Atlanta braves

[Guest alkeiper]

They won the Series in 1966, too, sweeping a heavily-favored Dodgers team that featured both Koufax and Drysdale.

 

They were Bauer's Orioles, but you have a point, they had most of the same players.  And it should be noted that the Dodgers scored a TOTAL of 2 runs in that series, a WS record for futility.  The problem is, when you extend the dynasty to 1966, you have to include the '67 and '68 teams, and it kinda weakens the argument.  I'll state again that the Orioles won 318 games over 3 seasons.  The ONLY team to win more games over the same time frame is the '06-'08 Cubs.

 

Anyway, here's my criteria for a dynasty.

 

1.  Regular Season Success.  It's silly to define a dynasty as a non-dynasty cause they lost 4 games out of 7 at the end of the season.  You look at Win-Loss Records, and you also look at Runs Scored-Runs Allowed.  The '70-'71 Orioles led the league in both runs scored and least runs allowed in consecutive years.  The ONLY other team to do THAT is the '36-'39 Yankees.

 

2.  Hall Of Fame Quality Players.  Not necessarily Hall of Famers, particularly when dealing with teams from the 20s.  But a great team almost always has 3 Hall of Fame players on it.  Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson are easily among the top ten all time at their positions, and Jim Palmer won 20 games 8 years out of 9.  In addition, Bobby Grich played briefly on the '71 Orioles, and he really SHOULD be in the Hall.

 

3.  Postseason Success.  I don't believe that postseason results are the best indicator of a teams' quality.  I'm sorry, but it seems absurd to me that the Orioles don't qualify as a dynasty solely cause they lost game 7 to Pittsburgh.  That's ridiculous.

[Guest treble charged]

I'm confused, do you have to fit *all* of the criteria to be considered a dynasty?

 

The Braves certainly fit the first 2 parts (every division title [except '94] since '91 and Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz definitely in the hall of fame), but they don't fit the last part, IMO.  To say that post-season results aren't the best indicator of a team's quality is kind of stupid.  Every team's goal at the beginning of the season is to win the championship.  A team like the Braves (who are one of the few teams to have a shot at the World Series every year) have shown time and time again their inability to win *most* of the "big games" they have played in the play-offs.

[Guest alkeiper]

Two reasons why I tend to disregard postseason results long-term......

 

1.  Its like comparing a marathon to a sprint.  A team only has to use its 4th starter once a series, and they never have to use their 5th starter.  It requires different strategy.

 

2.  The extended playoff system.  Who knows how the '36-'39 Yankees or the '49-'53 Yankees would've done if they had to bet three teams instead of one to win it all.

[Guest treble charged]

So you would still consider those Yankee teams to be dynasties if they had never won the Series, and had lost every time?

 

Would you consider the Braves a dynasty if they had never got past the first round (either Wild Card or NLCS)?

[Guest alkeiper]

The '36-'39 Yankees, there's no comparison.  Simply the most dominant baseball team ever.  Even w/o the WS victories, you have a team that led the league in hitting AND pitching/defense 4 times in a row!  No one's ever dominated like that.  The '49-'53 Yankees, probably to a lesser extent.

 

If the Braves never won a series, that s a different story.  But they have won more postseason games then they lost.

[Guest treble charged]

If the Braves never won a series, that s a different story.  But they have won more postseason games then they lost.

 

That may be true, but they've lost more big games than they've won.

[Guest alkeiper]

Just curious, what's your difinition of "big game?"

[Guest]

I am interested in that myself.  Shit, the braves have been in more "big games" than any other team this decade.

 

--Rob

[Guest treble charged]

Big games, in my opinion, are usually in the play-offs.  Mostly in the last few rounds, they are games you must win when the going gets tough.

[Guest alkeiper]

Mostly in the last few rounds, they are games you must win when the going gets tough.

 

You mean like when the Braves scored 3 runs in the bottom of the ninth of game 7 of the '92 NLCS to beat the Pirates?

 

Or when the Braves, down 3 games to 1 against the Cardinals in the '96 NLCS, outscored them 32-1 to pull out the Series?  (As an aside, I'm a Cardinals fan, and that one still hurts.)

 

Did you know that when the Braves lost, they outscored their opponents overall more times then they didn't?  They've also won more postseason games then they've lost?  (56-49)  And that includes their less than stellar postseason run the last two seasons.

 

And that doesn't include winning the west in '93 with the SF Giants hot on their tails.

[Guest treble charged]

So, what, that's 2 "big" play-off games that they've won, compared to going 11-18 World Series games in the '90s?

 

Sure, they have won some big games, but I said earlier that they lost *most* of the big games they've played in.

[Guest alkeiper]

They've played in 5 World Series, and they outscored their opponents in the first four, indicating they were close games and the Braves were just plain unlucky.

 

In '99, they ran into the Yankees juggernaut, part of one of the few dynasties I'd rank above the Braves of the same era.

[Guest treble charged]

Well, yeah, they've been the 2nd best team of this era, but do you think 20 years from now people will look back and think, "Man, that was a great Yankees team, but those Braves, they outscored their opponents in 4 straight World Series.  Sure, they only won one of them, but damn, they sure did score more runs."

[Guest alkeiper]

No, people will remember the decade of quality baseball generally.  Unfortunately, they will be overshadowed by the Yankees, who were legitimately greater.  There is a difference though between the 90s Braves and the 70s Royals/Phillies, who also won plenty of division titles.  In summary, my case for the Braves runs like this.....

 

-They led the league in wins 5 years in a row.  This achievement has only been equaled by the 49-53 Yankees and the 60-64 Yankees.  Those Yankee teams needed to beat only 8-10 teams, while the Braves played in a 14 team league.

 

-The Braves featured several legitimately great players, including Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones and John Smoltz.  The first three are HOFers, and all five have a good shot eventually.

 

As for the WS disappointments, I consider that as something that keeps them in the bottom end of dynasties, but still a dynasty nonetheless.

[Guest treble charged]

Personally, I'd say Smoltz has a better shot at the Hall than Chipper does, but that's just my opinion.

 

Also, to prove my point on how much the play-off means to consider a team's greatness, look at the Mariners from last year.  Sure, they won 116 games, but since they choked against the Yankees in the ALCS, they are not likely to be mentioned in the future as one of baseball's best ever teams (unless they win the Series this year, then they can take their first steps towards maybe being a dynasty of some sort).

 

Also, your point on the Braves playing in a 14 team league while continually leading the league in wins, you have to take into account expansion, and, the economics of baseball in the mid-90's on, with only a few teams actually having an actual chance at winning.

[Guest alkeiper]

Personally, I'd say Smoltz has a better shot at the Hall than Chipper does, but that's just my opinion.

 

Smoltz may have a better case then Chipper at the moment, but he may be hurt becuase he was on the same staff with Glavine and Maddux.  Chipper's well on his way to a HOF career.  He's a tremendous hitter, a switch hitter, and played thrid base up until this year.  I'd have to see where they finish their careers to truly evaluate them however.

 

Also, to prove my point on how much the play-off means to consider a team's greatness, look at the Mariners from last year.  Sure, they won 116 games, but since they choked against the Yankees in the ALCS, they are not likely to be mentioned in the future as one of baseball's best ever teams

 

As a dynasty, its way too early.  As a team, I think they may qualify.  Ask people about the great teams and many will mention the '06 Cubs and '54 Indians, who both won 110+ games and lost the Series.  I agree it does knock them down a level.  I wouldn't go so far as to say they choked.  They lost 4 out of 5 to possibly the 2nd best team in the league.  It didn't help that they batted Boone 3rd, but that's just my opinion.

 

Also, your point on the Braves playing in a 14 team league while continually leading the league in wins, you have to take into account expansion, and, the economics of baseball in the mid-90's on, with only a few teams actually having an actual chance at winning.

 

If you take out the expansion teams, they still had to beat more teams.  And I personally think its harder to dominate now then it was in the past, the current Yankees nonwithstanding.

[Guest treble charged]

I'd say that the Yankees were the 3rd best team in the league last year, after Oakland, but that's just me.

 

Also, look at the division that the Braves have played in for the majority of their run: Montreal (small market), Florida (small market), Philadelphia (small market mentality), and New York (the exception to the point I'm trying to make).  Since the re-alignment, they've only had real competition 3 or 4 times, and the Expos, Marlins, and Phillies have been league doormats for most of that time.  I'd say that Mets are the only real team that they've ever had to contend with for more than one year running.  I'd say having the first 3 teams I've mentioned in your division really helps out your cause.

[Guest alkeiper]

My point is they led the LEAGUE 5 years in a row.  In other words, if there was a single 14 team division, they still would've won, weak division or not.

[Guest treble charged]

I think I was a little confused with your Yankee domination point, as, personally, I don't consider them to have dominated the regular season in their current run.  With the exception of the 1998 season, they were never far and away the best team in the AL (in 2000, in fact, they had the worst regular season record of all play-off teams).

 

Also, personally, I think it is easier to dominate the regular season in this era than it was in the past, based on the fact that, for the most part, if you have a small payroll, you can not compete (Oakland excluded).

[Guest alkeiper]

With the exception of the 1998 season, they were never far and away the best team in the AL (in 2000, in fact, they had the worst regular season record of all play-off teams).

 

True, though from what I remember most people assumed the Yankees were the better team.

 

Also, personally, I think it is easier to dominate the regular season in this era than it was in the past, based on the fact that, for the most part, if you have a small payroll, you can not compete (Oakland excluded).

 

*cough*Twins*cough*  Overall though, small payroll teams are at a disadvantage.  However, earlier teams had their own imbalances, particularly before the amateur draft when large market teams had a significant scouting advantage over small market teams.  Besides, when's the last time a team has truly sucked over a period of 20-30 years?  (think Phillies from the 20s-40s)

[Guest DrTom]

A couple of points:

 

1. It's a lot harder beating 8-10 teams, all competitive, than four or five competitive teams out of 14.

 

2. At this point, I think Chipper Jones has a better shot at the HOF than Smoltz.  But if SMoltz can turn himself into Eckersley II, he'll improve his chances.  If he gets 200-250 saves out of his run as a closer, I'd give him good odds to get in.

[Guest alkeiper]

1. It's a lot harder beating 8-10 teams, all competitive, than four or five competitive teams out of 14.

 

Honestly, when were all those teams competitive at the same time?  And before you bring up dilution of talent due to expansion, may I point out the acceptance of black players, organized farm systems, and international scouting as improvements that more than make up for the addition of teams.

 

2. At this point, I think Chipper Jones has a better shot at the HOF than Smoltz.  But if SMoltz can turn himself into Eckersley II, he'll improve his chances.  If he gets 200-250 saves out of his run as a closer, I'd give him good odds to get in.

 

Its tremendously difficult to compare the HOF chances of a pitcher with a hitter, so I'll evaluate each one separately......

 

Chipper Jones.  8 seasons.  30 years old.  He's got another 8-10 years left to add to his numbers.  .400+ OBP, he's 29th all time in Slugging Percentage, and he's got an MVP award to his credit.  He SHOULD be a Hall of Famer as long as he doesn't get injured.

 

John Smoltz.  13 seasons.  35 years old.  160-116.  It's very difficult to get into the Hall with those numbers.  He's also hurt by only having 1 20 game season.  He does have a Cy Young award to his credit.  His biggest credit is his 12-4 mark in the postseason.  Not a HOF yet, but 150 saves could get him in there.