If a baseball player goes 1-for-5 at the plate, is that a good day or a bad day? (Or if you're Cliff Floyd, a "typical day.") Perhaps if the hit is a game-winning double or a three-run dinger, a quartet of failures isn't going to overwhelm the enormity of the performance.
Unless you're the Atlanta Braves.
Sure, that World Series victory in 1995 was the kind of hit that can excuse a 1-for-5 effort, but it doesn't change the fact that this franchise has gone on the single most impressive run of success in recent baseball history, and all it got was a lousy t-shirt.
General Manager John Schuerholz, the architect of a Braves team that has captured 14 division titles heading into this season, has a new book out called "Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies From Baseball's Winningest GM." I haven't read it yet, but might pick it up for the watching-a-car-crash morbidity of his coverage of the John Rocker implosion.
There's no question that Schuerholz is a mastermind at building a team, for the simple reason that he's never had to rebuild this team. The Braves reload, they never rebuild. And lately budgetary concerns have forced Schuerholz to not only bring in quality ballplayers to fill significant holes — left by names like [Gary] Sheffield, [Tom] Glavine, and [Greg] Maddux — but to do so frugally.
As a Mets fan, I can honestly say that no man in baseball has impressed me and infuriated me more than John Schuerholz. But at the end of the day, we're left asking two questions: "Are our children learning?" and "What has Schuerholz actually accomplished?"
Winning division titles from 1991-2005, winning five National League pennants, and winning one World Series is a resume no other franchise other than the New York Yankees can touch. Yet talk about 1996-2001, and there's no question that it was a Yankee Dynasty, with five World Series appearances and four victories. Can the same be said of the Braves in the last decade? Can a franchise be dynastic even though it falls short of the big prize?
Of course not. The Braves are a success, not a dynasty. If anything, they've been a co-star in some of the greatest postseason stories of the last 20 years: the 1991 Twins, the 1993 Blue Jays, and the start of the Yankee Dynasty in 1996. They're not champions — they're foils, the Washington Generals to a slew of baseball Globetrotters. Even the Series they won was more memorable for the team they defeated — or was I the only one waiting over six games for Ricky Vaughn to come out of the bullpen to "Wild Thing?"
With that in mind, I return to Schuerholz's book: "Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM." There's no question he was the winningest GM, but was his team "built to win?" Pitcher John Smoltz sees it this way, in an undated interview published by Baseball Almanac:
"We've had a chance to win every year, year in and year out, for 12 years in a row. There's nothing more you want as a player. After you win the division, it's up to us. When you have this many chances, it's up to us. We're in an age when you expect a GM to make a move in July to put you over the top. We've been built for a longer period. All the teams we've faced in the playoffs — Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, the Dodgers, the Marlins, San Diego, Houston — all these teams that knocked us off, after that, what have they done? They've fallen back. But we've stayed up there."
Right, John — stayed up there, and never won but once.
To me, this comes down to competing philosophies on baseball success. As a Mets fan, I cherish the few World Series titles they've won because they are etched in my memory, victories made sweeter by the sour times (I've still never forgiven Buddy Harrelson as a manager). As a New Jersey Devils fan, I'm honored to have witnessed three Stanley Cups and four finals appearances — if it was one out of four, I'm not sure if Lou Lamoriello would be held to the standard of deity he is today. As a Nets fan, I'm seeing a once moribund franchise reborn as a contender, and they could make a third trip to the NBA Finals this season. If they lose for a third time, some of that serenity and pride I feel as a fan is going to start turning into frustration and embarrassment.
The Braves aren't the Buffalo Bills or the Minnesota Vikings. They aren't kings without a crown. But they also aren't the Yankees or the Red Wings or any other franchise that's managed to maintain a level of annual success while also bringing home the big prize multiple times.
I wonder how that makes Schuerholz and Bobby Cox feel. I listened to Schuerholz on ESPN Radio this week and was stunned to hear him passionately defend the Braves against criticism that they never can finish the job. He tossed out a plethora of excuses, everything from competitive balance to the inequity of the postseason to the unfairness of the wild card. I'm pretty sure he was going to bring up sun spots and the Twinkee defense if given the time.
I felt bad for him. It was like listening to a friend who has never stopped talking about the lingerie model he banged 10 years ago, but never starts talking about why he hasn't banged one since.
Did the Braves win? Sure. But whenever this run ends — if it ever ends — they're going to be a footnote to history rather than historic themselves.
Greg Wyshynski is the Features Editor for SportsFan Magazine in Washington, DC, and the Senior Sports Editor for The Connection Newspapers of Northern Virginia. His book "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Worst Ideas in Sports History" will be published in spring 2006. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at [email protected].
Leave a Comment