I need a shower after posting that, but it's a fair question.

When the stain of the cheating stuff is wiped away, people will ask "wonder why nobody thinks the late teen-early 20s Astros were an all-time great team.

We have context now so I don't think most people consider them like a traditional baseball dynasty.

Heh.
The article quotes the Astros averaging 98+ wins per 162g over 6 years. And the Dodgers averaging almost 106 (!). But Houston has 2 ringz. So even considering the cheery-picked # of years, it basically admits if the Dodgers win a trophy in 2023, THEY would be a bigger "dynasty".

It's not just the ringz, though. The Astros have now been in 4 World Series in the past 6 years to the Dodgers' 3, and they've been in all 6 LCS to the Dodgers' 4. The best case for the Dodgers is that their NL West run began 4 years earlier than Houston's string of AL West titles, but the Dodgers didn't even make it to the World Series in any of those previous years.

The sort of truly dominant dynasties like the ones the Yankees had from 1936 to 1943 (7 pennants, 6 WS wins) or 1949-58 (9 pennants, 7 WS wins) is unlikely ever to be duplicated. Way too many stumbling blocks set up along the way, and way too much equity among the top teams.

Clearly, yes. In this day and age, getting through to ALCS and World Series as much as they have done is very impressive.

What's truly impressive is their roster situation. Extend Verlander and maybe sign one more pitcher and they have another 2-3 year window.

I think the 2017-18 teams were the most talented ones of this run, trashcan sinatras or not. But how many teams have consistently had deep playoff runs (geez, do I hate that expression) with their kind of roster turnover? The Astros are the Beane A's with special postseason spray.

Dusty Baker won a ring with the 1981 Dodgers and now again with the 2022 Astros. Does anyone else have as long a gap between first and last rings? Even Casey Stengel falls short, winning his first in 1921 and last in 1958.

Does Don Zimmer count as winning rings in 1955 and 2000? If he counts, maybe Red Schoendienst does for 1946 and 2011.

Durocher was 28 and 54.

Can we get a post season / free agent omnichatter ?

I'm more lenient on calling something a dynasty I guess. The Astros are a great team, but when you are clearly not the best team of your era, it's hard to feel comfortable calling it a dynasty. I get that they win in the post season, but the Dodgers are a better team, and it's not like the Dodgers have choked in the playoffs, they've been to 3 world series in that same time frame. Go back another year to 2016 the Dodgers add a 5th LCS appearance, Go back to 2013 the Dodgers have 10 consecutive post season appearance, 9division titles 6LCS, 3 WS, 1 trophy vs 7 post season appearances, 5 division titles, 6LCS 4 ws appearances two trophies.


Astros are great, Dodgers are better, but I could see the argument "not greater" if you focus solely on the post season success. (Someone has updated the wikipedia page for sports dynasty to include the Astros, but not a mention of the Dodgers)

Our notion of "true dynasty" might be better understood as the rest of the AL rolling over for the Yankees for 40 straight years.

Our notion of "true dynasty" might be better understood as the rest of the AL rolling over for the Yankees for 40 straight years.

Well, you might want to mention that the NL rolled over even more to the Yankees for much of that time, given that from 1927 through 1953 the Yankees were 15-1 in the World Series and 61-20 in games,** a much higher winning percentage than they ever achieved in even a single regular season. The NL didn't start stepping up against the Yankees until 1955, when by that time the overall league imbalance had shifted dramatically in the NL's direction.

** During that same period, in WS matchups that didn't involve the Yankees, the NL won 6 of 11. For 27 years it was really the Yankees vs. the 15 other teams, not just the AL.

There's a lot of randomness in the playoffs, but it's not just randomness. The Astros deserve credit over the Dodgers, IMO, for making it further more often in the postseason than the Dodgers.

I think "dynasty" talk is pretty silly in general - if you have to ask, they're not a dynasty! - but even on its own terms, I really think "dynasty" is misapplied here for the reasons cfb lays out in #11. If the Dodgers had won last year, or if they win next year, then the Astros' claim to being a "dynasty" pretty much falls apart. And that being the case, how can they be a "dynasty" now?

But also, I think a hard and fast rule needs to be, <3 championships = not a dynasty. Being really good for a long time is not the same thing.

There's a lot of randomness in the playoffs, but it's not just randomness. The Astros deserve credit over the Dodgers, IMO, for making it further more often in the postseason than the Dodgers.

Given how little difference there really is between their results, I'm not sure how much credit there is to give.

Again, the problem is that the way baseball is structured these days, with 30 teams, 6 divisions and 4 rounds of the postseason, there's no way on Earth that any team, no matter how great, can ever match or beat the dynasties from past years when the hurdles weren't nearly as high. The Yankees from 1996-2001 were the closest we'll likely get to it, and even that doesn't compare to what they did (twice) in the pre-expansion era. It's simply apples and oranges, and it's unfair to teams like the Astros or the Dodgers to force them into the same standard for comparison.

I guess we would have to agree on what a dynasty is vs what it isn't.

I have no problem calling the 90's Braves a dynasty even with just one championship, but I do think the definition should include a minimum number of years, and I think 5 years is at least the minimum for consideration. But just like the hof, there are inner circle and not so much I imagine. I think you need to dominate in the regular season to really be a dynasty.


Wikipedia does state that you can have concurrent sport dynastys (per Merriam Webster definition of a sports dynasty) and I don't think that is too extreme of an opinion. My money rests on the Dodgers ahead of the Astros, Astros ahead of the Yankees, and the other teams in this discussion (Cardinals, Giants, Red Sox) aren't really in this discussion, no matter how you slice it. It doesn't have to be the best current dynasty, it just has to be a current dynasty, and you can split hairs with these three teams based upon the number of years you want to look at to make an argument they belong in the dynasty discussion/pantheon.

Anyone who says they are a dynasty is no true dynasty.

They need at least two more titles over the next several years to get that dynasty tag. The 2017 one doesn't hold much weight to me.

I wanted to view the Astros through the lens of the system that Neyer and Epstein set up in their book, “Baseball Dynasties”, ca. 2000.

They used a numerical score which combined how many standard deviations a team’s offense was better than league average with how many standard deviations that team’s pitching was better than league average, and then looked at multiple years combined to establish a sense of dynasty.

For assessing the Astros, I’m going to throw 2020 out, since it was such a weird and short season.

Best Astros year: 2022 (2.79 SD). Not a top 50 result.

Best two year stretch: 2018-2019 (5.54 SD). As of the publishing date, this would have ranked 26th best, between the 1916-17 Giants and 1974-75 A’s

Best three year stretch: 2017-2019 (8.30 SD). This would have been 9th best at the time of the book, but three of the teams ahead of them are overlapping with themselves (late 30s Yankees). If we limit to non overlapping teams, we have:

69-71 Orioles, 9.86 SD, 1 WS
37-39 Yankees, 9.70 SD, 3 WS
97-99 Yankees, 9.41 SD, 2 WS
86-88 Mets, 9.28 SD, 1 WS
42-44 Cardinals, 8.78 SD, 2 WS
88-90 Athletics, 8.37 SD, 1 WS
17-19 Astros, 8.30 SD, 1 WS

I didn’t do the math yet on any other potential teams that could have slipped in since 2000.

And then adding a five year look from 2017-2022 (excluding 2020), the Astros have a combined SD score of 13.63, which would put them only behind the late 30s Yankees, the 69-73 Orioles, and the 86-90 Mets.

You can quibble with me throwing 2020 out, but this Astros run is on a historic level, especially given the two rings (which the Mets and Orioles didn’t do in their dynastic runs).

Good stuff Dolf.

I didn’t do the math yet on any other potential teams that could have slipped in since 2000.

I'd be interested to see where the Dodgers' current run would fit.

They need at least two more titles over the next several years to get that dynasty tag. The 2017 one doesn't hold much weight to me.

Again, FTR:

2017 Astros runs scored at home: 395
2017 Astros runs scored on the road: 501

2017 Astros W-L at home: 48-33
2017 Astros W-L on the road: 53-28

Those trash cans must have been transported all over MLB.

Again, the problem is that the way baseball is structured these days, with 30 teams, 6 divisions and 4 rounds of the postseason, there's no way on Earth that any team, no matter how great, can ever match or beat the dynasties from past years when the hurdles weren't nearly as high.

Agreed, and I think this is the heart of the matter in terms of why I find "dynasty" talk kind of silly - it's simply an outdated concept.

Or ... maybe it's not. It always seems like something can't be done until someone comes along and does it. For all we know, the Astros will win the next 3, too, and end the argument. It's not like anyone in 1989 saw 6-of-8 coming from the Jordan Bulls, either.

i think too many folks think that "dynasty" means ONLY that a team stays pretty much the sme from year to year and wins multiple WS championships

i don't think it is reasonable to wave away a team that won 4 pennants in 6 years, even if there are only, what, 2 pitchers - mccullers and verlander, and 3 players - yuli, bregman and altuve left from the 2017 WS and altuve wouldn't use the cheating system. they have a completely different team this year and like andy said, the 2017 team was a MUCH better road team than home team and they won game 7 away. the dodgers have won 3 pennants over the same year span

these days it is pretty tough to keep the same team year after year after year, so if that is required like it was umpty years ago, no one is gonna get the label.

and since i know all yall want to know, yes of course i watched WITH Husband who did scream at the top of his lungs when the phillies manager pulled wheeler - aw RIGHT now we gonna WIN. alvarez kills leftys. and he pretends he don't know no baseball.

am sorry i am not writing the blog no mo - would have been a blast to write this series up

the mayor has cancelled school tomorrow and they having a parade downtown and they expecting 2 million people. of course all yall want to know if i am gonna join that giant mob and the answer is HAIL naw

of course all yall want to know if i am thinkin that jeremy pena is directing that heart and HOTTTTTTness directly at me, the answer is HAIL yes. bradley WHO?

One of the two titles is tainted, so no, no dynasty, even if I thought 2 titles in six years would be enough. Are the 2010-2014 Giants a dynasty? Is there a wiki page for it?

Are the 2010-2014 Giants a dynasty? Is there a wiki page for it?

Sorry, but inability to post winning seasons in between each title, pretty much eliminates the definition of dynasty from their resume.

i suppose you could call those giants team a dynasty - 3 WS in 5 years by mostly the same team is out there - radical in a tubular sort of way. and i don't care if there is a wiki page or not

i think we need to move on from the old idea of what a dynasty is. not sure if dynasty is even the right word any more. not sure what is

we wont' agree on "dynasty" of course, but could we put out a reasonableness test that would have strong majority support?
Let's work with 1969-forward, the division and wild card eras.

1. How many dynasties should exist over the past 50+ years? It should not be as high as 10, I would say; a sport should not have a "dynasty" team every 5 years. But it should not be as low as 4, which would be less than once per decade.

2. What is the minimum # of years to be declared a dynasty? My guess is most would say bare min is 3. Some would opine for 4, but even then a three-peat might be good enough for them.

3. Can there be concurrent or overlapping dynasties? I don't see why this should be prohibited, if the AL and NL each produced one strong team that met in the WS often.

4. Can we agree that a mix of regular- and post-season success should be important? Count the ringz by itself is foolish.

Ergo, pick your best 5 to 9 dynasty teams (as Dolf, #20 began to) and go with it.

Those trash cans must have been transported all over MLB.

Why do people persist in this weird notion that cheating ineffectively makes it less cheaty?

It's just ultimately a semantic argument, really.

However one defines "dynasty", I think the Astros' run since 2017 is about as good as it's going to get going forward.

We have 12 teams in the playoffs now. Your reward for a dominating 105-plus win season is to get dumped into a pool with 11 other above-average teams, any of which can beat you in a short series. This isn't the NBA, where the early rounds are basically exhibitions.

It is a mathematical certainty that 11 of those 12 teams will NOT win the World Series.

So for ANY team to win four pennants and two WS in a six-year period is well above expectations.

Whether that constitutes a "dynasty", well, YMMV.

OK, the Dodgers.

Their best 1-year SD mark is from 2022 at 3.80. How good is this? As of the Neyer/Epstein book, only one team had a better single season ('98 Yankees).

Their best 2-year SD level is 2021-22 (7.12 SD). That's best of all time.

Their best 3-year SD level is 2020-22 (10.56 SD). That's best of all time.

If you don't like 2020 being included, we could take 2019, 2021, and 2022 (10.30 SD). Also best ever.

5-year including 2020 (2018-22) = 16.69 SD. #1 with a bullet. Almost 2 full SD better than the 35-39 Yankees.

5-year excluding 2020 (2017-22) = 15.71 SD. Still #1.

If you put any stock into this metric, no one has ever seen a prolonged stretch of dominance like the recent Dodgers.

Eggsactly.

In the NBA, you need trophies to count as a dynasty. The playoffs are what, 230% of the length of the regular season? In the MLB, it's very different.

That case for the Dodgers sounds like Aesop's fable of The Fox and The Grapes: "I didn't really want those championships, anyhow."

Just ask the Dodgers if they'd trade that "dominance" label for a few extra rings. You know what their answer would be.

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

Those trash cans must have been transported all over MLB.

Why do people persist in this weird notion that cheating ineffectively makes it less cheaty?

It doesn't make it less cheaty, but it does undermine the argument that without those trash cans the Astros would've lost that World Series, especially given that they won 2 of their 4 games in Dodger Stadium.

Again, the problem is that the way baseball is structured these days, with 30 teams, 6 divisions and 4 rounds of the postseason, there's no way on Earth that any team, no matter how great, can ever match or beat the dynasties from past years when the hurdles weren't nearly as high.

Agreed, and I think this is the heart of the matter in terms of why I find "dynasty" talk kind of silly - it's simply an outdated concept.

Or ... maybe it's not. It always seems like something can't be done until someone comes along and does it. For all we know, the Astros will win the next 3, too, and end the argument. It's not like anyone in 1989 saw 6-of-8 coming from the Jordan Bulls, either.

NFL-watchers used to think that dynasties would be impossible in the free-agent era, until Belichick/Brady came along. Of course, QB play is probably the most one-player impact in any of the big 4 pro leagues (would still be valid if pro soccer is added), with NHL goalies perhaps next in line. MLB might offer the lowest one-player importance within those 5 sports, in terms of dynasty creation. (And perhaps the highest for a single game.)

NFL-watchers used to think that dynasties would be impossible in the free-agent era, until Belichick/Brady came along.

From 2001 through 2019 the Patriots won 6 Super Bowls, 9 conference championships, and 17 division titles. No baseball team in recent memory can match that for longevity of sustained accomplishment.

Several NFL teams were very good and didn't get a dynasty before or during the Patriots simply because of luck or because only one team can win a year.

is trying to cheat cheating even if the cheating didn't work? or did it? yes i saw the video of evan gattis vs whatshisname middle reliever that got hit to katy and back and lost his job with the jays. but did guys tee off on aces? we all know that knowing what's coming does not mean you can hit it

the only guys who had a career year are marisnick and marwin (and reddick who refused to use the system)

i am NOT denying that the trash can system was set up for giving the hitters an advantage. agree that setting up the trash can system was breaking the actual and not unwritten rules

well we got insane traffic all over the west inner loop and downtown - they think there will be a good 1 million folks out there. schools out today. sporting goods stores mobbed with folks getting merch - they haven't closed since the final out

i do notice a serious increase in Black fans ever since dusty started managing.

the dumbest thing crane could possibly do is to get rid of dusty/james click. i think this year team is better than the 2017 one

anyhow if some of youse don't want to call the astros a dynasty, no problemo. they still on a great run

damm the camera work f the parade is seriously teh sukc

anyhow if some of youse don't want to call the astros a dynasty, no problemo. they still on a great run

Wait, Lisa, you're now an Astros fan again? I thought you checked out on them when they switched to the DH league.

If you put any stock into this metric, no one has ever seen a prolonged stretch of dominance like the recent Dodgers.

If you're saying two teams from the past 5 years are among the 10 greatest dynasties of all time, I'd have to question whether conditions have changed to make those metrics less meaningful.

So Mays/Aaron, contemporary NL OFers, aren't among the best 10 baseball players of all time?

If you're saying two teams from the past 5 years are among the 10 greatest dynasties of all time, I'd have to question whether conditions have changed to make those metrics less meaningful.

Since they happened to be in different leagues, it doesn't really seem that strange other than a confluence of timing. Add in that the Neyer book doesn't include 2009-2012 Yankees or the second half of the 2000 Yankee/Braves dynasty. So a few more dynasty's might make the list.

If you're saying two teams from the past 5 years are among the 10 greatest dynasties of all time, I'd have to question whether conditions have changed to make those metrics less meaningful.

I had the same thought. It seems to me that the likelihood of a dynasty corresponds tightly with the degree to which all teams in the league are interested in being competitive.

I think it's possible to have concurrent dynasties. Different sport, but wouldn't Magic Johnson's Showtime Lakers (9 finals appearances, 5 titles) and Larry Birds Celtics (5 finals appearances, 3 titles) of the 1980's both qualify as amongst the top 10 dynasties in NBA history? Both were winning 60-ish games basically every year for a decade+ in addition to the postseason success.

You can even have concurrent dynasties from the same conference. Again from the NBA, but the Kobe Bryant/Phil Jackson Lakers and the Tim Duncan/Gregg Popovich Spurs did this in the 2000's. One of those teams represented the Western Conference in the NBA finals 13 times in 16 seasons from 1999-2014 (7 for LAL, 6 for SAS), each winning 5 championships.

Radical in a tubular kind of way!
Get mr. Spiccoli on a land line for comment

I had the same thought. It seems to me that the likelihood of a dynasty corresponds tightly with the degree to which all teams in the league are interested in being competitive.

That was my thought. If you have more teams "rebuilding" the spread is going to be higher.

You can even have concurrent dynasties from the same conference. Again from the NBA, but the Kobe Bryant/Phil Jackson Lakers and the Tim Duncan/Gregg Popovich Spurs did this in the 2000's. One of those teams represented the Western Conference in the NBA finals 13 times in 16 seasons from 1999-2014 (7 for LAL, 6 for SAS), each winning 5 championships.

IMO dynasties have to be the dominant team within a given time span, and that time span has to run a minimum of six years. That rules out runs like the 1981-87 Celtics, since the Lakers' parallel run started a year earlier and extended two years longer.

By that standard I only see six such dynasties in NBA history, ranked in order of dominance / impressiveness, with the caliber of postseason competition taken into consideration:

1957-69 Celtics (11 championships in 13 years, 1 runnerup)
1980-89 Lakers (5 championships, 3 runnersup in 10 years)
1991-98 Bulls (6 championships in 8 years)
1949-54 Lakers (5 championships in 6 years, 1 runnerup in 6 years)
2015-22 Warriors (4 championships, 2 runnersup in 8 years)
1999-2007 Spurs (4 championships in 9 years)

(I could see dropping the 1949-54 Lakers run to the bottom, since although they truly dominated the league, the NBA then was much smaller and the level of competition vastly inferior to the NBA of even 10 years later.)

Falling short: 1981-87 Celtics---see above; 2000-2002 Lakers---too short a run of dominance.

#45 I was going to make the same point about the NBA.

The Phil Jackson Lakers are an interesting case. From 2000-2004, the Lakers either won every championship or lost to the eventual winner. (Actually that was true of 1999-2004, but Jackson didn't arrive until the 1999-2000 season). The championship clearly went through LA, they won 3 in a row -- that was a dynasty. Then they traded Shaq and they weren't really a contender again until 2007-2008 when they brought in Pau Gasol, after which they had another 4-year run where they either won the championship or lost to the eventual winner. It's hard for me to think about that as one single dynasty, given they had three seasons of not really being a contender in the middle. But they were definitely a dynasty when Shaq was there, and maybe they qualified when Gasol was there, too. 4 years / 2 championships seems short for a dynasty, but I know this is all a bit arbitrary.

The Spurs felt more like a dynasty to me -- they felt like a contender every season from 1997-2014, they won 5 titles over that time period, and Duncan was the best player on the team for all of them except for arguably the last one (Kawhi). But could they really be a dynasty if the Lakers were also a dynasty for ~10 years of that span? It would be easier to think of them that way if they were in different conferences like the Celtics and Lakers of the 1980s (or the Yankees and Braves of the 1990s-early 2000s in MLB).

It doesn't make it less cheaty, but it does undermine the argument that without those trash cans the Astros would've lost that World Series, especially given that they won 2 of their 4 games in Dodger Stadium.

Fair enough. I suppose there are viewpoints from which "won while cheating" and "won by cheating" are exactly equivalent and viewpoints from which they are not equivalent at all. Spice of life and all.

That was my thought. If you have more teams "rebuilding" the spread is going to be higher.

That happens in every era. Not the rebuilding part, but they completely uncompetitive part. For 1949-1953, when the Yankees won 5 straight titles, 4 different AL teams lost 95 or more games (the equivalent of 100 losses in a 162 game season) 7 times. When they won 4 straight in the 30's, it was 25%. The A's and Browns both lost 95+ games every year. From 1960-64 it was 7. When the Cubs had their incredible 5 year run in the aughts, it was 9. When the Orioles won 3 straight pennants it was 7. The Big Red Machine from 1970-1976 it was 10.

That happens in every era. Not the rebuilding part, but they completely uncompetitive part. For 1949-1953, when the Yankees won 5 straight titles, 4 different AL teams lost 95 or more games (the equivalent of 100 losses in a 162 game season) 7 times. When they won 4 straight in the 30's, it was 25%. The A's and Browns both lost 95+ games every year. From 1960-64 it was 7. When the Cubs had their incredible 5 year run in the aughts, it was 9. When the Orioles won 3 straight pennants it was 7. The Big Red Machine from 1970-1976 it was 10.

You also have to remember that those pre-expansion dynasty teams got to play those 95+ loss teams 22 times a year. The 1954 111-43 Indians got to play a total of 44 games against the 54-100 Orioles and the 51-103 Philadelphia A's. Those two teams alone accounted for 37 of those 111 wins.

So 33% of their wins came against 29% of their opponents.

andy
i am a jeremy pena fan because he is HOTTTTTTTTTTTTT and i am insisting that does not make me a cougar

i also root for houston teams in championship games - including rice, u of H, TSU etc

i am officially a brewers fan (in memory of harvey and because christian yelich is HOTTTTTTTT even though for some reason got a feeling he just might could be gay) but it looks like they gonna get outspent by all the larger market teams. 2 great SP plus 1 great reliever (now gone) does NOT = a championship team.

You also have to remember that those pre-expansion dynasty teams got to play those 95+ loss teams 22 times a year. The 1954 111-43 Indians got to play a total of 44 games against the 54-100 Orioles and the 51-103 Philadelphia A's. Those two teams alone accounted for 37 of those 111 wins.

That was the year the entire AL finished with a .500 record.

So 33% of their wins came against 29% of their opponents.

Primey.

So 33% of their wins came against 29% of their opponents.

And 80% of their wins came against 71% of their opponents, against whom they had an .809 winning percentage. That 111-43 record of theirs didn't include a winning record against any other winning team, either in the pre-season, regular season or postseasn. The 4th place Red Sox won 69 games and finished 42 GB.

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

andy
i am a jeremy pena fan because he is HOTTTTTTTTTTTTT and i am insisting that does not make me a cougar

i also root for houston teams in championship games - including rice, u of H, TSU etc

i am officially a brewers fan (in memory of harvey and because christian yelich is HOTTTTTTTT even though for some reason got a feeling he just might could be gay) but it looks like they gonna get outspent by all the larger market teams. 2 great SP plus 1 great reliever (now gone) does NOT = a championship team.

Did you start rooting for the Brewers when the Astros switched to the AL? IIRC that would've been before Harvey passed.

youre right.

at first my mama said that we were rooting for the cards, so i kind of did, then i kind of favored the braves for a while. then when harvey died, i decided that i would root for his team. i liked them first in 08 when CC was traded from cleveland

I saw this game in person. CC was beloved in Milwaukee - a fat guy in a fat guy's town.

i am a jeremy pena fan because he is HOTTTTTTTTTTTTT

bbc,
Jeremy's father Geronimo was the Cardinals' backup 2B in the first half of the 1990s (147 OPS+ in 1992 in 236 PA !).

did Jeremy inherit this trait - or did it skip a generation, as they sometimes say?

(I should add that I can't say how much I enjoy occasional extraneous tangents on BBTF. why not?)