Braves clinch 11th staright division title

[Big Train]

I think there is alot of luck involved in the playoffs. I mean would anyone seriously argue that Minnesota was the best team in baseball in 1987 or Florida in 1997? Getting hot at the right time does help alot. I would stop way short of saying "the Braves have been the best team in Baseball over the last 11 years" but they have been one of the best in each of those seasons. If you were somehow able to play the playoffs over those 11 years over a hundred times I think the Braves would win their fair share. In any case their streak is very impressive

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by twins15
These are the 1994 standings. Expos had a 6 game lead.

Yes, but with 48 games left to play. It's meaningless; anything could have happened, which is it doesn't count for anything.

[I Am The Game]

Well I wouldn't call it "meaningless", and MLB did grant the Expos (and the others) the division title in 94. But nobody really counts it when they say "11 straight" or whatever.

But you can not count the 1994 season really in anything as far as records/streaks go. Montreal could've slumped and Atlanta could've gotten hot - or they could've stayed the same the rest of the year. Never really know. Junior could've had the HR Record before Mac broke it (How about if that happened...would've been broken three times in seven years), Tony Gwynn could've been the first hitter to bat .400 since Ted Williams .406 in 1946. There were a couple other records on pace to be broken or close to being broken in 1994 but they aren't given credit for it, because the season didn't finish and nobody can correctly predict how it would have ended.

Regardless of if you consider it 8 or 11, still a tremendous feat.

[twins15]

I'm not sure, but I think Matt Williams had a lot of homers as well.

[jblaze03fuel]

This year is different from all the lapses. It's time to bring home the crown and they will do so.

[[WWBL]Batboy]

Originally posted by Sinclair
I understand exactly what it means. It means they were better than the mighty Philadelphia Phillies, the unstoppable Montreal Expos, the Big Blue And Orange Machine NY Mets, and the powerhouse Florida Marlins for the last decade (minus '94). Truly a class of teams that rivals the, erm, Brewers, Cubs, and Devil Rays in offensive prowess and pitching dominance throughout baseball history! Yarr!

World Series? Nah, who cares about the postseason? It's all about beating the Mets, Phillies, Expos, and Marlins year after year.

No disrespect to the Braves. They've been a great team over the years, for a number of reasons. But let's put this in perspective, here.

Peace.

How about the perspective that when the Braves won the NL West in '93 they became the first team to do so 3 years in a row. That means the Dodgers, the Giants and the Reds never had won the NL West 3 years in a row. Don't forget that the Braves came from the West to start this little streak and haven't always had the Expos and Marlins to beat up on.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally I was going to point out the fact that several of those pennant wins occurred in seasons with balanced schedules. Since with a balanced schedule the divisional alignments are arbitrary and technically of little genuine value, some of those divisional titles may not have had as much validity as winning a title while playing the majority of your games against your divisional rivals.

But it turns out that even this point does not diminish the Braves' amazing achievement.

Let's look at their performance year by year.

1990 - Atlanta finished last in the West Division. Indeed, they had the worst record in the entire NL.

1991 - The Braves win their first pennant of the streak, although just barely. They finish 1 game ahead of Los Angeles.

1992 - Atlanta wins again, finishing 8 games ahead this time.

1993 - With expansion coming to the NL and each division increasing to 7 teams, a balanced schedule is introduced. The Braves take the pennant by 1 game over San Francisco. However, Atlanta also had the best record in the NL, so in this case it wouldn't have mattered how the divisions were set up, Atlanta still would've won a divisional title.

1995 - Atlanta romps to the title, winning by 21 games. But once again the Braves had the best record in the league, so regardless of divisional alignment they still would've won a pennant.

1996 - Another year, another pennant, by 8 games this time. And as in the previous 2 seasons, the Braves also own the best record in the League and would've won a pennant no matter how you arranged the divisions.

1997 - Interleague play begins, but play within each League still follows a balanced schedule. And once again the Braves finish on top of the NL. The division was won by 9 games.

1998 - Expansion comes again, along with some realignment. Due to the 6 team Central Division, the NL no longer plays a true balanced schedule, but the emphasis on divisional opponents is very slight and thus it is a nearly balanced schedule. For the 5th straight year Atlanta has the best record in the NL, so they would've won a pennant no matter how the divisions were aligned. They take the East division crown easily, winning by 18 games.

1999 - The Braves claim their 8th consecutive pennant, taking it by 6.5 games. And again they have the best record in the NL, making the divisional alignment argument moot.

2000 - Atlanta takes the East Division title by just 1 game. The Braves finally do not finish with the best record in the NL, but instead finish tied with St. Louis for the 2nd best record. This is the first pennant of the streak that could be argued was dependent on a fortunate divisional alignment. Had they been in the West, they would've finished 2 behind the Giants and not been a pennant winner. But on the other hand there was a slight emphasis on divisional opponents in the scheduling, so it could also be argued this does make the pennant title fully legitimate. Both sides have valid points, so it's a judgement call.

2001 - No argument this year, as Atlanta wins the divisional title by 2 games while playing a schedule that now features a solid divisionally weighted aspect. Indeed, not since 1992 have teams played as many games against each divisional rival.

2002 - The Braves 11th straight pennant, and as in the previous year, no room to argue.

So, out of those 11 pennants, only 1 of them could be argued was the beneficiary of a fortuitous divisional alignment. But then there was a slight divisional emphasis in the scheduling for that year, so it could just as equally be argued that the divisional alignments did matter that year.

Thus, this achievement by Atlanta is truly very impressive.

Only that pesky 1994 strike abbreviated season keeps it from being perfect, in the sense that there was some playing in between a couple of those pennant wins, even though it is not officially counted as part of the streak.

[andy m]

it is indeed a great feat to win so many division titles yet be so mind numbingly mediocre in the playoffs. you've got to hand it to 'em.

[Malleus Dei]

IMO playoffs are pretty meaningless. Who gets hot and/or lucky in a short series proves little about who really had the better team; it just proves who can get hot and/or lucky...or who has two really dominant starters, because you can win a playoff series with little more than two dominant starters. If you have those two it matters not in the playoffs that your three other starters are all dogmeat, whereas it certainly does during a real baseball season.

[bwd]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
IMO playoffs are pretty meaningless.

Any thoughts on a better system?

[I Am The Game]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
IMO playoffs are pretty meaningless.

Except for the fact they determine a World Champion....

Don't play it off as the playoffs being meaningless, because they aren't. And about all it does is determine who has two dominant starters....the Braves had three for a long time so it doesn't always. Maybe it's just their style of play that isn't successful in the playoffs, I don't know. But to just dismiss it because the Braves don't do well in the playoffs isn't what I've come to expect from you reading your posts. And about the playoffs being meaningless......the Yankees often finish with a very good record, and do come through...

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
IMO playoffs are pretty meaningless. Who gets hot and/or lucky in a short series proves little about who really had the better team; it just proves who can get hot and/or lucky...or who has two really dominant starters, because you can win a playoff series with little more than two dominant starters. If you have those two it matters not in the playoffs that your three other starters are all dogmeat, whereas it certainly does during a real baseball season.

Did you just say the playoffs are meaningless?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by bwd
Any thoughts on a better system?

Yes, the one we used to have.

Two leagues, no divisions, the team with the best record in each league wins the pennant, and then it's the AL pennant winner vs. NL pennant winner in the World Series. It worked well for decades, and insured that the best team from each league were both in the World Series.

Instead, what we have now is more like a lottery. The best team from each league often doesn't make it to the World Series, and that makes the World Series sometimes meaningless. The 1997 Marlins couldn't even win their division and yet they become "1997 World Champions" because they get hot and lucky in the post-season? Right.

Yes, I know, the younger generation wants a playoff system. Yes, I know the NFL does it. Yes, I know it means more revenue. IMO it's pretty meaningless and it has cheapened the game.

[bwd]

I'm all for getting rid of the wild card. We know longer have pennant races and that stinks. What would be a great race in the AL West right now isn't that great at all, because whoever comes in 2nd is still going to the playoffs.

That said, your point still doesn't hold water, heres why: You're saying that that a team with the best record might not make the series because of one bad playoff round right? Well, with an extra round in the playoffs teams need to prove themselves in 2 series to get there, not 1. Logically, the odds of getting lucky are better in 1 series than in 2. If anything, this gives the better teams a chance to show they are truly better. Granted, a good team might get knocked out in the short 5 game series, but the system still makes luck less of a factor.

[spleen1015]

The whole system is fixed. MLB has it in the the post 1983 Orioles.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by bwd
I'm all for getting rid of the wild card. We know longer have pennant races and that stinks. What would be a great race in the AL West right now isn't that great at all, because whoever comes in 2nd is still going to the playoffs.

And that's a major part of my point: we no longer have pennant races. All we have are teams trying to get into the playoffs. The season, as a season, no longer matters; it has simply become a long playoff qualification tournament. IMO this is another one of the ways by which baseball has been cheapened from what it was.

[I Am The Game]

Ok so essentially you have said the season does not matter and the playoffs are meaningless.

So why are you still a baseball fan?

[biggamejrs]

Originally posted by I Am The Game
Ok so essentially you have said the season does not matter and the playoffs are meaningless.

So why are you still a baseball fan?

I don't think you understand what he is saying....

Use smaller words MD!!!

[I Am The Game]

I understand what he's saying so calm your ass down.

[Malleus Dei]

Calm your own ass down.

I still enjoy individual games, streaks, and achievements - at least the honest ones. Trying to stay a baseball fan, though, in an era of Bud Selig, wild card playoff systems, free agency without a salary cap, steroid use, and such isn't easy. I can't personally recall baseball - or any another professional sport - ever looking quite this bad.