October 30, 201411 yr Some are throwing out "the d-word" after San Fran's third world series title in five years. Dynasty?
October 30, 201411 yr No. A dynasty isn't full of new players every time. A dynasty also doesn't make it by being a wildcard team. When you compare dynasties of the past you notice they all win their divisions etc. and don't back into the playoffs as wildcard teams. A dynasty also is a constant winner, the Giants will have a losing record and then the following year a winning record through this run. A Dynasty doesn't have losing years. A Dynasty doesn't lose in wildcard games either. If the Giants would have won their division every year from 2010-2014 then yes that would be a dynasty. They haven't and haven't come close
October 30, 201411 yr Didn't they say on ESPN that there are 8 players that have been on all three title teams? That's a solid core. With Free Agency your not going to keep 15 to 20 players on a roster over a 5 year span anymore...unless they suck and play for the Reds! I think we may have to redefine what a dynasty is in the modern day. No one is going to go on a UCLA, Celtics or Yankees run again in sports. 3 out of 5 may be as dominant as we see.
October 30, 201411 yr No. A dynasty isn't full of new players every time. A dynasty also doesn't make it by being a wildcard team. When you compare dynasties of the past you notice they all win their divisions etc. and don't back into the playoffs as wildcard teams. A dynasty also is a constant winner, the Giants will have a losing record and then the following year a winning record through this run. A Dynasty doesn't have losing years. A Dynasty doesn't lose in wildcard games either. If the Giants would have won their division every year from 2010-2014 then yes that would be a dynasty. They haven't and haven't come close We just have to face the fact that the best team does not always (or even usually) win in baseball anymore (due to so many rounds of playoffs). It is all about getting in and getting hot. This WS had the 5th best team in each league this year. Nobody can possibly say the Giants were the best team in the National League this year - they were not even the best team in their division (same with the Royals in the American League). But they got hot at the right time and rode an unbelievably hot pitcher to the title. I would have to look it up but I don't think they were the best team in the National League the other two years they won it either. I give them tons of credit for getting it done when it counts but I cannot consider them a dynasty.
October 30, 201411 yr It's crazy to think if Cueto doesn't get hurt in 2012 that this discussion would never be happening.
October 30, 201411 yr 3 titles in 5 years is a dynasty. Only bad year in the run was the year Posey was hurt...
October 30, 201411 yr Definitely a dynasty. With free agency and the spending of some teams it's a very impressive dynasty at that.
October 30, 201411 yr Didn't they say on ESPN that there are 8 players that have been on all three title teams? That's a solid core. With Free Agency your not going to keep 15 to 20 players on a roster over a 5 year span anymore...unless they suck and play for the Reds! I think we may have to redefine what a dynasty is in the modern day. No one is going to go on a UCLA, Celtics or Yankees run again in sports. 3 out of 5 may be as dominant as we see. But shouldn't you be one of the best teams during the regular season in that time frame? Giants haven't been, they have been a wild card team more times than not in these 3 World Series runs. They not only weren't the best team in the NL but in their own division. That says a lot. Dynasty to me means dominating in both regular season and post season. Just 2 decades ago the Giants wouldn't have even made the post season if not for the introduction of the wildcard teams.
October 30, 201411 yr But shouldn't you be one of the best teams during the regular season in that time frame? Giants haven't been, they have been a wild card team more times than not in these 3 World Series runs. They not only weren't the best team in the NL but in their own division. That says a lot. Dynasty to me means dominating in both regular season and post season. Just 2 decades ago the Giants wouldn't have even made the post season if not for the introduction of the wildcard teams. The regular season means squat as long as you get in. The fact that they didn't go in as a division winner AND didn't have home field advantage solidifies their postseason dominance. And only one year did they win the title without winning their division.
October 30, 201411 yr This isn't 2 decades ago. Get in the playoffs and win the World Series 3 times in 5 years and you are a dynasty...
October 30, 201411 yr Why is it in this time and age that every year there has to be the "Best" of alltime mentality in everything with sports. I call it the ESPN Syndrome. ESPN is usually the ones touting every year in sports, something has to be the best ever. Whether it be the Giants being a Dynasty, which they aren't, or Tom Brady being the best ever after their SB's even though 2 out of 3 of the SB wins were because of their defense, they had to hang the label of best ever on someone because it was the flavor of the month. To calling the Patriots Dynasty even though they lost their last 2 SB's to every year in the NBA there has to be a "Is he better than Jordan" discussion with a current player. First it was Kobe year after year that was going to be the next Jordan and now the last 5 years it's Lebron. Could you all imagine if ESPN was around when Babe Ruth retired? Every year there would be a "The next Babe Ruth" and "He's the best ever" conversation about the latest flavor of the month. I would rather go through a sports year and just enjoy the sports that year without having to crown someone or some team as one of the best ever.
October 30, 201411 yr I always find it funny that people think a championship at any level is easy. Even Giants players said before the game last night that they are all available because you never know when/if you will get back. It's a crazy combination of getting hot at the right time and catching some breaks. That rarely happens to the same team 3 times in 5 years.
October 30, 201411 yr Why is it in this time and age that every year there has to be the "Best" of alltime mentality in everything with sports. I call it the ESPN Syndrome. ESPN is usually the ones touting every year in sports, something has to be the best ever. Whether it be the Giants being a Dynasty, which they aren't, or Tom Brady being the best ever after their SB's even though 2 out of 3 of the SB wins were because of their defense, they had to hang the label of best ever on someone because it was the flavor of the month. To calling the Patriots Dynasty even though they lost their last 2 SB's to every year in the NBA there has to be a "Is he better than Jordan" discussion with a current player. First it was Kobe year after year that was going to be the next Jordan and now the last 5 years it's Lebron. Could you all imagine if ESPN was around when Babe Ruth retired? Every year there would be a "The next Babe Ruth" and "He's the best ever" conversation about the latest flavor of the month. I would rather go through a sports year and just enjoy the sports that year without having to crown someone or some team as one of the best ever. A little overly dramatic, don't you think? No one is saying they are the Big Red Machine position by position but to discount 3 titles in 5 years as anything other than a dynasty is comical.
October 30, 201411 yr This isn't 2 decades ago. Get in the playoffs and win the World Series 3 times in 5 years and you are a dynasty... Not a Dynasty, just pretty lucky in that time span. Am I the only one that thinks of dynasty as dominating? The Giants have never dominated in the regular season. Do you all realize in 3 of those 5 years the Giants finished 6, 16 and 8 games back in their own division? For instance, what was more of a dynasty the 2010-2014 Giants or the 1906-1910 Cubs? I'd say Cubs were more of a dynasty even though they only won 2 world series in that time span. The reason is they won their division and 4 NL titles without wildcards and also a MLB record of 116 wins in one of those seasons. That is dominance. Even look at the Reds of the 70's. In a 6 year span they won their division 5 times and the NL 4 times and avg of winning 98 games a year during that span. That is dominate and a Dynasty. Dominate has to be a big part of being a dynasty is all I'm saying.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.