Originally Posted by 757690
Difference between the BRM of the 70's and the Braves of the '90's? One World Series Championship.
I'll gladly take 16 consecutive Division Championships, thank you.
The BRM of the 70's didn't play in a watered-down expansion era with the option of free agency. Therefore, the comparison doesn't seem valid to me.
When all is said and done, despite winning several more division titles during the 90's than the Reds, the Braves of the 90's have won just as many championships as the Reds of the 90's. While it's obviously not a popular opinion around here, IMHO, that (Championship ratio per playoff appearance) is the most relevant statistic.
Sure, I'll gladly take 16 consecutive Division Championships. Heck, I don't even care if some of them are of the wild card variety; after all, the object is simply to qualify for the postseason.
Nobody should obviously expect a World Series appearance and/or Championship each year, but I do not want our favorite team to enter the postseason each year with unaddressed holes in the lineup and/or as prohibitive league favorites just to continually fall short.
While I fully agree with the randomness of baseball element, the aforementioned scenario occurred far too often with a certain franchise in the 90's to be attributed to simply "bad luck."
I also believe that it was a heck of a lot more than positive random "good luck" bounces that resulted in the two WS championships that the Marlins won without ever capturing the N.L East Crown. They took full advantage of the opportunities presented with timely acquisitions and adjustments and won two championships. That is all that matters. As they say, "scoreboard"
So, in that respect, I fully agree with both Vottomatic and Caveat Emporer here.