That line was from the movie "Patton". The movie took place during W.W.II but its meaning is never more relevant than it is today. This is especially true as far as sports is concerned. Baseball is a perfect example of this. During the last decade the most dominant team has been the Atlanta Braves. No team has been more consistently successful over the past 10 years than the Braves. From 1991 to 2000 - with the exception of the work stoppage year of 1994 - they have won their division every year. They have been to five World Series but have only won it one time. The Cleveland Indians have been very dominant for the last five years. They have won their division every year except in 2000. They went to two World Series during this time and lost both.
What these two teams have in common - besides success and politically incorrect nicknames - is that both teams are viewed as failures. The Braves' and Indians' lack of World Series triumphs has been the reason for this perception. As a matter of fact people get a lot of pleasure from making fun of these teams when they come up short. Braves' fans will say that they did win a World Series but their critics will say it should have been more than just one. In a way it's true because over history great teams have been measured by the multiple championships they have won. In another way it isn't because they have consistently won over a short period of time. But most people don't see it that way. A great example was in 1999 when the Red Sox beat a favored Indians team in the playoffs. The day after the Red Sox won the series, the talk shows and chat rooms just ripped the Indians. Never mind their recent success. Never mind that a lot of other teams - and their fans - would love to have the chance to go to the playoffs. Even Indians' fans were ripping on their own team. I know I would have hated being an Indians' fan after that series.
The Braves aren't immune from criticism either. Especially by non-Braves fans in Dixie. Some people refer to them disparingly as the Atlanta Bills - a reference to the Buffalo Bills who went to 4 straight Super Bowls and came up empty each time. Every year the Braves don't win a World Series is another black mark on their legacy. In the future people will talk about great teams and the Braves of the 90's will come up. Someone will respond that they were good but they only won one World Series.
One reason for these teams being ridiculed is they have set the bar so high for themselves, when they fail, it draws more attention than if say the Reds or Cubs or Giants or Phillies didn't make the playoffs. Now I'm sure these other teams and their fans would give their eyeteeth to be in the situation the Braves and Indians are in. Sure they make fun of them but they believe if given the same chance, they would do better. It may be pie-in-the-sky thinking but I'm sure they believe that with all their hearts.
I'm not going to get into the psychology of why people feel this way but rather whether is it better to be like the Braves or Indians and win but not win it all or is it better to languish close to the top and rarely make the playoffs.
Mind you, I'm not saying a team should never strive for the playoffs but perhaps they should just put their eggs in one basket and go for it all in a period of a year or two. When the Braves and Indians started winning it became a feel-good story for a year or two. After that they became tedious and objects of derision due to their coming up short almost every year. Even when the Braves won it all it was against the Indians. They had the Yankees down 3 games to 1 one year in the World Series and wound up losing.
Continuously losing in the post-season is especially problematic for Cleveland. During the 1990's they have won over a lot of Reds' fans. Especially the ones in Central Ohio. They had a beautiful new stadium, some exciting teams and, most importantly, they won. They continued to win but never won it all. Now that team isn't so young anymore. They may be on the verge of losing Manny Ramirez, one of their best players, to free agency. The Alomar brothers aren't getting any younger and neither is that stadium. Meanwhile the Reds signed Ken Griffey, Jr. and will have a new stadium in 2003. They are also a younger team than Cleveland with rising stars - much like Cleveland was in the mid 90's. Now the Great American Ballpark may not be better than Jacobs Field but if you have a 1995 Mercedes in your driveway and your next door neighbor just bought a 2001 Mercedes and he's got it in his driveway, which car is going to draw the most attention? The 95 Mercedes may be a better made car and it may look a bit nicer but it's got some miles on it and the 01 Mercedes is shiny and new and just by the newness factor alone, is perceived as nicer. I believe the Reds will draw 3 million fans in their new park the first year just by the novelty factor alone. In a really good year the Reds will draw between 2 and 2.5 million fans. If the Reds draw 3.2 million in their first year in GAB, those extra million fans will have to come from somewhere. Those extra fans may be coming from fans who are bored by the Indians and their "old" stadium and their habit of losing in the post season year after year.
And what about the Braves? As long as John Schuerholz is in charge and as long as a huge corporation owns the Braves and as long as the current rules are in play, the Braves will be a force to be reckoned with. But nothing is forever. Their three main starting pitchers are not getting any younger and while they may have talent in their minor league system, these guys may not be as good as Glavine, Smoltz and Maddux. If the Braves want to be remembered as one of the great teams, they need to win another world championship or two before their window of opportunity closes. No one - not even their own fans - are going to care about this team if they keep losing in the playoffs year after year. They might as well not make the playoffs at all.
In today's society there is not a lot of difference between winning and losing. I don't necessarily mean that the difference in the teams are minimal but that people don't seem to care how much a team wins and if they don't win it all they are perceived as losers. Is that fair? Probably not but what are you going to do? Even if a team goes all out to win it all
there's no guarantee they will win it all. Do Atlanta and Cleveland go out to win it all? I would guess they do but the results speak for themselves.
The Big Red Machine of the 70's is known as one of the greatest teams of all time. But they only won two World Championships during that era. That cemented their reputation as a great team but I have to believe that if society then was like it is now, before the Reds won their back-to-back world championships, they wouldn't have fared any better - popular opinion wise - than the Braves and Cleveland. The question remains is it better to win consistently and come close almost every year but come up short or is it better to lurk in the shadows of mediocrity? In my opinion it's better to win than to be mediocre. Even if you win and come up short of the brass ring every year it is better to win and suffer the slings and arrows of abuse than to lose almost every year. We all know that winning is more fun than losing. We all learned that early in life. It doesn't matter if it's Little League or Big Leagues, winning - whether you come up short or not - is better than losing.