I began my life as a Braves in 1968, my first year in little league. Our team was named the Braves. I lived in Iowa until December of last year. When I was young, I would listen to the Braves on 750 WSB in Atlanta and 650 WSN in Nashville. Then the Braves got on WTBS. In short, those were the years I loved the Braves. In fact, while working in radio in 1990, the year before the Braves won the N.L. pennant, I predicted the Braves would be the team of the '90's, which they were in the N.L. But after all the success, I'm just like alot Braves fans, you watch the games in October. But this year, with all the young players it's more exciting. Winning 14 straight division titles is a great accomplishment. It won't rank up there with the Yankees winning the World Series so often, and it shouldn't. It also won't rank up there with the N.F.L.
dynasties and not like the Celtics, Bulls or Lakers, but I'm sure the Braves are envied by many major league front offices, coaches, players and fans.
dynasties and not like the Celtics, Bulls or Lakers, but I'm sure the Braves are envied by many major league front offices, coaches, players and fans.
Just a few more facts of why Cox is not a great manager. There is a direct correlation between wins and payroll. From 1998 - 2002 the teams with the highest 1/4 in payroll won on average 14 more games than the teams with the lowest 1/4 of payrolls.
Now in the last 14 years the Atlanta Braves have been in the top 11 payrolls every single year. They were in the top 6 for 9 of those years.
With that kind of payroll they are suppose to win!!!! They have had some of the best talent money can buy. So Cox winning base on that payroll is no surprise.
Go back to 1978 or 1979, hmmm no big payroll team and Cox coaching, they finished dead last in their division. Greatest manager ever, you must be joking.
When matched up against playoff teams and the majority of their opponents had lower payrolls his record is basically .500 at 65-63. Nothing impressive when you are matched against teams which are closer in ability. This just supports my statement of "Think how good the Braves could have been with a good coach."
Chop this disputes your claim of not having a high payroll during their run. Same with the Yankees. Like I told Sal. do it with an average payroll and then start bragging. You will never see 14 in a row in the NBA or NFL because all of the teams have the same payroll.
Northern Star
<!-- / message -->
Now in the last 14 years the Atlanta Braves have been in the top 11 payrolls every single year. They were in the top 6 for 9 of those years.
With that kind of payroll they are suppose to win!!!! They have had some of the best talent money can buy. So Cox winning base on that payroll is no surprise.
Go back to 1978 or 1979, hmmm no big payroll team and Cox coaching, they finished dead last in their division. Greatest manager ever, you must be joking.
When matched up against playoff teams and the majority of their opponents had lower payrolls his record is basically .500 at 65-63. Nothing impressive when you are matched against teams which are closer in ability. This just supports my statement of "Think how good the Braves could have been with a good coach."
Chop this disputes your claim of not having a high payroll during their run. Same with the Yankees. Like I told Sal. do it with an average payroll and then start bragging. You will never see 14 in a row in the NBA or NFL because all of the teams have the same payroll.
Northern Star
<!-- / message -->
I posted this earlier in Sal thread:
Sal ~ I looked up the payrolls for baseball according to USA Today last year Yankees payroll was 44.69% higher than their closest competitor from a payroll standpoint of the Boston Red Sox.
This year it is even worst, their payroll is 68% higher than the Red Sox.
We can talk all day but you will never convince me talent is the number one factor in winning championships. Go to college basketball as an example, Princeton played probably the best team basketball of anyone in the country for many years, disciplined, unselfish team basketball, they might win the IVY league against similar talent, but they didn't win any national championships because of the lack of talent relative to the top dogs.
If you have two relatively talented teams that are close in level then chemistry will be one of the factors along with coaching. As far as coaching goes on another subject, talent helps the coach look better. Phil Jackson is deemed as this great coach. Let him take the Atlanta Hawks or Milwaukee Bucks to the championship and then I would consider him a great coach. It is alot easier to win championships if you already have the most talented team. You have done a poor job if you don't win. Bobby Cox is an example of a bad coach in baseball who won a ton of games because of the talent on the team. Great starting pitching, good players. I could have wrote the same lineup in every day and have been hard pressed not to win 90 games. Nothing to do with chemistry. I would also say baseball is a much more individual team sport if that makes any sense. When you are hitting or pitching it is just you against the opponent, there is no need for chemistry. Basketball, football and hockey there is a greater need for chemistry. I think it was the Oakland A's that had a reputation for hating each other but wininng championship.
There is correlation between winning and payroll!!
Sal ~ I looked up the payrolls for baseball according to USA Today last year Yankees payroll was 44.69% higher than their closest competitor from a payroll standpoint of the Boston Red Sox.
This year it is even worst, their payroll is 68% higher than the Red Sox.
We can talk all day but you will never convince me talent is the number one factor in winning championships. Go to college basketball as an example, Princeton played probably the best team basketball of anyone in the country for many years, disciplined, unselfish team basketball, they might win the IVY league against similar talent, but they didn't win any national championships because of the lack of talent relative to the top dogs.
If you have two relatively talented teams that are close in level then chemistry will be one of the factors along with coaching. As far as coaching goes on another subject, talent helps the coach look better. Phil Jackson is deemed as this great coach. Let him take the Atlanta Hawks or Milwaukee Bucks to the championship and then I would consider him a great coach. It is alot easier to win championships if you already have the most talented team. You have done a poor job if you don't win. Bobby Cox is an example of a bad coach in baseball who won a ton of games because of the talent on the team. Great starting pitching, good players. I could have wrote the same lineup in every day and have been hard pressed not to win 90 games. Nothing to do with chemistry. I would also say baseball is a much more individual team sport if that makes any sense. When you are hitting or pitching it is just you against the opponent, there is no need for chemistry. Basketball, football and hockey there is a greater need for chemistry. I think it was the Oakland A's that had a reputation for hating each other but wininng championship.
There is correlation between winning and payroll!!
Northern Star said:
So whats Texas, Baltimore,LA Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, Chicago Whitesox, New York Mets and the Philadelphia Philles excuse. If money translates to winning all the above teams should be going to the post season. HMMMMMM. You can also throw in the fact that the Braves have had the 4th out of 5 lowest payrolls in the NL east for the last 4 seasons. Braves won the division all 4 times.
Chop ~
There is a direct correlation between wins and payroll. From 1998 - 2002 the teams with the highest 1/4 in payroll won on average 14 more games than the teams with the lowest 1/4 of payrolls.
Take off the rose colored glasses. Payroll correlates to wins, just the facts. Do you seriously think there is not a correlation? If not you are showing complete ignorance. Win 14 in a row with a payroll in the middle then brag. Where are the teams with the 6 or 7 lowest payrolls, any of them going? What would be your first guess, mine would be talent. Most talented players get paid the most.
A greater accomplishment is to win when no one thinks you can win. For the greatest team accomplishment I will take the Miracle on Ice and the gold medal!!! Braves 14 division titles isn't even close based on their payroll the last 14 years!!!!
Northern Star
There is a direct correlation between wins and payroll. From 1998 - 2002 the teams with the highest 1/4 in payroll won on average 14 more games than the teams with the lowest 1/4 of payrolls.
Take off the rose colored glasses. Payroll correlates to wins, just the facts. Do you seriously think there is not a correlation? If not you are showing complete ignorance. Win 14 in a row with a payroll in the middle then brag. Where are the teams with the 6 or 7 lowest payrolls, any of them going? What would be your first guess, mine would be talent. Most talented players get paid the most.
A greater accomplishment is to win when no one thinks you can win. For the greatest team accomplishment I will take the Miracle on Ice and the gold medal!!! Braves 14 division titles isn't even close based on their payroll the last 14 years!!!!
Northern Star
I stand corrected, of the bottom 6 payroll teams, Cleveland has a chance to make the playoffs, and since I root for the underdog that is who I will be rooting for.
Lowest 6 payroll teams winning % is 45.9%, with only Cleveland with a chance to make the playoffs.
Top 6 payroll teams, 3 divisional winners and a winning % of 56.8%.
Hmmmm, I think I see a correlation here, I would say payroll and wins!!!
Come on Cleveland!!!!
Lowest 6 payroll teams winning % is 45.9%, with only Cleveland with a chance to make the playoffs.
Top 6 payroll teams, 3 divisional winners and a winning % of 56.8%.
Hmmmm, I think I see a correlation here, I would say payroll and wins!!!
Come on Cleveland!!!!
Payroll helps for sure, but the Braves payroll is closer to the bottem than it is the top. The Braves payroll is only 80 mil. And some of that is with dead money with people like Mike hampton who is out the rest of this season and next. We are talking division titles here. The Braves have been 4th out of 5 in payroll in the division for 4 strait years. The Braves have won the division all 4 times.
Chop ~ If you are going to quote stats look them up and get it right. Of the five teams in their division right now (I don't recall if there has been any realignment and when it took place). Any way with Atlanta, Phil, Washington, Mets and Florida.
The last five years Atlanta is has three times the were the 2 nd highest of those 5, two times they were the third highest. Their payroll has been more than double Washingtons payroll 4 of 5 years, more than double Florida payroll 4 of 5 years. Two of the years they were one million less than the mets or they would have been number one in the division, and 2003 they had the third highest in baseball.
So where in god's green earth did you come up with the last 4 years the had the 4th highest payroll in their division? Closer to the 4th highest in all of baseball!!!
Northern Star
The last five years Atlanta is has three times the were the 2 nd highest of those 5, two times they were the third highest. Their payroll has been more than double Washingtons payroll 4 of 5 years, more than double Florida payroll 4 of 5 years. Two of the years they were one million less than the mets or they would have been number one in the division, and 2003 they had the third highest in baseball.
So where in god's green earth did you come up with the last 4 years the had the 4th highest payroll in their division? Closer to the 4th highest in all of baseball!!!
Northern Star
