Atlanta braves

[Guest]

This time HAS to come around I mean Chipper, Sheffield, and Andruw Jones. Not only that but they have a great core of pitchers and a really good bullpen..this time all-around is better than the Mets on paper but when will they come around I think that its time for them to start getting on a roll now what do you guys think?

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

The Braves always start off slow.  This is nothing new.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

I'm wondering when the Braves will curl up and die like all other sports teams do. Either that or get some teams who can challenge for the NL East every year.

[Guest]

actually Kahran 2001 and this year are the only two years that they have gotten off to a slow start since 96. 97-00 they started off hella good. Infact, their '99 team may have been the best one from their whole entire run.

[Guest Choken One]

Why would anyone want to support that team anyway? Just like Boston, they choke every time they get there, no matter how good/bad a start they get. However, unlike Boston, Atlanta does not choke in a dramatic and amazing fashion, they just roll over and die. Everyone says "Atlanta is the best team today on paper" for a reason. Everyone knows Atlanta will never live up to it. Jeez, 1 championship and 4 failed World Series, LOST TO AN EXPANSION Florida Marlins in 1997, rolled over and died against Arizona (another Expansion team), choked against a far less talented San Diego in 1998, did not get it done against New York in 2000. Nothing spectacular except for the 1991 series.  It's amazing how well adapted the fans are to choking...Boston fucking embraces losing.

[Guest]

I thinkn all thier aging people just aren't cutting it, franco,castilla, maddux are all sucking this year.  I have never liked sheffield, maybe I liked him after he got traded from milwaukee cause I thought that padres team was cool.  Chipper is not hitting well and everything is just blah, I think the dynasty is over for the braves

 

--Rob

[Guest alkeiper]

Maddux isn't too bad.  He's just set a high standard for himself over the years.  Chipper's hitting .324 with a .425 OBP.  Sheffield will hit eventually.  They really need more production at 1B/3B.  And getting the real Javy Lopez back wouldn't hurt.

[Guest treble charged]

How can you consider the Braves a dynasty?

In my opinion, dynasties are determined by amount of championships won in a relatively short period of time.  Sure, the Braves were the dominant National League team of the '90s, but they won the Series just once.  Going by that logic, you can consider the Blue Jays to be an even bigger dynasty than Atlanta (they did win 2 World Series in the '90s).

[Guest]

Saying the Braves are not a dynasty is just a retarted comment to make. I get so sick of hearing "well they have only won one championship" they have 10 straight division titles. And whoever made the comment about Chipper and Maddux sucking this year, Maddux had one really bad outing that has messed up his year so far. Chipper has had a great year so far as someone else pointed out. You know something about the Braves? They are there every year at the end of the season you know they are going to be in there in the end. And all the Mets bandwagoneer fans out there who think "this is great this is finally our year!" you have to remember every other year and thats how this year will turn out Braves will be NL champions. And I hope to God that this year the Braves can win it all just to shut all you "theyve only won one!" people up. And "they lost to an expansion team!" well the Yankees lost to an expansion team also...but I dont  see you all getting on the Yankees about that..why? Well like I tell everyone else in discussions about the Braves...see ya in the series.

[Guest treble charged]

Well, I don't really believe that the Braves won 10 division titles in a row, since I count '94, unlike most of the American media.  Anyway, 10 out of 11 division titles does not a dynasty make.  Sure, it is an impressive feat, but 50 years from now, will people care who won the NL East in 1996?  No, they'll care about who won the Series.

 

Yankees from the past few years = Dynasty

Braves from the past few years = Impressive feat

[Guest]

Treble.....the Braves from the 90s will go down in history as a dynstay in the NL anyway you look at it.

[Guest treble charged]

Treble.....the Braves from the 90s will go down in history as a dynstay in the NL anyway you look at it.

Well, maybe they will, but they really shouldn't.  Considering that the Reds, Marlins, and Twins won the same amount of World Series in that decade, while Toronto and New York had multiple wins.

[Guest]

I said a National League Dynasty considering the won 5 NL titles no other team did that, thats why they should be considered an NL dynasty. Plus, the 10 straight division titles are looke at by the American Media and they skip '94 so thats a plus on the Braves side.

[Guest treble charged]

I said a National League Dynasty considering the won 5 NL titles no other team did that, thats why they should be considered an NL dynasty. Plus, the 10 straight division titles are looke at by the American Media and they skip '94 so thats a plus on the Braves side.

Ok, maybe I'll stretch a little bit and admit that you can consider them to be a NL dynasty, but then my point becomes, BIG FUCKING DEAL.  Does anyone consider the Buffalo Bills to be a AFC dynasty?  I sure hope not, that would just be sad and grasping at straws.

[Guest Choken One]

The whole National League Dynasty is something that angry, embrassed Atlanta Braves fans created to mask the embrassment of them Choking. 10 straight Divison title is impressive but where has it gotten Atlanta? One World Championship. ONE!

 

 Nobody will reconizge the 90's braves as a dynasty because they never amounted to anything with the talent they had. They also never had personality, excitment and appeal. Atlanta is one of the WORST sports towns in America, where they did not even sell out Playoff seats. Yankees always sell out, why? They deliver their promise. Thye don't choke. Losing to Arizona was not choking for New York, they just lost in one of the most dramatic 7 game series in history. Atlanta, on the other hand rolled over and died.

 

  People will remember the Chicago Bulls, a REAL dynasty (where they delivered in 6 Finals). Not Atlanta's impressive but futile run in the 1990's.

[Guest]

The Atlanta Braves have never been exciting? Thats something damn new to me....1991 no they werent exciting the 92 club coming from 10 back at the All Star Break nah they were boring too, that 93 race with the Giants that was shit...29 Ninth Inning wins in 95 that sucked too....97 once again league leaders in come from behind wins hell that sucked too....1999 leading the league in come from behinds again no that sucked too. I suggest you all stop sucking off Stienbrener and realize that the Braves have done something that no other team in sports history including the Yankees have never done won 10 straight division titles. Also, someone said no series with Atlanta has been exiciting since 91 go to a search engine and check out NLCS 1999 that will give you some excitement

 

Now you saying that an NL dynasty is a cover-up for the Braves choking. It isn't, but also saying that they lost to an "expansion team" is a ridiculous statement. The Braves choke yes, they choke ALOT but when its all said and done, the Braves are the team if the 90s consistency wise. Because all throughout the 90s people who challenged the Braves were gone but the Braves were always there..the Yankees didnt get going until about '95. So theres my take on all this.

[Guest alkeiper]

I'm not an Atlanta Braves fan, but this "choking" argument is ridiculous.  You have to win 3 series now to win it all.  The Braves have won more playoff series then they've lost.  Why do teams get crap for not winning in the playoffs anyway?  Would they be more successful if they didn't make the Playoffs every year?

 

What makes a dynasty?  World Series wins?  If its just that, then the aforementioned Blue Jays were as successful as the Murderers Row Yankees.  That's just silly.  The regular season counts a lot.  The Braves led the NL in wins 5 consecutive times.  The current Yankee dynasty has led the AL in wins twice.  Do the playoffs matter?  Of course.  But to argue that the Braves are not a dynasty is absurd.

[Guest Smues]

did not get it done against New York in 2000

Actually St. Louis took them out in 2000. We kicked the Mets ass in 99, 2000 we didn't play them, and 2001 Brain Jordan pretty much single handedly eliminated the Mets from playoff contention.

[Guest Smues]

Nothing spectacular except for the 1991 series

What about the 1996 world series? I'd call that a spectacular choke. We had that world series and we just plain blew it.

[Guest treble charged]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, division titles do not make a dynasty.  In the NHL, the Nordiques/Avalanche franchise has won 8 division titles in a row, and, during that span, won more Stanley Cups (2), then the Braves have won World Series (1).  I have never in my life heard anyone use the term "dynasty" when describing Colorado's run over the last 8 years, despite filling your criteria, once again, proving my point.

[Guest]

But people have described the Braves have a dynasty.

[Guest treble charged]

But people have described the Braves have a dynasty.

And they are wrong.

[Guest alkeiper]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, division titles do not make a dynasty.

 

I'd agree.  The thing is, the Braves didn't just win the division.  They led the league in wins 5 years in a ROW!  How many teams in the history of baseball have done that?  Two.  The '49-'53 Yankees, and the '95-'99 Braves.  How is that not a dynasty?  Because they lost a few postseason games?  They still won more playoff games then they lost.

 

I have never in my life heard anyone use the term "dynasty" when describing Colorado's run over the last 8 years, despite filling your criteria, once again, proving my point.

 

What's the point of that?  I couldn't tell you who won the Stanley Cup last year, let alone the division winners.

 

Does anyone consider the Buffalo Bills to be a AFC dynasty?  I sure hope not, that would just be sad and grasping at straws.

 

Why not?  They won 11-12 games ever year, and they had an 8-4 (.667) record in the playoffs.  They made it to the Spuer Bowl more often than the Cowboys of the same era.  AFC Dynasty?  Hell, they're an NFL dynasty.

 

Again, what is a dynasty?  Compare them to the Earl Weaver Orioles.  They also won only one World Series.  The Braves were winning back when the Yankees were playing Hensley Meulens.

[Guest DrTom]

"They made it to the Spuer Bowl more often than the Cowboys of the same era.  AFC Dynasty?  Hell, they're an NFL dynasty."

 

If the Bills are a dynasty of any kind, then the requirements to be a dynasty have slackened a lot.  To be a dynasty, a team has to be successful in the regular season AND in the postseason.  The Bills had an 8-4 record.  That's swell.  The problem is they had an *0-4* Super Bowl record, and that's not the record of a dynasty.  Were they good?  Absolutely.  Were they great?  Yes, since you can't get to the Super Bowl four years in a row if you're not.  But a dynasty?  No way.  Are the Rams a modern NFL dynasty?  By your criteria, they probably are, and that's just sad.

 

"Compare them to the Earl Weaver Orioles.  They also won only one World Series."

 

Actually, they won two.

[Guest alkeiper]

It's iffy.  To be honest, I'm not an expert on NFL as much as I'm a baseball fan.

 

I like the Weaver Orioles personally.  I wasn't trying to slag them, just pointing out that other dynasties didn't necessarily win it all.  They won both their championships in '70 and '83, so I really consider them seperate teams.

[Guest treble charged]

Now, Weaver's Orioles were before my time, so I don't know a whole lot about them, but when you hear people discussing great baseball teams, their name rarely comes up.

[Guest alkeiper]

Weaver's Orioles averaged 106 wins a year from '69-'71, and won the American League pennant 3 years in a row.  Their black mark is the two World Series upsets they suffered, the most famous was to the Miracle Mets.

 

They featured one of the best overall rotations in history, and two Hall of Famers in their starting lineup (Brooks and Frank Robinson).

[Guest treble charged]

Weaver's Orioles averaged 106 wins a year from '69-'71, and won the American League pennant 3 years in a row.  Their black mark is the two World Series upsets they suffered, the most famous was to the Miracle Mets.

 

They featured one of the best overall rotations in history, and two Hall of Famers in their starting lineup (Brooks and Frank Robinson).

Well, then they are really in the same boat as the Braves then, and therefore, not a dynasty.

[Guest DrTom]

"They won both their championships in '70 and '83, so I really consider them seperate teams."

 

Well, you're almost right.  They won the Series in 1966, too, sweeping a heavily-favored Dodgers team that featured both Koufax and Drysdale.  They also won it in 1970, as well as making it to the series in 1969 and 1971.  Four WS appearances and two titles in six years is impressive.  A dynasty?  I think so.

[Guest DrTom]

"Now, Weaver's Orioles were before my time, so I don't know a whole lot about them, but when you hear people discussing great baseball teams, their name rarely comes up."

 

That's because they basically had a six-year window when they were really good, then nothing for a while.  They acquired Frank Robinson for the 1966 season, then after their glory years stopped, the A's rose in the AL, and the Big Red Machine in the NL.  So the Orioles became a blip on the radar, sandwiched between the Yankees and the A's/Reds dynasties.  The recent lack of success the franchise has had does little to give mention to some of the excellent moments in their past.

 

From 1964-1983, the Orioles had the best record in baseball.