This right here. There's a lot of nostalgia involved. I was born in 91, so I can remember watching them at a young age on TBS Superstation after all the Roseanne reruns were over lol.

Yep.

Kent Merker pitched a no hitter in 94 or 95.

@@terrybuckley1556 He pitched a CG no-hitter in 1994, but he also started the combined no-hitter the Braves threw in 1991 with Mark Wohlers and Alejandro Pena throwing an inning each to finish it off.

This. There's a reason we draft pitching first, second, and whenever.

Yep, Avery was a stud in 91 and 92 and so extremely sad the injury bug derailed a potentially great career. Many thought Avery was better than both Smoltz and Glavin early on.

Yep! Big Braves fan. Avery was solid.

That's right

Team owners don't want their million dollar investments hurt, so they've been pushing for less and less workloads for pitchers. Too many have had Tommy John surgery that it's almost a given that 50% of pitchers will get it

which is why it made no sense why he couldn't do the same in the playoffs. He was a lot like Kershaw, dominate in the regular season, then turn into a minor league player in the playoffs! I guess some guys just collapse under playoff pressure...

@@jackson5116 Not true; look at the box scores. His playoff averages look pedestrian, but there were some games he absolutely dominated. I remember a game against the Yankees where he came off the mound about a dozen times to field some weak dribbling grounder. Vintage Maddux.

I lived in Richmond, VA in that time. If you wanted to get to ATL...you had to start in Richmond.

If only they could have gotten it done in the playoffs

and we won 1 world series 1 i say again 1 world series. SCREW THE YANKEES.

No team has done that before and after.

He got it wrong it’s 11 straight not 14 from 95’ - 05’

@@KevinJGamez 91,92,93. There was a strike in 94 so there was no division winner, so that's 14 straight

My dad went to HS with him

I agree, how can they forget a guy like Steve Avery in this video, who could have been the number one starter in just about any other team?

Steve Avery was epic as a kid, but when big leaguers figured him out he was ordinary to bad. He only has literally a year and a half of good stats, and then a very bad downturn. The Maddix signing and the longevity of Smoltz and Glavine made the Big 3. After 1994 explain what Avery did to make him part of the Big 3. In fact Avery wasn’t even on half of those conference titles. You can respect a player without disrespecting 3 Hall of Famers over a guy who never even sniffed a vote. The big 3 did not include Avery, because he wasn’t great.

Saw Glavine get beat in the '91 World Series. Braves did not have run support. The old Launching Pad was not launching that day. Combine was fine if he got out of the first 2 innings. Wish a computer whiz could confirm most of the runs he allowed came in the first couple innings. Then he settled down.

Steve Avery so ture

89-90 A’s were almost that impressive.

wins aren't as impressive as things like K's, ERA, and shutouts. That's why Cy Young voting rarely looks at the most wins, because you can be on a dominant team and get 20 wins while having an ERA of like 5.00 and 500 BB's, but your thunderous offense bails you out all the time.

it should also be noted teams had 4 man rotations back then, so it was much easier to pick up 20 wins when you start nearly 40 games. These guys had 5 man rotations, so they barely pitched in 30 games. Winning 20 of 30 is more impressive than winning 20 of 40.

@@jackson5116 very true, but the video is about the 3 at Atlanta, so if they had 5 starters (no doubt) the other 2 are complete footnotes to the situation, whereas for the 1971 Orioles, it was a great pitcher every outing.

@@jamesrav The '71 orioles staff had Jim Palmer lead with an ERA+ of 126, with Dave Mcnally and Pat Dobson behind him at 117 and 116 respectively. Mike Cuellar finished with a 109 ERA+. There were many years where Smoltz would be the "worst" of the big 3 and have better numbers than Palmer, the '71 orioles ace. Cuellar that year was only 9% above a league average pitcher. It really didn't matter if the Braves were trotting out Steve Avery, Denny Neagle, or Kevin Millwood (who was the FIFTH starter at times), they all consistently were better than cuellar, who admittedly I had to look up as he is pretty forgotten.

Sid Breem scored from first… that’s their biggest play. 1991. They didn’t even win the WS that year.

don't count out charlie morton

Thank you man

Actually, it happened in 1971 for the Baltimore Orioles. The only other time that a team had four 20 game winners in one season was the 1920 Chicago White Sox.

Probably one of the biggest disappointments in the sport

@@JVJsports i know right! Wasted talent

If not for awful calls against the Twins it likely would have been 2 and don't forget Eric Gregg's mess against the Marlins and Livan Hernandez during their time. They were robbed of a chance there also

Or what the A's had with Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito.

IDK, buddy (soroka) had to change his entire release mechanics

I don't think Soroka will ever get back to his old self sadly. His stuff looks pedestrian at best, he has no control over his slider and his fastballs get way too much of the plate.

Yeah he was really good too but not any where knew the level of the other 3

Oakland was so dominant when it came to the world series in the early seventies it was sickening.

Which era? Cuz these Braves teams don’t hold a candle to the A’s that won championships. Going back to 1909. The 1911 A’s starting rotation won 94 of their 101 win season. 2 of the 7 wins remaining were tossed by a position player.

Avery only pitched with them for 3 years at most and he wasn't effective the whole time. Liked the guy but was not part of the big 3

Maddux at least definetly got some calls because umpires expected him to throw strikes.

All of baseball got those calls during that time though, sparky. Perhaps you weren't alive then or whatever but all pitchers got those big strike zones

Yeah sounds like he’s just a toddler

Earl Weaver's Orioles had a great staff that included Jim Palmer and that staff only won one title. Those '89 A's? Lost to the Dodgers in 88 and were swept by the Reds in '90. There were many great pitching staffs that didn't win multiple titles. Being great doesn't entitle championships.

@@stanleywilliams1605 I agree. But he’s talking greatest rotation of all time. Are those Braves even top 10 on numbers?

@distantgalaxymusic1447 As individuals or as a triad? I don't think Ken Holtzman is in the HOF, but I know Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz are. Vida Blue and Catfish Hunter were amazing, but I would put Greg Maddux stats against Vida Blue. Same with Smoltz and Hunter, although I think Catfish has a slight edge to Smoltz on ERA.

@@stanleywilliams1605 the video is about the season they won the World Series, not their over all career performances. The video is claiming that the year the Braves won the WS they had the greatest pitching rotation in history for that season. It’s not only not true, it’s not even close. They weren’t better than the 1909-1912 A’s. If this was a conversation about total career numbers, you be correct.

@distantgalaxymusic1447 What I gathered from the video was about how that Braves rotation came to fruition and how they fell apart. I know the story because I'm a lifelong Braves fan, so I had a front row seat. When making comparison in baseball, I don't tend to go beyond the 1940's. The playing field before then wasn't exactly level. By that, I mean, their were no Latin or Black players in the Majors. I do, however acknowledge how great those A's that you spoke of were.👍🏼

Dynasty? Shit Yankees were and forever will be the biggest pile of money shit

BS - You're dead wrong here

The Braves in that era had MULTIPLE years where their staff was better than the '71 orioles. Please tell me you're not really using pitcher wins as a measuring stick for how good they were...lol

I'll disagree with you here. Maddux was the best but it's hard to rate them better than the other. They all had different styles

WTH is chocked? Like chocking a wheel so the vehicle doesn't roll away? Stupid Yankee

Yankees bought those series. They never grew em

There are a couple reasons they only won one and it's not because Maddux and Glavine were choke artists as your posts seem to imply as both were still good in the playoffs. 94 season was cancelled though Expos were a machine so who knows what happens. 1st real shot they had with the big 3 was in 95 and they won. They lost twice to the Yankees who were a dynasty and very clutch team. One of the reasons Atlanta only won once was their bullpen wasn't great and they didn't have a great closer. Meanwhile the team you are playing has the GOAT closer on their side (as well as other great relievers such as John Wetteland in 96 who was an all star and still the closer while Rivera was young. In 96 the series famously turned when the Braves, trying to take a commanding 3-1 lead, closer Mark Wholers gave up famous 3 run HR to Jim Leyritz to blow the game. The other time they played Yankees the Yankees were just in peak dynasty mode. They were in middle of streak where they won 3 straight WS with 12-1 world series record. swept Padres, swept Braves, beat my Mets 4-1. Speaking of my Mets 2000 team that denied Braves WS that year was damn good team. Very good series that Braves again let down by their bullpen when Robin Ventura hit his famous walk off Grand Slam single off Braves bullpen. Overall Atlanta was never a dominant offensive team either. They were decent hitters but they didn't have as many sluggers or depth with pinch hitters or L/R platoons as some of the teams they faced in playoffs such as Yankees or Indians. The two years in question really are 97/98 when their Big 3 was still peak. 97 Marlins were stacked team overall especially on offense compared to Atlanta. 98 the bullpen took the loss in Game 1 and the offense got shut out twice after that so thats 3 of the 4 losses you cant really just blame on the starting pitching. Even in one of the wins Maddux had to be utilized in relief for a save. Still in a couple of those series there were bad starts here and there including by Smoltz but overall I don't think its fair to say their starters weren't good enough in the postseason. By and large the starters did perform good enough to win games in the postseason but as good as they performed the team a whole including the offense and bullpen wasn't as dominant as the starting pitching was and they also lost twice to a dynasty team that was challenging for regular season wins records and sweeping their way through the playoffs almost every season.

Shut your trap kid