The King is dead. Long live the King.
It's been a foregone conclusion for some time now, but it became official Tuesday night. When the New York Mets defeated the Florida Marlins by a 6-4 score, the Atlanta Braves' string of 14 straight division championships had come to an end. Even making the playoffs is a longshot, as the Braves, currently five games under .500, are five games behind wild-card leader San Diego with 19 games left in the season. This writer has predicted the demise of the Braves more than once over the last few seasons, but somehow Bobby Cox's team has continued to win despite the exodus of some key players in recent years. It could be easy to point to pitching coach Leo Mazzone's departure for the final downfall, but it would have been hard for first-year pitching coach Roger McDowell to do much with a bullpen populated with inexperienced young relievers and a few rookies who are no longer prospects. On top of that, the Braves have played much or all of the season without starters Mike Hampton, John Thomson and Horacio Ramirez. Can the Braves turn things around without a major rebuilding? There's certainly hope for a quick revival of the Braves, considering the strong 2006 performances of young players Brian McCann, Adam LaRoche, Jeff Francoeur and Matt Diaz. And the Braves always seem to have talent arriving from the minors. "The spirit of the organization isn't broken, nor is the mechanism that has built this grand run over 15 years broken," GM John Schuerholz said. "It just needs a tuneup." The Braves' feat is something that may never happen again. It rivals what the Yankees did in a couple of dynastic runs that go back 40-70 years.
Comments
The Yankees from 1921-64 won about 22 World Series. The Braves from 1991-2005 won their division by being better than Cincinnati, Florida (who won twice as many World Series), the Giants, the Phillies, and the Mets. It's an impressive record of division championships, but it doesn't begin to compare with the Yankees' 4-decade dynasty.
Posted by: Dion | September 13, 2006 9:56 PM
I wasn't considering 1921-64 as one dynasty. I was treating those years as three separate dynasties, with the longest running 1949-64, and I was comparing the Braves' success to one of them. For most of their run, the Braves succeeded in a National League of 16 teams, which is the same number of all major league teams during the Yankees' dynasties. Obviously the Yankees still win out by virtue of claiming so many World Series titles in two of their three dynastic runs (six from 1935-42, nine from 1949-64), while the Braves only made a few World Series appearances from 1991-2005. The Braves deserve credit, however, for excelling with so much home-grown talent at a time when the amateur draft system neutralizes teams to a degree in terms of assembling a dynasty. The old Yankee teams had a big advantage in this regard, though they deserve credit for their scouting acumen and their willingness to spend money en route to 20 titles in 44 years. That can't be topped, but isn't what the Braves did in their era somewhat comparable to a Yankee dynasty? Since the expansion era began in the 1960s, no current franchise has been able to do what the Braves have done.
Posted by: TH | September 14, 2006 2:43 PM
I agree that the Braves' record since 1990 is the second-most impressive dynasty in the history of baseball, and the most impressive since the dawn of free agency.
Posted by: Dion | September 19, 2006 7:29 PM
Then there are the current-day Yankees, who are on the verge of collecting their ninth straight AL East crown. They will be five division titles shy of matching the Braves when they clinch this week, but New York has won a handful of World Series titles in the last decade.
Posted by: TH | September 20, 2006 12:58 AM