LATEST BRAVES CHOKE WILL CLAIM CASUALTIES - OR SHOULD
Just three years ago, the Atlanta Braves were the laughingstock of Major League Baseball, a perpetual losing team summarized with the phrase, "first alphabetically, last in the standings." After two noble efforts that fell just a tiny bit short in two of the best World Series ever played, the Braves have managed to go from the team that can't win at all to the team that can't win when it counts. The 1991 World Series came down to one play, and it's difficult to say that either team was substantially better than the other. Toronto was indisputably better than the Braves last year, and it's debatable whether the Braves could beat the Blue Jays this year. But there's likewise no doubt that the Braves are substantially better than the Phillies. It doesn't matter, though, the Braves now join such teams as the 1973 Reds, 1987 Tigers, and 1988 Mets as "teams who won a bunch of games and now sit home watching inferior teams who beat them play in the World Series."
What went wrong for Atlanta? Maybe we should ask what didn't go wrong, but this one is not overly simple. But there are a few points of emphasis that the Braves will have to fix if they want to take that last step across the threshold.
A substantial portion of the blame has to fall on the shoulders of Ron Gant. Yes, I know Gant has two 30-30 seasons and missed a third by just four steals this year. I even know that without Gant's stellar performance in the 1991 NLCS against Pittsburgh, where he went 7-for-27 with four runs scored, 3 RBIs, and 7 steals, there's no way the Braves make the World Series two years ago. He deserves all the credit forthcoming for being a solid player in the clutch in that particular series - if you overlook the fact Gant went 0-for-6 with runners in scoring position, 0-for-9 with men on base, and he struck out five of those nine times.
Have you looked at his postseason performance since that one seeming exception?
1) Ron Gant
In the 1991 World Series, Gant was an acceptable 8-for-30 overall. But after going 3-for-4 in an opening game loss to the Twins, Gant spent the last six games going 5-for-26, had one steal, and most devastatingly hit into a fielder's choice ground out with the bases loaded in game six (that did score one run but prevented a big inning) and popped out to the catcher with runners at 2nd and 3rd and nobody out in the 8th inning of Game Seven. All-in-all, Gant went 0-for-9 with the Braves up, 3-2, in the Series when just one hit from Gant would have won the whole thing. To be fair, Gant was the poor batter who hit the loudest out of the series when Kirby Puckett made a sensational catch. If this were all to the story, it would be fine. But it isn't.
In the 1992 NLCS, Gant went a paltry 4-for-22 (.182) and had he not socked his first career grand slam when the Braves already led, 4-0, in Game Two, his performance would have been even worse. Part of the reason Francisco Cabrera wound up a hero is that Gant popped out to deep left field with the bases loaded to make the first out in the bottom of the 9th in Game Seven. Yes, he hit the ball hard, but the fact is that he had a terrible series other than one at bat. His series was so terrible, in fact, that if you'll recall, Gant was benched after going 0-for-3 in Game One of the 1992 World Series in favor of Deion Sanders, who lead all hitters on both teams with a torrid .533 batting average and five stolen bases. Gant, demoted to part-time, went 1-for-8 and then proceeded to misplay Dave Winfield's series winning hit into a two-run "double" rather than a one-run game. Atlanta lost in the bottom of the inning when they only scored (wait for it) one run. Gant, by the way, came up in the bottom of the 9th of Game Six with runners at second and third in a tie game where a hit would have forced Game Seven and, of course, he popped out. Gant's overall postseason stats entering this series with the Phillies were 20-for-87 (.229), three home runs, and a pathetic 4-for-28 with runners in scoring position. And then over the course of the last week, Gant really outdid himself in mediocrity.
Gant showed up to the NLCS and went 5-for-27, including a horrific 1-for-15 with men on base (1-for-9 with RISP), and struck out 9 times. That means that even including his solid performance in the 1991 playoffs (at least as a base stealer), Gant is now 5-for-37 with runners in scoring position. And it gets worse when you remember that one of those hits was his grand slam in a game the Braves led, 4-0, and another was his bases clearing double in Game Two against the Phillies when the Braves already were up, 10-2. He is an outstanding young ballplayer and quite popular, but the reality is that Gant is not a clutch performer, and he is not the hitter you want at the plate with the game on the line.
2) Atlanta's solid hitting was isolated to Games 2 and 3.
If you look at the OVERALL numbers for the series, you will wonder how Atlanta could possibly have lost. They outscored the Phillies (33-23), outhit them (.274 to .227) and had fewer errors (7-5). But if you subtract those two contests and count only the four games the Braves lost, the numbers are truly bad. They scored 10 runs in those four games (4 of those 10 in the 9th inning) and hit .227 (31-for-136) with one home run after Game Six was long decided. The Braves blistered three Philly pitchers - Tommy Greene, Terry Mulholland, and David West - and couldn't touch the rest comparatively speaking. And that leads to the next problem.
3) A complete lack of clutch hitting.
The Braves got here with a high-powered offense that appeared to be slump proof after the acquisition of Fred McGriff. The Braves were shut out 8 times before McGriff joined the team - and only one time after he joined the team, probably not so coincidentally, the only game he rested on the bench in the second half of the season. Furthermore, Atlanta's solid pitching held teams to two runs or less 29 times in the final 67 games, meaning just a little offense and typical pitching performance should have been enough to win the series. But the Braves couldn't muster even that, giving up three or more runs in four of the six games. And the Braves blew chance after chance, the most notable occurring in Game Four, when the Braves had the tying run in scoring position every inning in the last six, five times with less than two outs - but not a single runner crossed the plate.
The last two years, the Braves could salvage some level of honor in heroic defeat. This time, everyone will now begin to question whether they have what it takes to actually win the championship because the Braves flat out choked this series away to an inferior team.
Just three years ago, the Atlanta Braves were the laughingstock of Major League Baseball, a perpetual losing team summarized with the phrase, "first alphabetically, last in the standings." After two noble efforts that fell just a tiny bit short in two of the best World Series ever played, the Braves have managed to go from the team that can't win at all to the team that can't win when it counts. The 1991 World Series came down to one play, and it's difficult to say that either team was substantially better than the other. Toronto was indisputably better than the Braves last year, and it's debatable whether the Braves could beat the Blue Jays this year. But there's likewise no doubt that the Braves are substantially better than the Phillies. It doesn't matter, though, the Braves now join such teams as the 1973 Reds, 1987 Tigers, and 1988 Mets as "teams who won a bunch of games and now sit home watching inferior teams who beat them play in the World Series."
What went wrong for Atlanta? Maybe we should ask what didn't go wrong, but this one is not overly simple. But there are a few points of emphasis that the Braves will have to fix if they want to take that last step across the threshold.
A substantial portion of the blame has to fall on the shoulders of Ron Gant. Yes, I know Gant has two 30-30 seasons and missed a third by just four steals this year. I even know that without Gant's stellar performance in the 1991 NLCS against Pittsburgh, where he went 7-for-27 with four runs scored, 3 RBIs, and 7 steals, there's no way the Braves make the World Series two years ago. He deserves all the credit forthcoming for being a solid player in the clutch in that particular series - if you overlook the fact Gant went 0-for-6 with runners in scoring position, 0-for-9 with men on base, and he struck out five of those nine times.
Have you looked at his postseason performance since that one seeming exception?
1) Ron Gant
In the 1991 World Series, Gant was an acceptable 8-for-30 overall. But after going 3-for-4 in an opening game loss to the Twins, Gant spent the last six games going 5-for-26, had one steal, and most devastatingly hit into a fielder's choice ground out with the bases loaded in game six (that did score one run but prevented a big inning) and popped out to the catcher with runners at 2nd and 3rd and nobody out in the 8th inning of Game Seven. All-in-all, Gant went 0-for-9 with the Braves up, 3-2, in the Series when just one hit from Gant would have won the whole thing. To be fair, Gant was the poor batter who hit the loudest out of the series when Kirby Puckett made a sensational catch. If this were all to the story, it would be fine. But it isn't.
In the 1992 NLCS, Gant went a paltry 4-for-22 (.182) and had he not socked his first career grand slam when the Braves already led, 4-0, in Game Two, his performance would have been even worse. Part of the reason Francisco Cabrera wound up a hero is that Gant popped out to deep left field with the bases loaded to make the first out in the bottom of the 9th in Game Seven. Yes, he hit the ball hard, but the fact is that he had a terrible series other than one at bat. His series was so terrible, in fact, that if you'll recall, Gant was benched after going 0-for-3 in Game One of the 1992 World Series in favor of Deion Sanders, who lead all hitters on both teams with a torrid .533 batting average and five stolen bases. Gant, demoted to part-time, went 1-for-8 and then proceeded to misplay Dave Winfield's series winning hit into a two-run "double" rather than a one-run game. Atlanta lost in the bottom of the inning when they only scored (wait for it) one run. Gant, by the way, came up in the bottom of the 9th of Game Six with runners at second and third in a tie game where a hit would have forced Game Seven and, of course, he popped out. Gant's overall postseason stats entering this series with the Phillies were 20-for-87 (.229), three home runs, and a pathetic 4-for-28 with runners in scoring position. And then over the course of the last week, Gant really outdid himself in mediocrity.
Gant showed up to the NLCS and went 5-for-27, including a horrific 1-for-15 with men on base (1-for-9 with RISP), and struck out 9 times. That means that even including his solid performance in the 1991 playoffs (at least as a base stealer), Gant is now 5-for-37 with runners in scoring position. And it gets worse when you remember that one of those hits was his grand slam in a game the Braves led, 4-0, and another was his bases clearing double in Game Two against the Phillies when the Braves already were up, 10-2. He is an outstanding young ballplayer and quite popular, but the reality is that Gant is not a clutch performer, and he is not the hitter you want at the plate with the game on the line.
2) Atlanta's solid hitting was isolated to Games 2 and 3.
If you look at the OVERALL numbers for the series, you will wonder how Atlanta could possibly have lost. They outscored the Phillies (33-23), outhit them (.274 to .227) and had fewer errors (7-5). But if you subtract those two contests and count only the four games the Braves lost, the numbers are truly bad. They scored 10 runs in those four games (4 of those 10 in the 9th inning) and hit .227 (31-for-136) with one home run after Game Six was long decided. The Braves blistered three Philly pitchers - Tommy Greene, Terry Mulholland, and David West - and couldn't touch the rest comparatively speaking. And that leads to the next problem.
3) A complete lack of clutch hitting.
The Braves got here with a high-powered offense that appeared to be slump proof after the acquisition of Fred McGriff. The Braves were shut out 8 times before McGriff joined the team - and only one time after he joined the team, probably not so coincidentally, the only game he rested on the bench in the second half of the season. Furthermore, Atlanta's solid pitching held teams to two runs or less 29 times in the final 67 games, meaning just a little offense and typical pitching performance should have been enough to win the series. But the Braves couldn't muster even that, giving up three or more runs in four of the six games. And the Braves blew chance after chance, the most notable occurring in Game Four, when the Braves had the tying run in scoring position every inning in the last six, five times with less than two outs - but not a single runner crossed the plate.
The last two years, the Braves could salvage some level of honor in heroic defeat. This time, everyone will now begin to question whether they have what it takes to actually win the championship because the Braves flat out choked this series away to an inferior team.
