Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

The Strange Dynasty Of The San Francisco Giants Is Over. (Yes, It Was A Dynasty.)

Over the course of the past decade, the San Francisco Giants put together one of the strangest dynasties in baseball history. And now it is officially coming to an end.

The Giants still have five players left over from their 2014 championship season, but the returns have diminished greatly since then. The team is in last place in the National League West; the FiveThirtyEight model currently predicts it to finish 70-92, which would be one of the worst records in franchise history.1 And it could get worse by season’s end, with ace Madison Bumgarner (among others) on the trade block.

The Giants got here in part by trying to extend the dynasty past its expiration date. But who can blame them? When a team’s initial successes defy the odds, it can be especially difficult to know when a downturn is permanent or just a detour along the road to another title. This is especially true of San Francisco, which sandwiched two mediocre nonplayoff seasons in between World Series titles. But we come here not to bury the Giants’ dynasty but to praise it — and imagine how Farhan Zaidi, the new president of baseball operations, might construct another one where the original once stood.

So what makes the Giants’ dynasty of the 2010s — and yes, it was a bona fide dynasty — maybe the most interesting ever?

Some commentary on the team so many people here have loved to hate.

QLE Posted: May 22, 2019 at 08:00 AM | 123 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dynasties, giants

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Brian C Posted: May 22, 2019 at 08:46 AM (#5844530)
Haven't read TFA - does the writer continue to use the word "dynasty" as if it's meant to be some sort of hypnotic mantra?

   2. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 22, 2019 at 10:29 AM (#5844566)
The Giants still have five players left over from their 2014 championship season,


I count at least 6: Posey, Sandoval, Crawford, Panik, Belt, and MadBum.

edit: OK, the words "still have 5 players" in TFA is a link to a spreadsheet of the Giants 40 man roster sorted by acquisition date, and since Sandoval left and came back, his acquisition date is 2017 and thus was not noticed as one of the 2014 players. That's what happens when you rely too much on data without understanding context.
   3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 10:36 AM (#5844570)
and yes, it was a bona fide dynasty

Not really, no.
   4. Rally Posted: May 22, 2019 at 10:45 AM (#5844576)
To the extent that it was a dynasty, it ended in 2016 when they ran out of magic relievers, blowing 9th inning leads in games 3-4 to lose to the Cubs. The 2016 team was otherwise as good as the 2014 team, but they have not had a winning record since.
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 10:52 AM (#5844579)
It's very hard for me to call a team that went 88, 92, 86, 94, 76, 88, 84, 87 wins a dynasty. Was there a single season where they were pre-season favorites to win the NL?

They we a solid team that got hot/lucky at the right time.
   6. . Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:17 AM (#5844592)
Some commentary on the team so many people here have loved to hate.


Because the championships were merely achieved but weren't fussily planned and basically set to ruin a number of pieces of saber dogma. It's not quite at FIRE JOE MORGAN!! levels of weird and off-kilter, but the whole thing is extraordinarily odd.

Was there a single season where they were pre-season favorites to win the NL?


So the PECOTA champion ... or the actual champion? I think I'll take the actual.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:21 AM (#5844596)
So the PECOTA champion ... or the actual champion? I think I'll take the actual.

They won the Championships, no one is saying otherwise, but dynasty typically means dominance. The '90's-'00's Braves were much more of dynasty, despite only one Championship. Heck, the '90's Indians (with 6 1st place finished in 7 years) felt more like a dynasty.

Dynasty has as much, or more, to do with regular seasons as it does playoff success.
   8. . Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:26 AM (#5844602)
They won the Championships, no one is saying otherwise,


Except they kind of are saying that. The Giants didn't get any more "lucky" in the postseason than any other champion did. The postseason is a bit random by its very nature and always has been. That randomness and sports randomness in general has always been very hard for saber devotees to grapple with, but to almost all of the rest of us it's a feature, not bug, of sports.

Dynasty has as much, or more, to do with regular seasons as it does playoff success.


Then it's a meaningless term. I'll take the Giants 2010s over the Braves 1990s any day of the week and twelve times on Sunday. So would Braves fans. The Giants run was way cooler and more enjoyable than it would have been if they'd "dominated" regular seasons and whiffed routinely in the postseason. This really isn't even particularly debatable.

   9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:34 AM (#5844605)
Then it's a meaningless term. I'll take the Giants 2010s over the Braves 1990s any day of the week and twelve times on Sunday. So would Braves fans. The Giants run was way cooler and more enjoyable than it would have been if they'd "dominated" regular seasons and whiffed in the postseason. This really isn't even particularly debatable.


Of course it's debatable. You're buying in to the stupid modern obsession that only Championships matter. Which is odd, because at the same time you're decrying the "planned" success cycle approach, which embraces that same obsession.

There's tons of entertainment in the regular season. Watching a great team year-in and year-out is way more fun than an occasional Championship.

If you were to tell me I could guarantee the Yankees a WS win this year, but the price would be 4 years below .500, I wouldn't take that trade. I care about a winning team much more than playoff success.
   10. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:35 AM (#5844607)
Heck, the '90's Indians (with 6 1st place finished in 7 years) felt more like a dynasty.


In that case, dynasty is defined down to where it's essentially meaningless. Presumably the 90's Yankees of the exact same time period is also a dynasty, so now you have 3 dynasties in the same time period. Are the current Cubs a dynasty right now? 95, 92, 103, 97 wins in the last 4 years? How about the Dodgers with 6 straight division titles with 90+ wins in each. I suppose the Astros aren't there yet, but 100+ wins each of the last 2 years and well on their way to a 3rd (they have to go 67-46 the rest of the way.).
   11. . Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:39 AM (#5844611)
There's tons of entertainment in the regular season. Watching a great team year-in and year-out is way more fun than an occasional Championship.


Maybe, but the Giants didn't merely win an occasional Championship.

If you were to tell me I could guarantee the Yankees a WS win this year, but the price would be 4 years below .500, I wouldn't take that trade.


Fair enough, but again that doesn't really relate to the Giants.

You're buying in to the stupid modern obsession that only Championships matter. Which is odd, because at the same time you're decrying the "planned" success cycle approach, which embraces that same obsession.


The planned success cycle is stupid in large measure because of the randomness of the postseason.(*) I'm not sure if that agrees or disagrees with what you're saying or with what you're saying I'm saying.

(*) There is randomness and unplannedness in the regular season, too, of course. Since we're talking about the Giants, one can quickly cite the 2010 Padres as a quick example of the point. That general randomness is why it's stupid in virtually every situation to punt seasons away. The Giants were over .500 and within striking distance of the wild card relatively late *last year*. If Cueto and Samardjia (**) had stayed healthy, they could have won the championship *last year*.

(**) And to a degree, Buster Posey.
   12. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:41 AM (#5844613)
If you were to tell me I could guarantee the Yankees a WS win this year, but the price would be 4 years below .500, I wouldn't take that trade. I care about a winning team much more than playoff success.


As a Yankees fan, you have that luxury. Ask an Indians fan that same question and you will get a different answer. Or a Rangers fan. Or an Astros or Cubs fan prior to 2016. Or a Giants fan prior to 2010. The Royals seem destined for their 4th straight non-winning season (they were 81-81 in one of them), and I doubt a single fan would trade 2014-15 for the last 4 years being at 92 wins.
   13. SandyRiver Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:42 AM (#5844614)
Of the 10 superbowls #41-50, only the NY Giants won more than a single Lombardi, beating the Pats in 42 and 46. Only one of those 2 teams has been a dynasty.
   14. GGC Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:42 AM (#5844615)
I can't say that I hated the Giants. But as an AL East fan, they were an afterthought.

That said, I thought Bumgarner's performance to wrap up the WS against the Royals was the one of those events that makes for baseball history.
   15. . Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:47 AM (#5844617)
"Dynasty" (*) is one of those dumb-ish 21st century 24/7, we gotta fill time, constant sports blather terms like "face of the franchise" or "generational talent" or "Franchise X should rebuild around Player X." It's barely worth the time.

(*) In its current guise.
   16. GGC Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:51 AM (#5844618)
Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein wrote a book called Dynasties. I forget the criteria they used, but it had something to do with 3 year Standard Deviations of RS/RA; not PECOTA or other forecasts.
   17. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 22, 2019 at 11:54 AM (#5844619)
Of the 10 superbowls #41-50, only the NY Giants won more than a single Lombardi, beating the Pats in 42 and 46. Only one of those 2 teams has been a dynasty.


Nice endpoints there. The Pats were a dynasty because they won 3 of the 4 SB immediately preceding that timeframe, and 2 of the 3 immediately following.
   18. PreservedFish Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:02 PM (#5844626)
I think a dynasty does need to win the title, because that's how you become a king, and a dynasty is multiple kings, and so you need multiple titles.

The Giants can be a dynasty in the sense that Caligula, Claudius and Nero was also a dynasty.

The 90s Braves were a dynasty, an amazing one, from the perspective of the division. But they weren't really a dynasty from a league-wide perspective, which is how we usually think of things.
   19. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:12 PM (#5844627)
Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein wrote a book called Dynasties. I forget the criteria they used, but it had something to do with 3 year Standard Deviations of RS/RA; not PECOTA or other forecasts.

That was a really good book.
   20. Where have you gone Brady Anderson? Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:13 PM (#5844628)
Ask an Indians fan that same question and you will get a different answer. Or a Rangers fan. Or an Astros or Cubs fan prior to 2016. Or a Giants fan prior to 2010.


How come Washington never makes these lists? DC hasn’t won a World Series since 1924. Even if you don’t count the years we didn’t have a team, that’s still a long streak.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:14 PM (#5844630)
As a Yankees fan, you have that luxury. Ask an Indians fan that same question and you will get a different answer. Or a Rangers fan. Or an Astros or Cubs fan prior to 2016. Or a Giants fan prior to 2010. The Royals seem destined for their 4th straight non-winning season (they were 81-81 in one of them), and I doubt a single fan would trade 2014-15 for the last 4 years being at 92 wins.

But why? Why the obsession with the single Championship? I get being lousy year after year stinks as a fan, but no one wants to be a Marlin fan either.

Would you really rather have 30 years of futility surrounding a 3 year competitive window with one World Series, than be a good team and not win? Isn't there far more entertainment value in the year-in, year-out competitiveness?
   22. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:22 PM (#5844631)
Would you really rather have 30 years of futility surrounding a 3 year competitive window with one World Series, than be a good team and not win? Isn't there far more entertainment value in the year-in, year-out competitiveness?


Of course not, but that's begging the question, and not remotely what we have been talking about.
   23. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:30 PM (#5844633)
"Dynasty" (*) is one of those dumb-ish 21st century 24/7, we gotta fill time, constant sports blather terms like "face of the franchise" or "generational talent" or "Franchise X should rebuild around Player X."

Those are all fine and good and everything, but what I'm really interested in is knowing Who's Now.
   24. . Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:43 PM (#5844638)
I get being lousy year after year stinks as a fan, but no one wants to be a Marlin fan either.


What other teams' 1997-05, other than the Yankees obviously, would you take over the Marlins? I'm not saying there aren't any -- I haven't looked yet -- but I'm curious as to which you'd choose. If you want to make it 1996-05 to make it a round decade, go for it.

I mean, the Marlins' 2003 comebacks in Wrigley and then shitkicking of the Yankees, with a promising and rebuilt young team, was pretty cool under any serious measurement. There's nothing lacking there *at all* for any fan. If it had been, say, the Mets, it would be the stuff of legend.
   25. SandyRiver Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM (#5844639)
Nice endpoints there. The Pats were a dynasty because they won 3 of the 4 SB immediately preceding that timeframe, and 2 of the 3 immediately following.

Absolutely. I was tempted to use just 42-46, but that would've been even more egregious.
(And a nitpick: 3 of 5 immediately preceding - had to omit SB40 to keep the Steelers at one Lombardi.)
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 12:52 PM (#5844642)
Absolutely. I was tempted to use just 42-46, but that would've been even more egregious.
(And a nitpick: 3 of 5 immediately preceding - had to omit SB40 to keep the Steelers at one Lombardi.)


Flexible endpoints or not, it's a good point. The Football Giants were not a dynasty, despite two epic Superbowl wins.
   27. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: May 22, 2019 at 01:01 PM (#5844646)
For all the talk about the Giants' good luck, what about in 2011 when Buster Posey broke his leg? They returned basically the same pitching staff which had vanquished the offenses of the Phillies and Rangers respectively in the NLCS and Series, and ultimately traded Zack Wheeler for Beltran, who hit extremely well in his San Francisco cameo. Now, we don't know if they would have so aggressively pursued Beltran had Posey not been injured in the home-plate collision, but hypothetically: the 2011 Giants would have bought a similar team to the playoffs as their 2010 version, except with Beltran in the middle of the order with Posey. (Sandoval also had his best regular season in '11) That would have been pretty, pretty good team with a solid shot at repeating.

I always find the small-sample size of the playoffs versus the larger sample size of the regular season debate far too binary. People who disregard the playoffs as a barometer of team quality point to the larger data sample: but what does a bunch of victories (or defeats) against roster churn as necessitated through the long season necessarily *prove* about the quality of a team, opposed to sending out the front of a strong rotation in the postseason? I think there are arguments for both sides being valid. Depth and talent win in the regular season to get to the postseason: but then team specific match-ups play a significant role in the tournament.

Brian Sabean was with the Yankees organization as they drafted and developed Jeter, Rivera, Posada et. al. He was in a constant win-now mode during the Bonds years, which often resulted in relying on veterans and trading prospects for that one perceived missing piece. I think he could have done a better job filling around Bonds in several of those seasons (though the '02 and '03 Giants were certainly nothing to sneeze at!) but once Sabean committed to a rebuild, we once again saw a highly shrewd talent evaluator: Lincecum, Posey, and Mad Bum all drafted in the same five-year stretch. Pulling guys like Andres Torres and Vogelsong out of nowhere. Getting the most out of guys like Javier Lopez and Jeremy Affeldlt who had been well-traveled. All signs of solid process. Ideally Sabean could have combined the scouting acumen with the win-now philosophy during the Bonds seasons (Pierzynski trade was godawful) but the Giants were definitely a great, great team when they won these titles. I feel like their regular season win-totals are mitigated by that dreadful awareness that teams must have had that they'd have to face guys like Lincecum, Mad Bum, and Cain in a short series. Even in '16 they gave the Cubs quite a scare. That was a close series.
   28. Rally Posted: May 22, 2019 at 01:18 PM (#5844650)
But why? Why the obsession with the single Championship? I get being lousy year after year stinks as a fan, but no one wants to be a Marlin fan either.

Would you really rather have 30 years of futility surrounding a 3 year competitive window with one World Series, than be a good team and not win? Isn't there far more entertainment value in the year-in, year-out competitiveness?


There's a big difference between 4 years of losing and 30. For the Angels, in a heartbeat I'd take 4 losing seasons from 2020-2023 in exchange for a championship team this year. Mainly because I'm not really giving up much. Angels are on pace for their 4th straight losing season right now without making such a bargain. A tough task considering they are spotted 10 wins at the CF position.

30 years of futility in exchange for a 3 year period of contention and one title? No thanks. I'd turn down that offer thinking the team would at least figure out how to win half the time and maybe make one or 2 deep playoff runs over 30 years.

So what's my price? I'd probably trade 7-10 years of guaranteed losing for one year of a guaranteed championship. For a Yankee fan, of course your price is going to be different. We don't all have that luxury.

   29. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 01:48 PM (#5844661)
The definition of "dynasty" in this context is very subjective.

My opinion is that the Giants count as a dynasty not necessarily because they made a bunch of postseasons with the same core and won some titles. Baseball is a local interest game and a lot of the Giants' players were known on a national level. It helps that they won 3 times, but even if they won once I think it qualifies.

Dynasties in my lifetime 1979-present

Oakland A's (1988-1992)

A short burst, but 3 consecutive WS appearances, 1 WS win, and 4 playoff appearances in 5 years works for me.

Toronto Blue Jays (1989-1993)

4 playoff appearances in 5 years like the A's, but in this case 2 for 2 in WS appearances.

Atlanta Braves (1991-2005)

5 WS appearances but only 1 win, the length of NL dominance is what qualifies the Braves in this case.

Cleveland Indians (1995-2001)

6 playoff appearances in 7 years, with 2 WS appearances. Unfortunately 0 WS wins. Borderline, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

New York Yankees (1995-2009)

7 WS appearances, 5 wins. Made the playoffs 14 out of 15 times. Obvious.

Boston Red Sox (2003-2009)

2 WS appearances, 2 wins. 6 playoff appearances in 7 years.

St Louis Cardinals (2004-2015)

2-2 in 4 WS appearances. Tough to delineate where this dynasty begins because there were 3 consecutive playoff appearances that didn't amount to anything from 2000-2002. I started it at their first WS appearance in awhile. People can quibble with that but you get the point basically. 9 playoff appearances in 12 years.

Philadelphia Phillies (2007-2011)

1-1 in 2 WS appearances, 5 straight playoff appearances.

San Francisco Giants (2010-2016)

3 for 3 in WS appearances with another playoff appearance in 7 seasons.

Texas Rangers (2010-2016)

5 playoff appearances in 7 years. 0 WS wins in back to back appearances. Very borderline. Wouldn't blame anyone for disagreeing on this one.

Los Angeles Dodgers (2013-present)

6 straight playoff appearances, 0-2 in back to back WS appearances. No sign of an end to their dominance. Would be a shame if they didn't win a WS at some point in this window.

Boston Red Sox (2013-present)

Odd one here, 2 WS wins in 2 appearances, 4 playoff appearances in 6 years, but 2 last place finishes in those 6 seasons made this one more borderline than it otherwise would have been.

Chicago Cubs (2015-present)

4 straight playoff appearances, 1 WS win. Window still wide open.


---------------------------------------------------------

If I revisited this in a few years, I could see adding the Cleveland team, the Houston Astros, and the Yankees but I think we need to see just a little bit more.









   30. jmurph Posted: May 22, 2019 at 01:52 PM (#5844663)
Wow that's an expansive definition in #29. I'm not even sure all of those are great teams, let alone dynasties.
   31. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 02:10 PM (#5844670)
Wow that's an expansive definition in #29. I'm not even sure all of those are great teams, let alone dynasties.


I don't disagree that it is expansive, but I think success in baseball is more defined by post-season appearances than it is by championships.

EDIT: 13 teams in 40 years.
   32. jmurph Posted: May 22, 2019 at 02:26 PM (#5844678)
EDIT: 13 teams in 40 years.

It's not that, it's that you have at least one active dynasty in every season from 1988 to the present.
   33. PreservedFish Posted: May 22, 2019 at 02:26 PM (#5844679)
Concurrent dynasties are impossible! Or do you think Cersei and Daenerys should have just made friends and shared the Iron Throne?
   34. PreservedFish Posted: May 22, 2019 at 02:30 PM (#5844681)
I mean according to #29 there were 5 concurrent dynasties in baseball in 2015. At this rate we're going to end up with that little bird boy that was still breastfeeding at age 12 sharing a claim to the throne.
   35. flournoy Posted: May 22, 2019 at 02:35 PM (#5844684)
I'll take the Giants 2010s over the Braves 1990s any day of the week and twelve times on Sunday. So would Braves fans.


Speaking as an actual Braves fan, I disagree. Others are free to speak for themselves, of course.
   36. Rally Posted: May 22, 2019 at 02:47 PM (#5844686)
If the Rangers had a dynasty then they supplanted the Angel dynasty*

2002-2009

6 playoffs in 8 years
5 division titles
2 LCS losses
1 Championship

*Actual explanation - they gave asylum to the deposed God-King, Mike Napoli. In 16 games against his old team, Napoli hit 356/433/763 with 6 homers. The whole 2011 season was an enormous middle finger directed at the manager who had him time sharing with Jeff Mathis.
   37. Rally Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:01 PM (#5844693)
The list above isn't dynasties. It's a list of teams that were good for a stretch of several years.

My standards for a dynasty are a bit higher. I'd go with Smoltz's Braves, Jeter's Yankees, and Albert's Cardinals.

Red Sox miss for continuity reasons - a few last place seasons will break it.


   38. GGC Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:02 PM (#5844694)
Concurrent dynasties are impossible!


The Swingin' A's and The Big Red Machine (God save the Queen!) come pretty close.

Neyer and Epstein wrote a pretty good book, but I think there are others who consider dynasties to be a long term thing and exclude everyone except the McGraw Giants and the Ruth/Gehrig/DiMaggio/Mantle Yankees.
   39. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:05 PM (#5844695)
I mean according to #29 there were 5 concurrent dynasties in baseball in 2015.


6 actually. And if he ends up adding the Indians, Astros, and Yankees, all of whom made the post season in 2017, and the Indians were in the 2016 WS as well, that would make 6 for each of 2016-2018, and if the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs keep it up, 6 for this year as well.

2015 - Cardinals, Giants, Red Sox, Rangers, Cubs, Dodgers
2016 - Cardinals drop out, Indians added
2017 - Giants and Rangers drop out, Yankees and Astros added
2018 - same 6
2019 - possibly same 6

20% of the league every year for 5 years. I suppose you can do the same for the 70's:

Orioles 1966-1983 - 8 playoffs, 5 pennants, 3 titles, 6 other years with 90+ wins and no playoffs, most of which would be playoffs under today's expanded format.

Reds 1970-1979 - 6 playoffs, 3 pennants, 2 titles, 2 other seasons of 90+ wins

Dodgers 1974-1985 - 6 playoffs, 4 pennants, 1 title, 2 other 90 win seasons.

Pirates 1970-1979 - 6 playoffs, 2 pennants, 2 titles, 2 other 90 win seasons.

Phillies 1976-1983 - 6 playoffs, 2 pennants, 1 title.

A's 1971-1975 - 5 playoffs, 3 pennants, 3 titles.

Yankees 1976-1981 - 5 playoffs, 4 pennants, 2 titles

Royals 1976-1985 - 7 playoffs, 2 pennants, 1 title, 1 other 90 win season.

Thus, from 1971-1981, there were at least 4 and as many as 7 active dynasties in every year in a league that was 24-26 teams.
   40. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:07 PM (#5844697)
If the Rangers had a dynasty then they supplanted the Angel dynasty*

2002-2009

6 playoffs in 8 years
5 division titles
2 LCS losses
1 Championship


Sorry I missed that one.

To the overall point, I get what you're all saying. I think that concurrent dynasties absolutely can coexist. If two teams traded WS titles for 12 years they would both be dynasties by any definition of the word. I guess I have no counter argument to the point that I am too lax in my inclusion of dynasties. :)

EDIT: But I'll try anyway. If you're gonna have 10 teams be in the playoffs every year, and winning the WS is basically a crapshoot, playoff appearances are the metric to go by since any team can win once they make it to the dance. The more playoff teams you allow, the greater percentage of teams can be considered great for an extended period of time.
   41. PreservedFish Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:09 PM (#5844698)
I suppose if two teams alternated championships you could have concurrent dynasties. The Lakers and Celtics of the 80s were both dynasties, I should think. But they both really need to win multiple titles. The word just doesn't apply to a team that hasn't done that. The 90's Braves were a would-be dynasty, a shoulda-been dynasty. They were better than some actual dynasties, probably. But they weren't a dynasty.

As for the Giants, some team has to be the lamest dynasty in history.
   42. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:19 PM (#5844701)
I guess ultimately I believe that the easier it is to make the playoffs, the easier it is to call a team a "dynasty". To me, it's just a team that makes the playoffs a bunch of times with more or less the same core players. If "dynasty" isn't the right word for that, then so be it.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:21 PM (#5844703)
For a Yankee fan, of course your price is going to be different. We don't all have that luxury.

Not true. The Evil Empire is always accepting new fans. Join the dark side!
   44. GGC Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:24 PM (#5844704)
As for the Giants, some team has to be the lamest dynasty in history.


You could argue that the 50s Yankees might qualify. They were in arguably the less talented league and even had the luxury of competing against a de facto farm team. But they did win in October.
   45. Ithaca2323 Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:42 PM (#5844706)
Concurrent dynasties are impossible!


Disagree. D-III football had one of these.

From 2005-2014, Mount Union and Wisconsin Whitewater met in 9 of the 10 National Championship Games. During that stretch Mount Union won 4 and lost 6. Whitewater won 6 and lost 3 (they missed the playoffs in the other season)

There's arguably a 2nd concurrent dynasty brewing as well. Mount Union's continued on being dominant, winning two titles and losing in a third title game from 2015-2018, and Mary Hardin-Baylor has also won two and lost one in that time frame.
   46. RMc accompanies the Griffmen to Augusta Posted: May 22, 2019 at 03:58 PM (#5844716)
As for the Giants, some team has to be the lamest dynasty in history.

If the Tigers had bothered to show up to the 2012 World Series, nobody would be using the D-word concerning the Jints.
   47. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:06 PM (#5844722)
If it doesn't have Joan Collins, it's not a proper dynasty.
   48. GGC Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:10 PM (#5844725)
There is a remake/reboot/whathaveyou of that show on some second tier OTA network.
   49. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:12 PM (#5844727)
Disagree. D-III football had one of these.


Yeah. I'd say from 1947-1964 baseball had 2. Yankees won 15 pennants and 10 titles, and the Dodgers 8 and 3. All other teams won 13 and 5.
   50. The Duke Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:21 PM (#5844728)
The 2004-2015 cardinals are not a dynasty. Different players, different mangers, different GMs.

The 2004-2006 teams can be considered a mini-run and the 2011-2015 teams possibly. Frankly if TLR had been their manager from 2012-2015 the Cards would have a legit dynasty and no one would remember the Giants. Matheny was badly out managed by Bochy which cost them two WS appearances and TLR would have likely beaten the Red Sox in 2013.
   51. Rally Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:22 PM (#5844729)
64 is a good cutoff for the Yankees. Next 2 years Dodgers won 2 more pennants and another series before Koufax retired.
   52. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:25 PM (#5844730)
TLR would have likely beaten the Red Sox in 2013.


The rest of your statement, fine, ok. But this. You think if TLR was the manager, they wouldn't have scored 1 run in 3 games and 2 runs in another? Seems fairly arbitrary. Then again the whole exercise of defining what a dynasty is or isn't is relatively arbitrary as well.
   53. Itchy Row Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:28 PM (#5844731)
   54. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:38 PM (#5844734)
To me, it's just a team that makes the playoffs a bunch of times with more or less the same core players. If "dynasty" isn't the right word for that, then so be it.
I think that's just "the late-90s Indians," there isn't really a catch-all term for it. Maybe we should invent one?

But I think PF's definition (edit: and etymological explanation) in #18 is spot on. It might be harder, and in a sense "unfair" in an era and in sports where its harder to successfully navigate the playoff crapshoot, but dynasties are fundamentally about multiple titles.
   55. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:42 PM (#5844736)
But I think PF's definition in #18 is spot on. It might be harder, and in a sense "unfair" in an era and in sports where its harder to successfully navigate the playoff crapshoot, but dynasties are fundamentally about multiple titles.


Fair point. I guess I shouldn't try to hijack the English language and make words mean what I want them to mean or what I think they should mean. But I think it would be useful to have a term for baseball teams who make playoff runs year in and year out for a window of time.
   56. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 04:53 PM (#5844740)
The article explicitly takes Bill James' definition of 'dynasty' as a starting point, so it would be good to see an analysis of James' approach and discuss whether it overweights championships, regular-season dominance, or whatever.
   57. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 06:25 PM (#5844758)

I think a dynasty is, above all, about consistent greatness. You don't need to win the championship every year, but having season sprinkled in where you didn't make the playoffs, or finished below .500, or (especially) finished in last place sort of disqualifies you. Exceptions can be made if you had one season where you sucked because your star player was injured or retired, although it's worth noting that even during their one Brady-less season the Patriots finished 11-5, and without Jordan the Bulls still made the conference semifinals.

I would say the late 90s-early 00s Yankees qualify, and the 90s-early 00s Braves could be called an NL dynasty of the same period although I won't argue with anyone who says that only winning one championship disqualifies them. I don't think there have been any other baseball dynasties in my lifetime. There are a few other teams right now that could be poised to become dynasties, but nobody who's there yet.

Don't get me wrong, the Giants had a great run, and maybe if I were a Braves fan I would trade a decade of division titles for that run, but nobody really went into the season thinking the Giants were the team they had to go through to win the championship. And really the "dynasty" moniker is as much about how the rest of the league thinks about you as it is about how you think of yourselves.
   58. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 22, 2019 at 06:38 PM (#5844762)
I think a dynasty is, above all, about consistent greatness.


This is what I think. The question is over what constitutes greatness. Obviously I got a little carried away with my list. It was spur of the moment because I was bored at work, but my point remains that there are lots of great teams that don't win multiple titles or in some cases even one title. I think a team that makes the playoffs 5 or 6 years in a row and wins a world series, maybe makes another world series, is something. If you don't want to call it a dynasty because that word is reserved for hushed tones or whatever, then that's fine. But that, to me, is sustained greatness. What we call it is a separate discussion.
   59. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: May 22, 2019 at 07:03 PM (#5844770)
Don't get me wrong, the Giants had a great run, and maybe if I were a Braves fan I would trade a decade of division titles for that run, but nobody really went into the season thinking the Giants were the team they had to go through to win the championship. And really the "dynasty" moniker is as much about how the rest of the league thinks about you as it is about how you think of yourselves.

In support of this: the Giants never had the best record in the NL during their run. (The '90s Braves had the NL's best record 7 times in 8 years, from '92 to '99, and the missing year doesn't count if you use the same logic that credits then with 14 consecutive division titles.)
   60. Sweatpants Posted: May 22, 2019 at 10:49 PM (#5844808)
The 90s Braves were a dynasty, an amazing one, from the perspective of the division. But they weren't really a dynasty from a league-wide perspective, which is how we usually think of things.
In addition to the point in post #59 about them usually having the NL's best record, they also won five out of nine NL pennants in the 1990s. You can also stretch their "best record in the NL" run out to nine times in twelve years.
I think a team that makes the playoffs 5 or 6 years in a row and wins a world series, maybe makes another world series, is something. If you don't want to call it a dynasty because that word is reserved for hushed tones or whatever, then that's fine. But that, to me, is sustained greatness. What we call it is a separate discussion.
Five or six straight postseason appearances with a World Series win probably falls short of dynastic for me. The 1970s A's wouldn't be a dynasty, in my opinion, without their remarkable success in the World Series. They weren't that much better than the team that supplanted them as the best in the AL West, the Royals, and I can't imagine anyone seriously considers the late-'70s Royals a dynasty.

Oh, and of course the Giants weren't a dynasty. If you have to add "(Yes, It Was a Dynasty)" in your headline then obviously it wasn't.
   61. Brian C Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:42 AM (#5844820)
But why? Why the obsession with the single Championship? I get being lousy year after year stinks as a fan, but no one wants to be a Marlin fan either.

Would you really rather have 30 years of futility surrounding a 3 year competitive window with one World Series, than be a good team and not win? Isn't there far more entertainment value in the year-in, year-out competitiveness?

The thing about winning a championship is that while you're celebrating it, you have no idea what the future holds. Maybe you'll win the next 5, too, and be known as the greatest team ever. Maybe your franchise will crash and burn and it'll be decades before you get back there. There's just no way to know, no matter what the state of your franchise is. Did Cubs fans in 1945 have any idea that all but the youngest of them would never see an NL pennant again in their lifetimes? Of course not.

So this talk of trading x losing seasons for a championship completely misses the point to me, because if you could guarantee a championship, what would be the point, no matter the exchange? I even agree with snapper that the regular season is great and that rooting for winning teams is awesome even without a championship. But winning a championship is still the greatest moment there is of being a sports fan. And it's the very nature of championships being so unpredictable that makes them so special when they actually happen.
   62. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:56 AM (#5844822)
So this talk of trading x losing seasons for a championship completely misses the point to me, because if you could guarantee a championship, what would be the point, no matter the exchange? I even agree with snapper that the regular season is great and that rooting for winning teams is awesome even without a championship. But winning a championship is still the greatest moment there is of being a sports fan. And it's the very nature of championships being so unpredictable that makes them so special when they actually happen.


Great point, and one not illustrated better than the 2016 WS. The Cubs are going to lose the series as they get their head handed to them in game 1. The Cubs are going to win the series as they steal a game in Cleveland. The Cubs are going to lose the series as they go down 3 games to 1. The Cubs are going to win the series as they go into the bottom of the 8th in game 7 up 6-3. The Cubs are going to lose the series as they go into the bottom of the 9th tied. The Cubs are going to win the series as they score 2 in the 10th. The Cubs are going to lose the series as the championship run is at bat in the bottom of the 10th. The Cubs win the series, 108 years after their last. No offense to snapper, but a Yankee fan could not possibly understand.
   63. Brian C Posted: May 23, 2019 at 01:09 AM (#5844825)
I don't even know how much being a Yankees fan has to do with it. I mean, I'm a Cubs fan, so the whole championship experience in 2016 obviously was a unique thing. But I'm also a Blackhawks fan, so I got to experience 3 of those in the half-decade before 2016. And I remember the 6 Jordan-era titles for the Bulls very clearly. And I'm a Florida Gator who's gotten to experience 3 football championships and 2 basketball championships.

Point is, of course the Cubs winning the World Series was extraordinarily special, but it's not like one of my teams winning a championship is a novelty. And each of the 15 titles I just listed were all amazing in their own way. I have no doubt that Yankees fans, in general, treasure each of theirs as well. I think snapper just is voicing a perspective that, well, he maybe isn't quite being 100% honest with himself about.
   64. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 09:09 AM (#5844847)
Five or six straight postseason appearances with a World Series win probably falls short of dynastic for me. The 1970s A's wouldn't be a dynasty, in my opinion, without their remarkable success in the World Series. They weren't that much better than the team that supplanted them as the best in the AL West, the Royals, and I can't imagine anyone seriously considers the late-'70s Royals a dynasty.


I think the "dynasty" standard definitely required winning multiple titles in the era when you only had to get thru one or two rounds of playoffs. The only exception I would make there is the 50s Brooklyn Dodgers who would qualify in my eyes as at least a NL dynasty despite winning just one WS in 1955. Now, with the need to get thru three rounds of playoffs, being the best team during the regular season is almost an afterthought.
   65. Rally Posted: May 23, 2019 at 09:10 AM (#5844849)
The rest of your statement, fine, ok. But this. You think if TLR was the manager, they wouldn't have scored 1 run in 3 games and 2 runs in another? Seems fairly arbitrary. Then again the whole exercise of defining what a dynasty is or isn't is relatively arbitrary as well.


If Tony LaRussa had managed that series he would have consumed the Red Sox with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse!
   66. TomH Posted: May 23, 2019 at 09:15 AM (#5844854)
There is no accepted definition of a dynasty. I could go on for 1000 words, but that's the bottom line; so arguin about it is going to shed more heat than light.
   67. PreservedFish Posted: May 23, 2019 at 09:52 AM (#5844870)
That's a shame, I thought was going to be like all those other discussions where we amicably reached a consensus.
   68. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 09:58 AM (#5844872)
I didn't think anyone was behaving badly in this thread? Polite discussion/disagreement is healthy.
   69. . Posted: May 23, 2019 at 10:06 AM (#5844875)
It's a bit weird and a bit meta for the participants in a thread to both participate and then do the step-back post-game analysis of their participation. Lots of threads wind up this way (*), and it's kind of strange. At the end of games, there will be times, sure, when an interviewer will get some highlights going and ask the highlighted player about the highlight and the highlighted player comments -- but there you have the interviewer as intermediary.

(*) And some worse, of course, like the ones where that attention-starved stalker barges in at the very end and makes bizarre demands that some people don't talk to other people -- long after the discussion that bizarrely irritates him is at its virtual end and all the talking he doesn't want to see is long over.
   70. PreservedFish Posted: May 23, 2019 at 10:08 AM (#5844876)
#68 - Just snarking on #66, the idea that if we can't agree on premises we should all just shut up. We'd need to close the website if that were the case.
   71. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 10:13 AM (#5844879)
#68 - Just snarking on #66, the idea that if we can't agree on premises we should all just shut up. We'd need to close the website if that were the case.


Right me too!
   72. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 10:17 AM (#5844881)
It's a bit weird and a bit meta for the participants in a thread to both participate and then do the step-back post-game analysis of their participation. Lots of threads wind up this way (*), and it's kind of strange. At the end of games, there will be times, sure, when an interviewer will get some highlights going and ask the highlighted player about the highlight and the highlighted player comments -- but there you have the interviewer as intermediary.


Maybe I'm weird, but I don't have a problem admitting to being wrong occasionally and maybe learning a bit from others who think I might be wrong about something. Talking through that is how that happens.
   73. . Posted: May 23, 2019 at 10:20 AM (#5844882)
No one in particular is weird (*); it's more that the phenomenon is a bit weird. (By phenomenon, I don't mean talking things through -- that's valuable and worthy -- I mean talking about whether things are being talked through.)

(*) Well, the attention-starved stalker is.
   74. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 10:47 AM (#5844894)
No one in particular is weird (*); it's more that the phenomenon is a bit weird. (By phenomenon, I don't mean talking things through -- that's valuable and worthy -- I mean talking about whether things are being talked through.)


Gotcha.
   75. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 23, 2019 at 10:49 AM (#5844895)
If you use playoffs to define dynasties, the current playoff model overinflates your measure.
   76. GGC Posted: May 23, 2019 at 11:04 AM (#5844902)
(*) And some worse, of course, like the ones where that attention-starved stalker barges in at the very end and makes bizarre demands that some people don't talk to other people -- long after the discussion that bizarrely irritates him is at its virtual end and all the talking he doesn't want to see is long over.


This sounds like me. But I'm often late to the party as life interferes with BTFing. I'm not a stalker. I am with you with regards to some of your critiques on baseball now compared to baseball past and think you have some interesting things to say, but I find your posts opaque or somehow unfinished and will ask for clarification. But sometimes you have moved on.

If you don't like this, it sounds like you get more out of trolling people than trying to interact and discuss some of these issues that bug you. It sounds like you get more out of pissing people off than interacting with like minded folks. In these days were people silo, that's somehow refreshing, but I find it frustrating when I want to talk to you and you'd rather argue with someone else.
   77. GGC Posted: May 23, 2019 at 11:10 AM (#5844906)
Wait, I'm not the one who tells people not to talk to each other.

Carry on.
   78. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 11:17 AM (#5844912)
If you use playoffs to define dynasties, the current playoff model overinflates your measure.


Let me put it this way. If someone is discounting the 90's Braves for not winning enough titles, but also discounting the 2010's Giants for winning 3 titles but not dominating enough, then I think the word dynasty has outlived its usefulness.

I have been guilty of using the word to describe any team that made a bunch of postseasons in a row, particularly if there were multiple WS appearances, and definitely if they won one or more titles. But I have seen through this discussion that this usage is not common. There is a middle ground somewhere I'm sure.

Part of my problem is that I don't like the modern MLB playoff structure. I am aware that they will never reduce the number of teams due to revenue etc, but I greatly prefer two rounds of playoffs with only division winners making it. I tolerate it because baseball is great; and I console myself with the thought that at least there is more baseball. Now if you will all kindly remove yourselves from my lawn that would be great :)
   79. TomH Posted: May 23, 2019 at 11:20 AM (#5844913)
I guess I should clarify; my use of "heat" was unwise and not did not convey what I meant. The discourse has been largely civil. It simply seems to be one of those discussions where "light" is unlikely to occur, as argument centers not on trying to measure accurately, but use of differing measuring sticks, thus leading inevitably to differing conclusions. The Giants run 2010-2014 qualifies under criteria of multiple trophies in short period, but unimpressive via multiple other metrics. C'est la vie.
   80. GGC Posted: May 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM (#5844914)
So it is a low heat; like barbeque.
   81. Adam Starblind Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:20 PM (#5844950)
I guess I'm a small Hall of Dynasties guy, because I'd only definitely give that label to one franchise in my 30+ years of baseball fandom -- the late '90s-2000s Yankees. To me the word "dynasty" is an *extremely* high bar and requires a lengthy stretch of consistent winning *and* a noteworthy number of championships.

Half-contradicting myself, the 90s/early-2000s Braves team almost makes the cut for me because their run of division titles was so extraordinary; I'm on the fence. The fact of only one championship in all those years *has* to move them down at best into the debatable category.

The definition of "dynasty" in this context is very subjective.


Blasphemy!
   82. PreservedFish Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:24 PM (#5844954)
It simply seems to be one of those discussions where "light" is unlikely to occur, as argument centers not on trying to measure accurately, but use of differing measuring sticks, thus leading inevitably to differing conclusions.


Some of us are talking about the measuring sticks though.
   83. . Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM (#5844967)
I'm an extremely high bar, too. The 2010s Giants don't qualify. And just being good or really good for an extended period doesn't count either. Lots of teams do that. It's a mix of longevity, success, and championships.

This list isn't going to be perfect, but post-1970, it's basically:

UCLA basketball (1964-75)
Pittsburgh Steelers (1972-80)
SF 49ers (1981-2000) (*)
Oakland/LA Raiders (1970-83)
Oakland A's 1971-76 (**)
NE Patriots (2001-18)
NY Islanders (1978-84)
Edmonton Oilers (1982-90)
Boston Celtics (1957(?)-76)
LA Lakers (1979-91)
Alabama football (2009-18)
NY Yankees (1996-2009)

There probably should be a Cowboys 70s or 90s in there, too. Salary caps make it very difficult to be a dynasty, which makes the Patriots' accomplishments even greater as expectorate-inducing as that is to write. The Chicago Blackhawks had a potential dynasty broken up by the salary cap, for example.

(*) The end date is tough with this one, but it clearly qualifies. Last championship was 1994.

(**) I'm giving some what-if credit here because it would have gone on much longer with much the same core if not for the radical change in the rules with the end of the reserve clause.
   84. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:43 PM (#5844969)

Some of us are talking about the measuring sticks though.


I think you need some sort of regular season component for the modern era. Pennants due this for the pre-'69 era, but winning a lot of games is still a big part of being a dynasty for me.

   85. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:51 PM (#5844976)
The Chicago Blackhawks had a potential dynasty broken up by the salary cap, for example.



I'm surprised you didn't include them even with your high bar. That team was really fun.
   86. . Posted: May 23, 2019 at 12:56 PM (#5844977)
Yeah, Cowboys should be in there. I think they got really good the year before the Ice Bowl, which was 1966 and they stayed really good until at least 1981, arguably 1983. I think it's five Super Bowls, two wins, at least four NFC championship game losses (66, 67, 73, 81), very competitive I think every single year. Too lazy to get every detail right, but I'd add them to the list.
   87. . Posted: May 23, 2019 at 01:01 PM (#5844984)
I think you need some sort of regular season component for the modern era. Pennants due this for the pre-'69 era, but winning a lot of games is still a big part of being a dynasty for me.


Baseball's a tough one because the postseason is so different from the regular season in terms of player usage. The postseason is way more "my very best players against your very best players," the regular season is much more a function of depth.
   88. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 23, 2019 at 01:13 PM (#5844990)
If you were to attempt to come up with a formula to define dynasty, my two main measures would be 90-win seasons and World Series titles.

Playoff berths are pretty darn cheap nowadays. The Giants won 90 games twice, which is unimpressive for a team to be called a dynasty. Three World Titles is big.

   89. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 01:13 PM (#5844992)
Baseball's a tough one because the postseason is so different from the regular season in terms of player usage. The postseason is way more "my very best players against your very best players," the regular season is much more a function of depth.


Especially pitching. This is a very good point.
   90. Simpson Posted: May 23, 2019 at 01:57 PM (#5845007)
Three World Titles is big.


this is it for me, 3 titles in 5 years has to be a dynasty. now we can rate it as one of the shittier dynasties, but 3 in 5 is huge.
   91. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 02:47 PM (#5845054)
If you were to attempt to come up with a formula to define dynasty, my two main measures would be 90-win seasons and World Series titles.

That's probably right. Though I'd want to give substantial extra credit for 95+, and 100+ win seasons. Also, pennants should still count.

A streak where you go 95, 100, 97, 92, 105, 96 wins, with 2 WS and 4 pennants is much more dynastic than 92, 90, 94, 91, 95, 93 with 2 WS and only the same 2 pennants.


So, maybe it's something like 35% regular season W-L, 35% Championships, 15% elite seasons (95+, 100+), and 15% non-Championship playoff success.
   92. Booey Posted: May 23, 2019 at 03:04 PM (#5845077)
#83 - Man, you need at least 5 more in that time frame from the NBA alone:

1980's Boston Celtics - Won close to 60 games basically every year for a decade, got to 5 Finals (including 4 in a row) and won 3 titles

1990's Chicago Bulls - 6 Finals and 6 titles in 8 years (plus a couple more playoff appearances before the first title). Won 3 in a row twice.

2000-2010 LA Lakers - 7 Finals and 5 titles (plus a few more playoff seasons before and after the title runs). Got to 3 Finals in a row twice.

1998-2019 San Antonio Spurs - You can quibble about the end points, but they're currently on a run of 22 straight playoff appearances, including 6 finals and 5 titles. Never squeaked into the postseason until the last 2 years, either; they had the best record in the Western Conference 7 times and the 2nd best record 8 more. Very 1990's Braves-like, except that they won all but 1 of their Finals appearances rather than losing all but 1 of them.

2015-2019 Golden State Warriors - A short dynasty so far, but 5 straight Finals and at least 3 titles qualifies IMO. Also set the single season wins record in that span (and the record for most wins in 2 consecutive years, and 3 consecutive years). Finished 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, and 1st in the Western Conference in the regular season, so they've got both the regular and postseason success you're talking about.


Yes, the NBA is very dynasty prone...
   93. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 03:33 PM (#5845096)

2000-2010 LA Lakers - 7 Finals and 5 titles (plus a few more playoff seasons before and after the title runs). Got to 3 Finals in a row twice.

I can't look at this team as one single dynasty. They had a three-year stretch in the middle where they missed the playoffs once and were the 7 seed two other times. I do think the first team with Shaq and Kobe was a dynasty -- but that ended with the loss to the Pistons and the departure of Shaq.
   94. . Posted: May 23, 2019 at 03:45 PM (#5845101)
1980's Boston Celtics - Won close to 60 games basically every year for a decade, got to 5 Finals (including 4 in a row) and won 3 titles


Didn't know how to fit them in with the one I listed. Other than a very few years between their 1976 championship and the arrival of Larry Bird in 1979, the Celtics were really good the entire time between 1957 and like 1993 when Bird's back finally blew. Rather than add this one, I might vote to just call the entire 1957 to 1993 time a "dynasty."

They won 10 of the 13 championships between 1957 and 1969, then Russell retired, and they still stayed *really* good, and won two more in the next 7 years. Between 1957 and 1976, it's probably the greatest dynasty in sports history, though I'm sure old-timer Yankee fans would quibble.

1990's Chicago Bulls - 6 Finals and 6 titles in 8 years (plus a couple more playoff appearances before the first title). Won 3 in a row twice.


Yeah, that was a complete whiff on my part.

2000-2010 LA Lakers - 7 Finals and 5 titles (plus a few more playoff seasons before and after the title runs). Got to 3 Finals in a row twice.


Too crappy in the mid-00s, after the Kobe/Shaq hissy fit.

1998-2019 San Antonio Spurs -


Kind of like the Celtics in longevity, without the complete dominance the Celtics showed between around 1957 all the way through 1976. They've only won one since 2005, though they had a great run between 1999 and 2005. Depends on definitions.

EDIT: 2007.

2015-2019 Golden State Warriors - A short dynasty so far, but 5 straight Finals and at least 3 titles qualifies IMO. Also set the single season wins record in that span (and the record for most wins in 2 consecutive years, and 3 consecutive years). Finished 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, and 1st in the Western Conference in the regular season, so they've got both the regular and postseason success you're talking about.


I wouldn't quibble with this.



   95. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 03:50 PM (#5845108)
I'm also not sure you can have two dynasties in the same conference at the same time. The Spurs were probably a dynasty during their 3 championships in 5 years period, but it's hard to give them credit before that given how dominant the Lakers were.

EDIT: I wouldn't really disagree with SBB's take in #94 regarding the Spurs.
   96. SandyRiver Posted: May 23, 2019 at 03:54 PM (#5845110)
Taking #83 back another 20 years (any further and it's all history rather than personal memories):
MLB: Yanks and Dodgers, as noted above. Robbie's O's come close.
NFL: 1950s - Cleveland, with Otto Graham then Jim Brown 1960s - GB, of course. (NYG's would be close if they weren't losing the championship game 5x in 6 yr. I lived in NNJ then, and can easily recall each game.)
NBA: Mikan's Lakers before they moved west? Start of the C's dynasty (as shown in 83)
NHL: Canadiens; Bruins of Orr, Esposito come close.
   97. . Posted: May 23, 2019 at 03:59 PM (#5845111)
NHL: Canadiens;


Wow, yeah, I forgot the Canadiens dynasty of the 70s. Clearly should be on the list and you could probably carry it all the way through to their Stanley Cup in 1986, notwithstanding their litany of playoff whiffs between 1980 and 1986. And of course you could go way back before the 70s; they're essentially the Celtics of the NHL.

Red Wings from about 1994 until 2008 were very close to dynastic and maybe even cross the line.
   98. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 04:10 PM (#5845114)

I wasn't alive at the time but I'd have to think the Big Red Machine would qualify?
   99. Booey Posted: May 23, 2019 at 04:12 PM (#5845117)
I'm also not sure you can have two dynasties in the same conference at the same time.


I think you can, if one or the other was basically winning their conference every year for an extended period of time, as was pretty much the case.

Western Conference Finals representatives:

1999 - Spurs
2000 - Lakers
2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Lakers
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Mavericks
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Lakers
2009 - Lakers
2010 - Lakers
2011 - Mavericks
2012 - Thunder
2013 - Spurs
2014 - Spurs

The Spurs or the Lakers got to the Finals 7 straight from 1999-2005, 11/12 years from 1999-2010, and 13/16 years from 1999-2014 (with each winning 5 titles). That's about as close to concurrent dynasties in the same conference as you can get. And as far as continuity goes, the Lakers had Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson for all their Finals appearances (and Derek Fisher!), and the Spurs had Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich for all of theirs. Yeah, the rest of their rosters turned over quite a bit from their 1st titles to their last, but isn't that pretty similar to most of the long lasting dynasties listed above? An all time great player and an all time great coach gives you a hell of a head start with the rebuilding process.
   100. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: May 23, 2019 at 04:13 PM (#5845118)
This list isn't going to be perfect, but post-1970, it's basically:

UCLA basketball (1964-75)
Pittsburgh Steelers (1972-80)
SF 49ers (1981-2000) (*)
Oakland/LA Raiders (1970-83)
Oakland A's 1971-76 (**)
NE Patriots (2001-18)
NY Islanders (1978-84)
Edmonton Oilers (1982-90)
Boston Celtics (1957(?)-76)
LA Lakers (1979-91)
Alabama football (2009-18)
NY Yankees (1996-2009)


I think you're shy a couple college football dynasties,
ex. Nebraska went 60-3 between 1993-1997, winning 3 mythical national titles, including the only back-to-back undefeated national champions since 1950s OU. Not even Bama has done that (though they are undoubtedly a dynasty at this time).

Could likely make a strong case for Miami '83-'91 (4 mythical titles in that span). FSU only did win 2 titles, but their 90s run of 109-13-1 (always top 5) or USC 2002-2008 is a good candidate (though a vacated title does sully that period).
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThere's no gerrymandering when everyone's in OMNICHATTER!, for June 17, 2019
(45 - 9:50pm, Jun 17)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (Playoffs through off-season)
(3971 - 9:48pm, Jun 17)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (June 2019)
(832 - 9:16pm, Jun 17)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-17-2019
(17 - 9:05pm, Jun 17)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogBrodie Van Wagenen's Mets take doesn't match what we're seeing
(11 - 8:46pm, Jun 17)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Baldrick Reports Live
(333 - 7:50pm, Jun 17)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogRosenthal: It’s not baseball, it’s Bludgeon Ball. And the frequency of home runs is nothing short of numbing – The Athletic
(64 - 7:22pm, Jun 17)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogKenley Jansen executed a rare intentional balk last night
(20 - 7:15pm, Jun 17)
Last: Pirate Joe

NewsblogOlney -- Yankees can overpower all rivals after Encarnacion trade
(3 - 6:37pm, Jun 17)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogPadres, Rockies set new modern era record with 92 combined runs in four-game series
(18 - 6:03pm, Jun 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogYanks acquire Encarnacion from M's
(65 - 5:51pm, Jun 17)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon CubsThat was fun
(262 - 5:42pm, Jun 17)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogLetting teams trade picks is MLB Draft's path out of obscurity
(25 - 5:33pm, Jun 17)
Last: Fernigal McGunnigle

Hall of MeritHeavy Johnson
(21 - 3:38pm, Jun 17)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

Hall of Merit2020 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(195 - 3:35pm, Jun 17)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

Page rendered in 0.8038 seconds
46 querie(s) executed