM is a rather dismal .058. Yet, when you look at the total number of times the Braves made it to the series, his performance as GM looks better—five total trips to the series out of 17 season is a much better .294. So clearly, his legacy as a GM should reflect the total number of times the Braves went to the World Series, not just their one win. I think it’s clear that five trips to the Series is a major accomplishment.
Nonetheless, when assigning credit for that accomplishment, you do have to take into account the contributions of Bobby Cox and the coaching staff, which is what Nick’s main point was. This is a rather crude comparison, but if you look at Schuerholz’s record with the Royals, it’s not nearly as good as his record with the Braves—two divisional titles in 9 years, and one World Series win. (One-for-nine is an average of .111.) Clearly, Schuerholz does not look like some brilliant clairvoyant when working with different staff. And, to go back to my point in a previous comment, he looks like less of a golden boy when in a less forgiving division than the NL East in the 1990s and early 2000s. So yeah, Schuerholz was a good GM, but he wasn’t a genius with a crystal ball, which is how nearly every media outlet has been portraying him since he announced his resignation. He was a good GM, and a great eye for talent, who had great people around him.
And re: Cashman, I think he actually has very little room for error, what with the New York media breathing down his neck and Steinbrenner’s notoriously short leash/quick hook. He has a significant cushion of money to play with, meaning that he is better able to move past any error that he makes. But…he really just doesn’t make that many mistakes in the first place. If he did, he’d be outtah theah.
REPORT COMMENT
October 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Wow, great discussion.
Nick and I have already exchanged our viewpoints on the subject of John Schuerholz’s GM abilities, so I won’t beat a dead horse. I’ll just sum it up by saying I respectfully disagree with him. (If Nick ever wants to write a contrarian book about Schuerholz I’m sure it’ll generate a lot of press.)
I want to address a couple of things that were brought up by JoshuaPerry:
Who did the Braves let go for Mike Hampton? Why it was the always deadly Tim Spooneybarger (now out of the majors) and a minor leaguer who has never made it to The Show. Braves got Mike Hampton and a bunch of cash. A whole lot of it. (I think Colorado is still paying a big chunk of his salary.) Yes, Hampton has been injured the last two years, but while he’s been healthy he’s gone 32-20 for the Braves and his Atlanta ERA is somewhere south of the number 4. I’d say that was a good deal for the Braves. (I wanted to include it as well as many other transactions in my retrospective post on Schuerholz but I didn’t want it to be too long.)
Successful free agent signings since 1997? There aren’t that many (purse strings were set to “tight”) How bout:
November, 1998: Signed Brian Jordan, who went on to have a career year in 1999.
Aside from that, there’s not much. John Thomson had a good year right after he signed, but followed it up with two injury-riddled years. The Braves have re-signed a number of players in the past ten years, and have certainly made some deals for some big name guys (Hudson, Sheffield, for examples).
REPORT COMMENT
October 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Key paragraph:
“Schuerholz employed a similar strategy with position players as he did with relievers. Each year he would let all of his good free agents walk, and pretty much not replace them in any meaningful way, but the Braves would still win the division anyway. Oh sure, he would occasionally pull a trade to fill a hole, if one fell into his lap, but by and large he would just sign some scrap heap guys and sit back and wait for a Braves prospect to fill the hole eventually. This meant that hundreds and hundreds of at-bats got wasted on these fill-in guys - terrible players like Dave Gallagher, Michael Tucker, Tony Graffanino, Keith Lockhart, Gerald Williams, Brian Hunter, Bobby Bonilla, B.J. Surhoff, Rico Brogna, Robert Fick, and Vinny Castilla in his dotage.”
And 14 consecutive division titles. Wow. He’s even smarter than I thought he was. He didn’t have the money to spend on 8 All-Star position players so he did what he could with what he had. That’s what made him great.
And don’t forget - he brought in Maddux via free agency which, put together with Glavine and Smoltz (home grown talent, led to a majority of those titles.
REPORT COMMENT