I don’t get how the 1995 team qualifies as a fluke.
To my mind, a fluke championship is a championship won by a team that appears to have been less talented than most championship teams and that caught a lot of breaks. I would say a fluke World Series champion is usually characterized by at least 3 of these 4 things being true:
The team is only successful in that year but not generally in the years immediately before and after the championship.
The team’s regular season record is not especially impressive in context.
The team does not have very many Hall of Fame type players playing regularly in their prime, and
The team caught several lucky breaks not noted above, especially weird things in the playoffs.
The 1981 Dodgers, for instance, qualify in 3 categories; they had no Hall of Fame players, did not have an impressive record, and made the playoffs only because of the strike. #1 is a thin one though because they were in the middle of a generally good run.
The 1987 Twins qualify on 1, 2 and 4 (amazingly weak division) but had a few Hall of Famers, so 3 doesn’t apply.
The 1969 Mets are often cited as a fluke team but only qualify on 1 and 3 (they only had Tom Seaver as a regular Hall of Famer; they had Nolan Ryan too but he was a middle reliever and not a very important part of that team.)
The 1997 Marlins qualify for 1 and 4 (the Eric Gregg fiasco) but their 92-70 record is not that unusual for a world champion, and while I can’t think of any Hall of Famers they have yet, Gary Sheffield and Kevin Brown are at that level.
The 1995 Braves don’t qualify for any of these. Not even close. They are one of the LEAST flukey World Series champions in the history of baseball.
Success In That Era: they won it in a midst of a long string of tremendous seasons.
Regular Season Record: They were 90-54, a very good record.
Great players: they had four Hall of Famers, which is a lot even for a World Champion.
Lucky breaks: None of significance I can think of. They were never even pressed to a winner take all game in the playoffs.
[QUOTE=Yankees 1996 Champs]Because according to historians, the 1995 Braves was not even the best of Braves teams.
1993, 1997, 2002, 2005 were historic teams that should have won.[/QUOTE]
The 1995 Braves were not in any significant way whatsoever inferior to those teams. Characterizing the 1997 team as “Historic” but not the 1995 team is especially absurd; they had essentially the same cast of players and the same winning percentage in the regular season.
And the 2005 team? What was so great about them? They went 90-72 and flopped in the first round.