I think it's amazing that Leo Mazzone...

[Pogotheostrich]

Pitching and batting coaches take too much credit and blame.

+1 It took a lot more than just Mazzone to make the 90's Braves rotation so good.

[great gretzky]

Pitching and batting coaches take too much credit and blame. Mazzone or not, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz would have dominated regardless. Look at some of the other dominant pitchers in our era: Clemens, Pedro, RJ, etc all succeeded everywhere they pitched.

I think the point is of degree not type. Of course they would. Jordan was awesome prior to Jackson, as was Shaq ... But I also think that we could rattle off tons of players who were really good, but maybe coaching held them back ever so slightly. And razor thin margins are what we are talking about at the highest levels.

You could also say that the fearsome threesome might not have been AS good as they were if they were singular entities on different teams. Clearly you can't polish a turd, but you can cut a diamond to shine better.

[silverZ]

Clearly you can't polish a turd, but you can cut a diamond to shine better.

Pretty much sums it up.

[Syfo-Dyas]

Mazzone was a great pitching coach but if you really believe in the "Mazzone Effect" then I don't see why 2 years in Baltimore isn't enough time to judge his effect on the pitchers when it didn't take 2 plus years to effect pitchers in Atlanta.

Its not the time. Talent is the key. Certainly you need time too, but:
A great coach can get talented players to reach their limits to become greats themselves. (see Atlanta)
A mediocre coach cant get them to reach their limits, he can only make them good, cause they are talented.
But even great coaches will fail, if theres not enough talent. (see Baltimore)

And in Atlanta there were not only Maddux-Smoltz-Glavine. There were 'nonames" performing well like Danny Neagle, Steve Avery, Kent Mercker, Kevin Millwood.

So you're saying there wasn't one pitcher in Baltimore with the talent of Neagle, Avery, Mercker or Millwood?

No.
Every knows Bedard and Guthrie. But there was the time factor. He had no time to finish the job. Just look at Guthrie. His only two good years came with with Mazzone. Coincidence? I don't think so. Bedard is Bedard. There was no other starter who was any good.

So I don't know where you got that idea. Or you just try to attack me cause I disagree with you?
Clearly I was pointing out that he wasn't good cause he had the big 3, but I'll write it down for you next time, so you don't have to read between the lines.

[Bobbleheadrusty]

Lots of false statements in this thread, need to address a few...

1. Phil Jackson won 10 titles, but won 9 of them with teams that had 2 top 50 all time players. He doesn't deserve credit for developing either Jordan or Shaq, as Shaq was already a beast when he came to LA from Orlando and Jordan was basically already Jordan when he was hired in Chicago, it was the addition of Pippen.

2. Mazzone doesn't deserve full credit for the (ONE) season he spent working with Guthrie (he didnt have two) because Guthrie was in MINOR LEAGUE camp that spring, which is miles away.

3. How does Mazzone get credit for Maddox, considering he was ALREADY a cy young minning pitcher when he came to Atlanta.

[great gretzky]

Lots of false statements in this thread, need to address a few...

1. Phil Jackson won 10 titles, but won 9 of them with teams that had 2 top 50 all time players. He doesn't deserve credit for developing either Jordan or Shaq, as Shaq was already a beast when he came to LA from Orlando and Jordan was basically already Jordan when he was hired in Chicago, it was the addition of Pippen.

2. Mazzone doesn't deserve full credit for the (ONE) season he spent working with Guthrie (he didnt have two) because Guthrie was in MINOR LEAGUE camp that spring, which is miles away.

3. How does Mazzone get credit for Maddox, considering he was ALREADY a cy young minning pitcher when he came to Atlanta.

I think as it pertains to one, you misunderstand. Jackson did have players that were beasts. Jackson also took said beasts to levels they didn't accomplish without him. He didn't develop them to get to the 95 percent of their potential, he took them to 100. and that's probably harder than anything, it get progressively more difficult, especially with the egos.

Also, Jordan was not exactly what we think he was. Towards the end he was passing to Paxson, Hodges, Kerr etc. Prior to Jackson, he was el solo.

Jackson had two (really 3) of the top 50 players. He cracked the code on what it took to get those players to the top. (again shaq was second banana on the heat). And he did develop kobe to the degree he did, which is probably one of the more masterful jobs, considering his ego, intellect and ball hogging tendencies.

[Pogotheostrich]

No.
Every knows Bedard and Guthrie. But there was the time factor. He had no time to finish the job. Just look at Guthrie. His only two good years came with with Mazzone. Coincidence? I don't think so. Bedard is Bedard. There was no other starter who was any good.

So I don't know where you got that idea. Or you just try to attack me cause I disagree with you?
Clearly I was pointing out that he wasn't good cause he had the big 3, but I'll write it down for you next time, so you don't have to read between the lines.

I'm not trying to attack anyone I just don't understand. I think two full seasons is enough time to make an impact. I also think there was some talented arms in Baltimore at the time. If you disagree that is fine.

BTW - Guthrie had one good year with Mazzone in 97. He had almost an exact duplicate in 98 without him.

[AussieDodger]

BTW - Guthrie had one good year with Mazzone in 97. He had almost an exact duplicate in 98 without him.

I agree, except for the part where Guthrie is allegedly in the bigs in 1997-98.

[Pogotheostrich]

BTW - Guthrie had one good year with Mazzone in 97. He had almost an exact duplicate in 98 without him.

I agree, except for the part where Guthrie is allegedly in the bigs in 1997-98.

Details.

[Yoda]

Pitching and batting coaches take too much credit and blame. Mazzone or not, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz would have dominated regardless. Look at some of the other dominant pitchers in our era: Clemens, Pedro, RJ, etc all succeeded everywhere they pitched.

I think the point is of degree not type. Of course they would. Jordan was awesome prior to Jackson, as was Shaq ... But I also think that we could rattle off tons of players who were really good, but maybe coaching held them back ever so slightly. And razor thin margins are what we are talking about at the highest levels.

You could also say that the fearsome threesome might not have been AS good as they were if they were singular entities on different teams. Clearly you can't polish a turd, but you can cut a diamond to shine better.

It depends on the player and situation I guess. Seeing that Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz clearly had the tools to be awesome, I am guessing that the effect Mazzone had on them was minimal. You simply cannot teach talent.