It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Baseball: Is the Braves' streak finally coming to an end?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:37 PM
I saw today that the Atlanta Braves have lost 16 of their last 19 games. They are 10+ games out of first. Could it be that their amazing streak of division titles is going to end this year? For 14 straight years (well, playoff years--not including 1994, which had no playoffs) the Braves have won their division and made it to the playoffs. Many times experts wrote them off as done, but they kept bouncing back. Are they finally finished?

It's kind of a shame that after all they went through and the division success they had, the Braves only have that one World Series victory to show for it.

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:52 AM
It certainly appears that the streak may be over, their pitching is terrible this year, i can't attribute it to Leo Mazzone leaving either, he went to to baltimore and they aren't any better. You have to give some credit to the Mets, they are fantastic this year and don't appear to be slowing down. The braves pitchers are either old or really young with the exception of Hudson who's not having a bad year but it's not really great either, Smoltz is really hit or miss this season.

The Braves are my team, but with their lack of performance i've been taking in some minor league ball and it's the best time i've had at a ballpark in a long time. Our team is a cellar dwellar but every game is sold out, and is always alot of fun. I'd like to thank the Braves for forcing me away from the TV and enjoying the local ballpark.

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:32 AM
Yes, I was down for the Red Sox-Braves game yesterday. It was my present to my dad for fathers day. THey didnt play bad but they are absolutely killing me with their pitching right now. But is it really surprising, they bullpen has absolutely been crap these past few seasons. You can only go so far with 2 or 3 good starting pitchers, you have to have those 3 or 4 solid relievers in the bullpen, plus a solid closer, and the braves dont have that right now. Unless the Braves can get hot before the allstar break and keep it going, I dont see them winning the division for a 15th straight time.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 09:31 AM
Braves finally broke the losing streak last night, it was deffinately an overdue win. This is one of the greatest streaks in all of sports, to win a division so many years in a row in a game where winning it once is very difficult.

However, Smoltz did go down last night to a groin injury which could set them back even more than another loss.

Its a dark year in Atlanta.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 11:23 AM
I'm not somebody who would view an end to the Braves' divisional dynasty as a bad thing, and that's putting it very mildly. But since I'm amidst Braves' fans, including my pal Aegis, I'll leave it at that.

And instead....

I will point out that they do not need to overtake the Mets to make the playoffs for the umpteenth time. Nor, given recent history, do they need to win their division to win the World Series. Indeed, it appears playoff teams may be better off NOT winning their divisions.

In any event, that team has set a record which I see in the same light as Babe Ruth's .690 career slugging average, Cy Young's 511 wins, etc. In other words, no way in hell do I see anyone's breaking that record of divisional wins. And although I am certainly not a Mets fan, I suggest you down-and-out Braves fans talk to some Mets fans about how easily, and completely, THAT team is capable of collapsing. You might also think about how easily Pedro, with his almost-35 year-old arm, is capable of getting injured. Think that might affect their morale?

Hang in there, Braves fans. All is not lost.


posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:00 PM
I'm not really a down and out Braves fan, i think i'd welcome them to not win the division and get to the playoffs, at least they'd have a reason to not win or even make the world series. It's almost embarrasing, they've made the post season 14 time and have one world series ring. They're not getting it done so let's have someone else in there who may have a shot at taking on the AL.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:48 AM
the Braves run has officially ended, in my eyes anyway. last night (friday) they had to go extra innings with the D-Rays to win, and tonight (saturday) they lost. Now i don't know much about the D-Rays, and they may have some really good talent, but until they make it to the post season i'm gonna assume they suck, yet they beat my Braves. I'll give them this, they've got Scott Kasmir, a fine pitcher and on any other team would be light's out, and Carl Crawford, who could steal a bingo card from an old lady in a nursing home (which isn't easy, i know because I work in one) but that is the extent of their team as far as I know. It's a sad day in Bravesville, and i'm ready for next season to start already.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:07 AM
Well, Aegis, for whatever you find it to be worth, consider this:

In 1915, the Philadelphia Phillies went to their first World Series on the shoulders of the phenomenal pitcher, Grover Cleveland Alexander, who is on almost all experts' lists of the Top 10 pitchers of all time, and who makes many experts' Top 5 lists. They lost, 4 games to 1. They stayed over .500 for the next two years, because they kept Alexander for the next two years. Then he went to World War I, and from there to the Cubs.

Here is what happened to Philly from that point on, and I kid you not:

They had exactly ZERO winning seasons from 1918 through 1948. In the vast majority of those years, their record was nothing at all like 74-80. Instead, it was like 60-94, if not 50-104, or 44-110. They put together a 3-decade run of putrefaction the likes of which no other baseball team has ever come close to.

Yes, a LOT of teams were perpetually terrible in those years--the Browns, the White Sox, the Red Sox and the Braves all come to mind. But nobody can touch the Phillies for sustained excellence at stinking the joint up over a 3-decade span. In its own perverse way, it's a phenomenal feat.

Then they posted a winning season in 1949 and, BOOM, in 1950 they won another pennant. That team is known historically as "The Whiz Kids." Their pitching staff was what got them there, and their big star was Robin Roberts, who, for the first half of the 1950's, was by far the greatest pitcher in baseball (no, not Spahn and not Ford).

And again they got their @sses kicked. This time, they didn't suffer a bunch of thumpings. They lost good, entertaining, close games. But they lost ALL of the games, 4-zip, el sweeperoo. And that was the end of the Whiz Kids.

My friend Aegis, your boys have been winning for what, 15 years in a row now? The Phillies went thirty consecutive seasons without hitting the .500 mark, and got their butts kicked in the two World Series they did make, prior to 1980. The St. Louis Browns lost their one and ONLY World Series--which should hardly even count--during World War Two, with replacement players, in 1944. Only when that franchise became the Baltimore Orioles did they start winning World Series (1966, 1970, 1983).

So, in addition to the fact you are burying your team prematurely (bad word to use at a site with so many young guys
--said the old man
), y'all have had an incredible run of success which will be talked about for as long as the game is played. Yeah, they WILL say that the team "only" won one World Series, but my god, 15 consecutive division titles? What is the second best mark for consecutive division titles? Five? Six?


posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:10 PM
BHN, though I'm not the biggest baseball fan out there, it is disheartening to be reminded that the Phillies are the losingest team in all of professional sports (at least of the 4 major pro sports in the USA)

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:53 PM
I haven't seen much baseball over the last 2 weeks... actually, not at all... but seeing the Braves 15 GB, I think it's over... but that's ok. We'll eventually be there again. The Mets are just an amazing team this year.

As a Braves fun, it's upsetting that the streak is over, but I'm not too worried about it.

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:06 PM
Well, another bit of baseball history:

In 1914, the Boston Braves were about that far behind, MUCH later in the season--a week or two into August, I believe. Then they started winning just about every game they played. And yeah, they won the pennant. And then they beat Connie Mack's dynastic Philadelphia A's team. P!ssed Mack off so much that he broke up the team, which, in 1916, put up THE worst W-L % of all time--quite a bit worse than the 1962 Mets. The A's weren't back again until they had their Grove/Cochrane/Foxx/Simmons team in the late 1920's and early 1930's.

I believe, in fact, that the 1914 Braves SWEPT the A's. Do you know what their nickname in baseball history is? "The Miracle Braves."

So don't count them out yet. They've done it before, in a much bigger way than this.


posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:18 PM
Kinda off topic, but since Ted Turner owns the Braves and TBS, he probably has more control than the baseball Gods want him to. Therefore no matter how well the Braves played, they were never meant to go to far because MLB would lose money if Braves games were played on TBS. Ok now someone poke holes in that logic, or lack thereof.

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
Kinda off topic, but since Ted Turner owns the Braves and TBS, he probably has more control than the baseball Gods want him to. Therefore no matter how well the Braves played, they were never meant to go to far because MLB would lose money if Braves games were played on TBS. Ok now someone poke holes in that logic, or lack thereof.

just a little hole poking here, MLB still get's their TV money no matter which station they're on. In fact they get double when it's on two channels at the same time (think Cubs vs. Braves, on WGN and TBS at the same time). I agree that Turner probably has too much power but that's what insanely rich people do, at least he hasn't run for office yet.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:38 PM
IF MLB get double the revenue on when a game is shown on two channels, then why are so many games blacked out. I know you gave the WGN TBS example but I don't get WGN so my conprehension is out of wack. In Boston games get blocked out all the time depending on who's showing the game (NESN, ESPN, or Fox). I'm wondering if the station pays off the other stations to black out the game because of complicated economics reasons I could ramble incoherently about.

new topics

top topics


log in