I recently read an online Q & A with Nationals’ principal owner Mark Lerner. The questions were basically boilerplate and Mr. Lerner’s responses were forthright.
I had to pause, though, when I reached a question towards the end of the interview: “Washington baseball hasn’t been successful since the 1920s — what will you do differently than your predecessors?”
To Lerner’s credit, he gave a thoughtful response, repeating much of what was said the day MLB awarded the team to his family. He resisted the urge to smack his inquisitor on the back of the head.
I would not have been as restrained.
Does a team have to win a championship in order to be “successful?” By that measure, the Montreal Expos were a total failure. Yet I’d bet a lot of disenfranchised fans up north would argue the point.
The same can be said for any team that’s never won the big one, so add the Rangers, Padres, Astros, Rockies, Brewers, Mariners and Devil Rays to that list. To say the Senators were a failure for nearly the final half-century of their existence is just ludicrous. Yet, the thought persists locally the old Nats were pathetic losers, year-in and year-out.
It’s true the original franchise only won a single championship, besting the New York Giants in the 1924 World Series. Yet, they returned to the series in 1925 and 1933, losing to the Pirates and Giants, respectively.
They also were serious contenders in 1930 before eventually losing to the Athletics. Keep in mind the original Yankee dynasty was in bloom and Connie Mack’s Philadelphia A’s had a Hall-of-Fame-studded lineup as well in those days.
The wartime Nats of 1945 finished their season early to accommodate the Redskins’ use of Griffith Stadium, then had to sit back and watch the Tigers beat them by a game-and-a-half.
Heck, when the 1969 expansion club finished 10 games over .500 under Ted Williams, many of us in town then — including the Lerners — felt like dancing in the street.
Those were unsuccessful seasons?
More recently, I defy anyone to say the 2005 season was anything but a success for the new Nats. Legitimate contenders for a playoff spot well into the month of September and an attendance number in excess of 2.5 million. How does that equate to failure?
Admittedly, the Nationals/Senators had their share of dreadful seasons, but no more so than a lot of other clubs. The last nine years in Baltimore haven’t exactly been stellar but I doubt the owner over there would label them all as failures.
There are a lot of ways to measure success or failure. However, to claim anything short of a world championship is failure is ridiculously harsh. The current Nats’ ownership understands that completely and will respond accordingly.
There is a past here worth celebrating on occasion.
Phil Wood has covered sports in the Washington-Baltimore market for more than 30 years.
