11/21/24
August 02, 2002
Stuck in Second: Slate's Hugo Lindgren says that the reason that teams like the Atlanta Braves, Utah Jazz, and Buffalo Bills don't win championships is that they won't make the necessary adjustments to their almost-championship teams to get them to the fabled next level.
posted by kirkaracha to general at 11:59 AM - 8 comments
There's something to Lindgren's argument, though I agree with kirkaracha in that Bobby Cox is a terrible postseason manager -- though I suppose that can be attributed to the "oh so close" mentality that serves as a hindrance. Why dump Cox when he always gets the team so close year after year (Braves have also had their share of rotten luck, Eric Greg anyone?). It's happening again as the Braves seem content to go into the postseason with a glaring weakness at 3rd, an improbable platoon at 1st, and Keith Lockart getting regular ABs. By season's end they'll wonder why they lost those 3-2 games in October. Seems to me that, to a less noticeable extent, that the Cleveland Indians suffered the same ills. During their peak, they were always a starter-short yet never pulled the trigger on a big deal -- even though they had the prospects (Brian Giles, Richie Sexon, Sean Casey) to do so.
posted by herc at 12:31 PM on August 02, 2002
No, this is the Braves' year, now that they've got Smoltz relieving.... right?
posted by insomnyuk at 01:01 PM on August 02, 2002
Well, the Braves lost in 1996 due to one terrible pitch to Leyritz. It totally broke their momentum. Other than that, Bobby Cox has pretty much stunk it up in the post season--sticking with his starters about two outs too long and not staying with the hot hitting hands in favor of left-right platoons.
posted by trox at 04:26 PM on August 02, 2002
Lindgren is wrong! In the case of the Bills, well, it's the heat, dammit. They're so used to playing in those harsh Buffalo winters that once you get to the Super Bowl, in the sticky heat of, say, Miami or New Orleans, the Northerners just wither. (Of course, I have no idea if they've been playing in climate-controlled stadiums all along, but, hey, if Lindgren can bandy about his theories, so can I.) Or not.
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:19 PM on August 02, 2002
The same Hugo Lindgren who used to work at Metropolis lo those many years ago? The child prodigy? Wow. I guess we finally have a proper writer working in the sports field. Where is Howard Z. Unger, late of the Village Voice, when we need him? (Their names are almost anagrams!) Howard could take Hugo no problem, and do it under wordcount. What was that about the Atlanta Braves again?
posted by joeclark at 08:43 PM on August 02, 2002
The Bills never won because the Cowboys had the most dominant offense the game had seen in a long time, with a great running back, stellar recievers, and a solid if overrated QB, all behind a great line. And because of rotten luck. The Jazz... there was that Jordan guy. The Braves... maybe I'll buy that. But overall it's really hard to buy an argument that says 'they didn't have the guts to make the big trade' when all the listed franchises were a couple of bounces away from beating some of the greatest forces their sports had ever seen. And for every team repeatedly this close to greatness, you can point to a team that did make that one gutsy trade and fell apart because of it. It's a bogus, bogus argument.
posted by tieguy at 09:47 PM on August 02, 2002
I don't blame Lindgren for misunderstanding the issue, but sports games are not about statistics and star players--they're about the power of human faith. What does he want these teams to do? Baseball has a club that single-mindedly compiles the best and the brightest--they're the New York Yankees, and if you don't (inexplicably) love them, you hate them with a passion, frequently choosing them to represent all that is wrong with the sport: oh yeah, and the Yankees' big, fat payroll couldn't propel them to a World Series victory over the Arizona Diamondbacks--a team whose offense is spotty at best, and whose defense is represented to those unfamiliar with the team only by the twin guns of Johnson and Schilling. So it's easy to blame Bobby Cox for leaving his pitchers in too long: he trusts them enough to write off hit after hit as a freak occurance. That's how AZ manager Bob Brenly could send Johnson out to pitch in game seven on zero days rest. And if Johnson had blown it, Brenly would be the next Cox. Johnson didn't, and instead, Brenly will be remembered as a gutsy manager who made a gutsy move--and it paid off. Teams win titles by taking risks. And going after big-money stars isn't a risk--it's the safe, easy answer that'll make fans hate you, and leave you blindsided by the maverick upstart.
posted by kjh at 12:35 AM on August 03, 2002
It's an interesting theory, but I think the reason the Atlanta Braves have only won one recent World Series is that Bobby Cox is a terrible postseason manager and leaves his pitchers in too long. And then there's the Yankees.