|
|
|
|
|
|
The Jester’s Quart
April 14, 2006
The Jester’s Quart: Brave New Whirled
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
Sheffield, Glavine and 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: "Is 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 twelve 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.
Add
This Column To Your Site for free
Published on the web and www.SportsFanMagazine.com since 1997, "The Jester's Quart" is a weekly satirical look at sports, pop culture and why NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman is a jackass. Columnist Greg Wyshynski is the Senior 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" can be ordered now. Email Wyshynski at jestersquart@hotmail.com.
